Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


I believe that we don't need to get rid of the potential candidates after someone announces their candidacy. We can keep them all the way through the the primary election season. Here is a good example: Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008. Does anyone disagree?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We should, however, add the official ones to the 2012 page. Diamond Dave 19:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talkcontribs)
Agree with all of the above.--JayJasper (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Shorten the Potential Candidates List

It seems really unnecessary to have a mini paragraph after each source that is cited in favor of a potential candidate. Why don't we simply put two or three references after the name of each potential candidate (EDIT: To clarify, the list would look like this *Gov. John Doe[1][2] *Sen. Jane Doe[1][2][3], etc. with no third column necessary), and do away with that last column altogether? It would make the page much cleaner and neater. If people want to know what each source says about each candidate, they can click the link and read it themselves. Thoughts? --Ai.kefu (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ages of Candidates

In 'United States presidential election, 2012',_2012&oldid=306108614 at 23:49, 4 August 2009 I had entered some information about ages of candidates and those who would, if elected, be the oldest/second oldest and youngest/second youngest ever elected. David1982m said,_2012 'I was looking at the sections in regard lengthy and as much as I kind of like the Age references they are really original work and taking up a lot of space in articles. If I have no objections, I will remove them.' Timmeh said 'Remove them, unless the candidate is over 65 (the standard retirement age in the US).'

I feel that, if links were added to sources giving the dates of birth of the people in question, and to sources giving the ages at inauguration of the oldest President ever elected (Reagan), the youngest President ever elected (Kennedy) and the youngest President ever inaugurated (Theodore Roosevelt), this would not constitute original research. After all, it is not original research to state '2 + 2 = 4'. I therefore propose to reinstate this information for Bobby Jindal and Ron Paul. I also propose adding it for Dick Cheney in the following terms 'If nominated and elected, he would be 71 on Inauguration Day 2013, and 75 at the completion of his first term. He would thus be older than any President has been when first inaugurated (a record held by Ronald Reagan, who was just short of 70). Alekksandr (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.--JayJasper (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

At 16:13 on 6 December 2009 Noisalt 'Removed unpublished ideas about ages. If the candidates' ages are important to the primaries, find a source that says so.' As the person who inserted the information, I wish to point out that, as stated above, it included links confirming the dates of birth of the men in question and the 'next oldest' Presidents. The information did not express any ideas. I feel that stating facts, with sources, and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. Alekksandr (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Santorum only has one source?

Unless I am mistaken I thought it was agreed, all these possible candidates needed at least 2 sources? I won't take him down without any feedback, but he should be taken down if someone can't find a second source published before March 2009, to go in accordance of the definition of this section. Diamond Dave 14:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC) David1982m (talkcontribs) I think these could be more sources for Santorum:,2933,539240,00.html Ratemonth (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Here's a recent article on Michelle Bachmann: in which she speculates on a run for the presidency- it's at the very end of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok let's dump Santorum because he only has one source and re-add Bachmann because she has 2 sources. That work for everyone? Diamond Dave 14:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talkcontribs)

Sean Hannity?

I took him down once because he was only added with one source, however, he's now back with 2 sources. I'm not so sure how reputable these 2 sources are not too mention they are both from different authors of WorldNetDaily. I am inclined to add the requirements to be at least 2 DIFFERENT sources? Let me know what you think? Diamond Dave 17:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have pic for Gary Johnson?

The list looks awkward without pic for Gary Johnson, does anyone have one?--Diamond Dave 12:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David1982m (talkcontribs)

Values Voter Summit

I'm not sure exactly how it should be placed, but should Huckabee's winning this straw poll be mentioned in his section? Here's the story: Ratemonth (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say yes, because the article is about him winning the poll. It should be used for the others mentioned because the article is not about them. Dick Cheney has one like that from Rassmussen for the same reason. David1982m (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


In the past six months, no article reference has speculated that Ensign or Sanford could run for 2012. So shouldn't we get rid of both of them?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per standards.--JayJasper (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about Sanford, he is still being talked about as having been a potential candidate? Why is his name still circulating? Could there still be interest in him running He is refusing to resign from office now. I'll give Ensign, because his sources are getting older, but Sanford's are very current. If he's refusing to resign, maybe he thinks he still has a shot. David Duke ran once, the odds were against him, he lost, but still ran.

Looking at this further both are still within 6 months. As long as sources keep cropping up specifically about the odds of the running 2012 they still qualify as long as at least one 2 sources are less than 6 months. This means unless more sources come in talking about 2012 and Sanford, he shouldn't be taken down until after December 30, 2009. He would then only be left with one credible source in 6 months, no longer fitting the criteria, he will be removed. Ensign same thing except he can't be dumped until December 16, 2009 for the same reasons. That's why I added the last updated date. Every now and then I check and see who has new listings and then move accordingly. Removing sources that are over 6 months old, if this leaves a candidate with less than one source, they will be removed. Which is Gingrich, Jindal, and Cantor have been removed. Which makes sense because Gingrich has endorsed Pawlenty. --Diamond Dave (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  • If the article is talking about how Sanford won't run, than it shouldn't be there. Only artices that talk about how a candidate may run are acceptable. As far as Ensign, there are absolutely no article in the past six months speculating about him running for 2012, and that's a fact not an opinion.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Sanford, I think should stay because they talk about him, they do however, imply that this is unlikely and foolish decision for him. People are still talking him possibily running and he is refusing to resign. The September article is still talking about him as a potential candidate, so it implies that some think he will run. Ensign is long over, no is even talking about him having been a possibility. So I will agree to keep Ensign down, but Sanford is still valid. --Diamond Dave (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, my understanding is correct, if no new sources talking about these individuals in conjunction to a 2012 run they will be removed on the following dates:

Haley Barbour December 23, 2009
Jeb Bush December 26, 2009
Mike Pence January 13, 2010
Bobby Jindal January 22, 2010
Newt Gingrich February 3, 2010
Gary Johnson March 8, 2010
Rudy Giuliani March 14, 2010
Mike Huckabee March 19,2010
Dick Cheney March 22, 2010
Rick Santorum April 1, 2010
Tim Pawlenty April 7, 2010
Sarah Palin April 17, 2010
Ron Paul April 17, 2010
Mitch Daniels April 18, 2010
Mitt Romney April 20, 2010
Mark Sanford April 25, 2010

This is as long as new sources don't come up for them. All others won't be up for possible removal until around March 2010, unless newer sources come up for those too. --Diamond Dave (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Sanford

I don't understand why it was reverted.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The truth is Sanford still has 3 sources that talk about in conjunction to a possible 2012 run. They are not all necessarily positive, however, they are discussing it. Why would he still be discussed in reference to 2012, if some people didn't still think he was running or if people think he will run. He still has 3 sources that talk about him in conjunction to a possible 2012 run and they are all less than 6 months old. Ensign I agreed with talking down because he is no longer being talk about in conjunction 2012. No one is even commenting on the fact that Ensign had a chance, the difference between Ensign and Sanford is that Sanford is still being discussed as having had a chance. That implies he still is being thought of a possible candidate to some. He should be taken down once all discussion about him and 2012 stops. Ensign, Jindal, Gingrich, and Ron Paul (until recently) speculation has ceased. Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, and Mike Pence are heading down that path, because no one is talking about them in conjunction to a possible 2012 run at all. If this lack of discussion continues, they will be removed around the end of December. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. The article has to be positive. It can't just talk about 2012, it has to be speculating the possibility of he/she running in 2012. If 3 articles say someone will definitly not run, than why have it in the article?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

But, the primary haven't happen, so everyone is up for speculation. This is article is not about people who will be running, it's about who is being "talked about in conjunction to a possible run". We can't only put definitions until candidates actually announce their candidacy. Therefore, as long someone is talking about someone's possible run, they fit the criteria, until discussion, which happens after 6 months. Why are three people talking about them not running, unless they are hearing people asking a speculating about it. That means they are either trying to answer the questions of people speculating or they think that this individual is still considering running, even though shouldn't. Why talk about someone in conjunction to a 2012 run, if they aren't running? There has to be a reason people still are talking about Sanford running in 2012, even though it is negative, why are people still talking about him running 2012? Why do they keep talking about him, but stopped talking about Ensign. Why they still talking about Sanford and it seems like discussion is ceasing for Bush, Barbour, and Pence? --Diamond Dave (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that, unless a consensus of speculating pundits agrees Sanford is highly unlikely to run or no sources have speculated about him running in the last six months, he should stay listed. We can't just go by one source stating he won't run and completely disregard others that are still mentioning him as a possible candidate. Keep him listed for now. Timmeh 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states: "Candidates will be added to this list if they are the subject of speculation in no less than two prominent media sources that are less than six months old. This section was last updated October 25, 2009." And: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, meaning that we cannot post unverified speculation. If the source meets the younger than 6 months criteria I say keep Sanford listed. We can know only for sure when Sanford or his press secretary says: "Sanford will or will not run for president in 2012". Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Per the comments of Diamond Dave, Timmeh, and Andrewlp1991, I support keeping Sanford listed as long as there at least two prominent media sources (dated within the past 6 months, of course) discussing the prospect (even it's viewed as a long shot) of him making a run in 2012.--JayJasper (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I partially see what Jerzeykydd is saying. If an article is published saying that it is believed So-And-So "will not run in 2012," then we should not be able to use that article as one of the three sources necessary to support So-And-So as a potential 2012 candidate. The article must say that So-And-So at least "might run" or "ought to run". However, as long as there are three articles within the last six months that do advocate the possibility or desirability of So-And-So's running for President in 2012, we ought to keep So-And-So listed on the page, even if common sense dictates that they will not run (Dick Cheney, Mark Sanford, et. al.), simply for consistency's sake. --Ai.kefu (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
But, also why would a candidate who is no longer potential be talked in a reputable source in regarding to 2012. If they keep talking about them, some people must be thinking he will run or wants to run. That's why I think we should only keep candidates they are being talked about in reputable sources in less than 6 months. If six months go by and they are not talking about them in conjunction 2012 anymore, then obviously speculation has ceased and they should be removed. I know it sounds silly, but would someone keep talking about someone they think will not run, eventually it would be old news unless some people believe in a possibility. That's Sanford, Cheney, etc. should remain and why likely very soon Bush, Pence, and Barbour will eventually be removed.--Diamond Dave (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's ridiculous Sanford is still in this article. How can we get rid of Sanford fairly?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Potential Edit War for Gary Johnson

I have had some concerns over how reputable some of the sources are for Gary Johnson, especially because the IP address that keeps adding them, almost sounds like he's endorsing Johnson more than updating the post. Some of the posts appear to be legitimate enough, but I am not sure. Recently, I removed 2 that were blatantly blogs. The IP address then removed Dick Cheney because he said "the sources were from Huffington Post and it's a blog". Would Huffington Post be considered a blog? I ask because I was under the impression, it was considered reputable and many of these candidates have sources from Huffington. Any thoughts on this? Is Huffington Post a blog? Are Johnson's sources credible?

I ask because I reverted what the IP address did, but I don't want to start an Edit War either. --Diamond Dave (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources up for Gary Johnson presently seem to be reputable: 2 print newspapers and 1 major radio station. I would probably seem to concur that the Huffington Post is a blog and not a news publication. From the Huffington Post's wiki: "The Huffington Post is an American liberal news website and aggregated blog". I don't think the blog articles that appear on Huffington Post ought to be used as sources on this page, if we're going to be consistent. --Ai.kefu (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. I think Huffington Post qualifies as a source.-- (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kristol Quote

I foresee problems with the huge Kristol quote that was recently added to the page. First of all, it seems like it's a quote endorsing just three candidates, and therefore not maintaining a very neutral feel to the page. If this quote is allowed, there's no reason other quotes that speak favorably of other candidates won't end up getting plastered onto this page as well. If the Kristol quote is up, shouldn't other pundits' quotes be allowed to fill up this page as well? Plus, the positioning of the quote is very awkward (inside of what is supposed to be a mere list of candidates). I vote for removing it. Thoughts? --Ai.kefu (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Change Order of Potential Candidates

As it currently stands, the list of potential candidates is a bit of a mess - specifically, there is no clear order to how the candidates are listed. Gary Johnson at the top of the list? You've got to be kidding me.

The order either needs to be changed to reflect the "tiers", or alphabetical order. Personally, I'd vote to place the candidates into tiers, but anything (with a logical backing) which replaces the current list, placing footnotes at the top and power players at the bottom, would be an improvement. Mburn16 (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The potential candidates are listed in order by the most recent citation date. I have amended the section's introductory paragraph to clarify this. This was clearly stated in the internal edit instructions, but as you rightly pointed out, was not made clear to the reader of the article. Thank you for bringing this omission to light.--JayJasper (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the order is to correspond with the purpose of the article, which is to name and point out candidates are being spoke of within the last months as possible candidates. Naturally, the candidates who have been discussed most recently will appear towards the top. This will also change as time goes on. Some candidates have come and gone for these same reason, and some have come back namely Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Bobby Jindal. It's also funny how one of Gingrich's articles points out that he only said he was interested in running after people stopped talking about. Before that article came out, he had been removed from this article because speculation had ceased over 6 months ago. --Diamond Dave (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Not a big issue, but I noticed I have added a lot of source where I used quotes directly from the source hence why there are quote marks around them. I have noticed some editors have revised these for clarity and/or other reasons. I don't really care that much, but should we really be altering quotes from sources or if we do shouldn't the quotes be removed and the whole paragraph be paraphrased? --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, comments quoted directly from sources - appearing in quotation marks - should not be altered. Unless we're talking about parenthetical addendums - e.g. "was Ron Paul suggesting that he's ready for another run at the gold ring (U.S. presidency) in 2012?". The "U.S. presidency" in parentheses is added to clarify to the reader, who is not being given the full context of the quoted remarks, what the "gold ring" specifically refers to without actually altering the comments of the person being quoted. Otherwise, it is best to quote the source exactly or, as suggested, remove the quotation marks entirely and paraphrase the comments.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was concerned I have seen a few changes to some quotes I put for example on the recent of Rudy Giuliani, the quote used the name Rudy when talking about Giuliani. Editor Polly Ticker for whatever reason changed it to Giuliani. It's not a big thing, I have idea why it was done, however, Rudy is how the source wrote it. Your thoughts? --Diamond Dave (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I suspect it was a good faith edit and an honest mistake. I noticed the quotation marks were missing from the comments that were changed (which I surmised from reviewing the editor's revisions), which probably caused some confusion. I've added the quotation marks and restored the original wording as quoted.--JayJasper (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same which is why I didn't revert it, but I curious what others thoughts were. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

George Pataki

Plenty of talk about George Pataki potentially running for president - he's going to Iowa and everything. You should update the page. (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources predicting a run and I'll be glad to add him. Timmeh 23:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You need at least TWO reliable sources that are less than 6 months. If you can find them for Pataki, by all means, please return Pataki to the list. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I found 2 recent citations, so Pataki is back on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Jindal

I didn't want to start an edit war, so just asking for second opinion. Both Jindal sources talk about him in conjunction with a possible 2012 run for president. He should remain at least until January 22, 2010. Unless, newer sources come up, he should remain until that time, because then his second valid source would be 6 months old and thereby ceasing his speculation. Am I wrong? I am asking because he was removed and then I reverted it. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about who will be running?

It seems to still be in debate. Shouldn't this article be about who is being talked about running and not who we believe is actually running. I recently re-added Sanford and Jindal because they are still being talked about and based upon the current criteria they are still being talked about running. They should still be up for the next 6 months. I just bring this up because my edits seem to have offended JerseyKydd, based upon his comments below.

Why are you being a pain in the ass? Everyone knows Sanford and Jindal won't run. Why don't you just keep it the way it was and keep your mouth shut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The comments don't sound like Good Faith Edits to me.

I don't see why Jindal and Sanford should be removed yet based upon the criteria currently in place. Thanks. --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to ignore him until he's willing to discuss the issue in a civil manner. If he continues to make personal attacks, you might want to file a Wikiquette alert. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with removing Sanford, but I see no reason to remove Jindal, as it's at least plausible. Gage (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's be civil here. Sanford, especially now that his wife's divorcing him, should undoubtedly be removed. I was opposed to the six month criteria or whatever it is. We should use common sense: Sanford is not running. Jindal is unlikely, but he has been vague and remains a possibility. Reywas92Talk 21:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that there are several articles that say Sanford is NOT running in 2012. I don't believe we should create our own criteria. But if there are news organizations that clearly state that someone is definitly not running than that person should not be in the list.....By the way, I'm sorry if I offended anyone. I'm just pissed because there is a clear distinction between the speculation of Sanford and the other 16 candidates on the list. The speculated articles of Sanford/Jindal clearly have a different tone than the others. I'm not saying we should create our own criteria. But I do think that a source has to clearly state that a candidate may run in 2012, and that there must be an objective consensus.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is a reputable source that says Jindal and Sanford are not running, they should remain in the article, in the interest of fairness. FallenMorgan (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness about a person who lied, cheated, misused state funds, and is now being divorced, they should be removed from the article unless current sources say they are running. Under that logic I suppose every Republican could be included. Reywas92Talk 01:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There are many sources for Sanford that say he will possibly run. His personal life should not have any bearing on that. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Please point them out, though of course anyone could possibly run. The ones we currently link to indicate that he was Once thought to be a contender. Personal life sure as heck has plenty to do with any election. Common sense, please? Even if he starts, he will lose. This reliable source says "Sanford's 2012 candidacy is almost certainly over. Having an extramarital affair is bad, but not being truthful to the people of the state and disappearing for five days is unforgivable on the national stage -- or any stage for that matter. Let the search for a new champion for fiscal conservatives begin!" Though I think every one of them should be removed since no one has a damn ounce of proof other than speculation. Wait until people form exploratory committees. Reywas92Talk 02:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Speculation is notable. And this is not a scoreboard, perhaps he was once considered a potential candidate in reliable sources, so if that is the case it should be noted. To automatically say he will not run because of his personal life and exclude him from the list based on that fact, is original research. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Saturn, you are right that we can't just exclude someone from the list simply because of their personal life, and yes that is original research. However, the past two sources that are speculated did not say he may run in 2012. The only thing CBS News said was that he was "once thought of as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, he instead became the only South Carolina governor to face an impeachment since Reconstruction." The Los Angeles Times said "Once a GOP contender for 2012, Sanford refused to comment this morning." Both of these two articles simply mentioned how he was once a potential candidate. But neither article said he may run in 2012. So tell me I'm wrong.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not completely aware of what sources are currently stating about Sanford, I'm simply making a general statement about the candidates listed on the page. I know that at one time Sanford was considered a leading potential candidate, and that is pertinent information. I am saying that he nor any other potential candidate should be removed from the page based on their personal affairs, if at one time they were considered a potential candidate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
My reason for wanting to keep Sanford and Jindal are because they are still being talked about as being or having been potential candidates. Haley Barbour was recently taken because he is not being talked about at all anymore in conjunction 2012, Sanford however, is still being talked about as a has-been 2012. What does that mean? Nixon was talked about like that for a long time after his failed presidential run 1960 and failed run for Governor, then he ran and won in 1968. Why are these sources still referring to him "Once a 2012 Contender". Ensign was removed for similar reason however he is not being talked about anywhere as having once been called a 2012 contender. Ensign had his scandal, speculation ceased, and people stopped talking about him in conjunction 2012. Sanford same thing, except, he is still being talked about in conjunction 2012. Also, since we really don't know who really will be running, all we can do is name the people that the media is talking about in conjunction to 2012. After 6 months, it's fair to say that if they aren't being talked about anymore, they must not be running. --Diamond Dave (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying someone was once a potential 2012 candidate doesn't mean anything. People could be saying for years to come that Sanford was once a potential candidate. It means nothing. I was pretty sure that the qualifications for a reliable source was that the source must say that someone could run in 2012. This is absolutely ridiculous.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
But why do they keep saying he once a 2012 contender? I can't find any of the other candidates that we have previously dropped being talked about in the same way. Michele Bachmann, John Ensign, Jon Huntsman, Haley Barbour, none of them are being talk about in conjunction to 2012 at all, letting alone being called "Once a 2012 Contender". Sanford is the only one obtaining the title "Once a 2012 contender". What does that mean and why is he still being talked about in conjunction 2012? I was under the impression that anyone with 2 or more reputable sources less than 6 months old that talks about them and 2012 no matter what the context, it was ok to add them and keep them until they fall outside of that criteria. --Diamond Dave (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Jindal shouldn't be lumped with Sanford. Jindal would be a plausible candidate if he did run. Sanford would not be. Even though Sanford wasn't impeached, his recent record as Governor of South Carolina is extremely weak. Going through a divorce doesn't disqualify him, but he let his personal life interfere with his professional life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Sanford falls into a category of potential candidates who might still want to run again— but who have for one reason or another knocked themselves out of contention. I would also add Rick Santorum, George Allen, Rudolph Giuliani and perhaps even Mike Huckabee to the same list as Sanford. Sarah Palin kinda belongs on that list, too, but she is never going away and she is always going to have a big fan club. If Sanford proves to be insane enough to actually mount a Presidential campaign, then of course he should have a row in the table on this wikipedia article; but, he seems to be keeping his head down and dealing with his divorce proceedings and his current job of Governor of South Carolina. His big political problem, by the way, isn't the divorce per se: it was the circumstances surrounding his affair. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello all, I just wanted to throw my two cents into this debate. I have gone through and read the debate above and the article itself, and here is what I take about whether or not Jindal and Sanford should remain. First Gov. Sanford: with Sanford being caught up in a scandel, and his wife divorcing him, I see it very unlikely he is going to run for President. Plus, there has not been a source listed that he is thinking of running, all I have read is that he was once a former potential candidate. The LA Times says, "The article noted that Sanford was once a GOP contender for 2012"(that can be found in the article with Sanford). That is not at all an indictaion he is a potential candidate, but a former one. Then there is Jindal. I am more willing to see the arguement that Jindal should remain. While no recent sources having mentioned him as a potential candidate, barring no scandal, there is still enough there to believe he is still a potential one. To sum up, Sanford should go. He isn't a viable candidate, and unless someone finds a source claiming he is still pondering a bid, he doesn't belong. Jindal, is a bit more tricky. I say wait and see. I hope this helps, and I will be checking back to see if there are any other ways I can help, or if there are comments directed toward me. Lets remember to keep the debate civil!! Thanks, America69 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see the common sense argument, but for us to assume someone isn't running is Original Work. There is no definitive source that says Sanford absolutely will not run. We also can't keep candidates on that basis because no one has definitively stated they will run. For these reasons this article needs to only contain candidates that are being discussed in at least 2 sources in conjunction 2012 (whether the author believes they will run or not), and is less than six months old. This brings about the best idea of who in effect may be running. If they are being talked about, it's fair to say there is a possibility of them running and they should remain, until they are no longer being talked about after 6 months. This is why Haley Barbour and others have been removed because discussion about them and 2012 have ceased. No one has said they will not run, but no one is speculating they will run, so it's not likely they will be running or have any interest in running. This is the most sensible and reasonable criteria that doesn't rely on Original Work, except maybe the 6 month criteria part, but it's minimal. This section should strictly be about candidates being talked about in regard to 2012, not candidates that will likely be running, because it is too early to know who is actually running. Sanford is being talked about in conjunction to 2012 and therefore should stay. Be clear of the criteria, the person must have at least 2 reliable sources less than 6 months old, and be about the candidate and their relationship to the 2012 election in that that they may or may not run in it. This article as a whole should be about the names that are being thrown around in reference to the 2012 election and NOT who in effect will be running, because they is Original Work and Crystal Ball content until anyone says they are running or not running for that matter--Diamond Dave (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Diamond Dave that, under the present criteria reached by a consensus of editors, Jindal and Sanford should remain listed for the time being (though I too sympathize with the common sense argument, particularly regarding Sanford). If anyone wants to re-open the criteria discussion in hopes of reaching a consensus to revise the standards for inclusion of potential candidates, feel free to do so. But until the criteria is changed or modified by a new consensus, Jindal and Sanford should remain.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe what's troubling is how we are labeling and defining this section of the article. We are calling it POTENTIAL and POSSIBLE candidates by calling these candidates that is Original Work and Crystal Ball in and of itself. That implies that the candidates could possibly be running, which we really can't say until people come forward and say so. I think we should find a way to rename this section to explain that these are simply names the media is talking about in conjunction to the 2012 election, some of these candidates may or may not be running, but they are being talked about in conjunction to 2012 in at least 2 sources that are no more than 6 months old. Any objections or variations of that definitions? Also, any ideas of a new and better name for this section that will more clearly go with the above mentioned definition? --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a rough edit based upon the same idea, your feedback please? --Diamond Dave (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts, Dave, but IMO, "Names of interest" is a bit too vague. Actually, I see no problem with "possible", "potential" or perhaps "speculative" candidates - these are not crystal ball or original reasearch terms, per se - as long as it is clearly acknowledged (and properly referenced) that the speculation is from noted and reliable media sources, and not from the editors of the page. If we were to use terms like "probable" or "likely" , that would be crystal-balling or using original research, because we would in effect be predicting that these individuals are going to run. But "possible" or "potential" are general enough terms (especially when attributed to - and backed by - reliable sources), in my view at least, as to not violate WP policies. I suspect the conflict is not so much about the terminology as much as it is disagreement about who should be listed and who should not. That being said, if I am proven wrong about this, and a change of labeling and defining does bring about resolution, then I'm all for it.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The argument seems to stem from what is a Possible or Potential candidate. That's why i figure if we rename it with a phrase takes out the questions of who is likely to run, since it's too early to say that, it would eliminate the disagreement over who should be included to reasonable standards that make sense. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why potential candidates are completely removed from this page after 6 months. Were they not "at one time" considered potential candidates? This is not a scoreboard or wikinews, just because they haven't been mentioned in the last 6 months doesn't mean they should be completely blanked from the page. Perhaps after 6 months without coverage, a potential candidate should be moved into a new section titled "Formerly speculated candidates" or similar. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Then the list would really get huge and give the reader outdated junk that likely won't matter. By the time it's closer to 2011/2012, there will have been a lot more speculation and a lot more people on the list. And of course, once the election season gets into full swing, it will not matter at all who the lowly pundits once thought should/could run, only the politicians who actually at least formed an exploratory committee. (Republican Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008) Reywas92Talk 01:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That is simply viewing the whole matter through a crystal ball. What makes "outdated junk" irrelevant unless this is wikinews? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
That's why the 6 month criteria needs to be in place and it kind of makes sense. If no one is talking about them in conjunction to 2012 in reputable sources after 6 months, it's safe to say speculation for them has ceased. But, we should also be prepared to re-add people. Gingrich, Paul, Jindal, Pence,and Cantor had all been removed, but have returned because they now have 2 or more sources less than 6 months old. This way also indirectly shows the candidates potential standing. If someone has only two sources and one is new and the other is 4 months old, it kinda says the likelihood of them running is slim, however, people who don't seem to go away and have sources only a few dates in between each other, this indicates there must be a strong likelihood they will run or a lot interest in them running. In that same way I would think the more media attention someone is getting the more likely they will run and the less media attention the less likely they will run. --Diamond Dave (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Amended Criteria

You guys are missing the point and getting off topic. It is not about the name of the section. It is about the criteria.

The criteria should read:

"No person has announced his or her intention to run for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. As the primaries have not yet begun, it is too early to definitively determine who will run. The individuals listed below may or may not have expressed an interest in running for the nomination. This list only contains people who have been speculated of making a run as discussed in articles only in the last six months. The article must clearly state that an individual is currently a possible or potential candidate for specifically the 2012 presidential election. Potential candidates will be listed in no less than two prominent media sources that are less than six months old."

The problem with that is that excludes people, including Sanford, who are still being talked about in conjunction 2012. I could understand if people stopped talking about Sanford as they did with Ensign, but they are still talking about Sanford having been a potential candidate. That doesn't mean that he could still run despite current circumstances. Also, why do they keep referring to him as having been, that implies that some people still really wish he could run and that still means he's being speculated. The criteria as recently changed, keeps it open so all being discussed can be included. --Diamond Dave (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
If enough sources can be found for a candidate, they should never be removed. This should not be a scoreboard. It would be best if you segregated the candidates into two sections, "speculation within the last six months," "no speculation in six months." --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
No body thinks Sanford could run. What all the articles said is that Sanford was ONCE (in the past) a potential candidate, but obviously isn't currently. Sanford isn't really being talked about in conjunction to 2012. What all the articles said was that historically he was a potential candidate. I could say that Walter Mondale was once a presidential candidate. Does that mean he could run again? Exactly. It means nothing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
What source says he won't run. Mondale ran for President though, so who's to say Sanford won't either. Also, nothing is stopping Mondale from running either--Diamond Dave (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with William S. Saturn that the candidates should be divided into seperate lists, one for individuals that are currently being speculated about, and another for those who were formerly the subject of speculation. This would provide more clarity and less confusion to the reader. As William points out, if there is enough sources for a "former" potential candidate, then the speculation about the prospect of his or her candidacy is notable, even if it has, for all practical purposes, ceased. There is precedent for such a move, as several past election-related articles have a section titled "Potential candidates that did not run" or something to that effect.--JayJasper (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess my only question would be how do we determine a former potential candidate. To avoid Crystal Ball and Original Work, I would make that section for candidates over 6 months old. --Diamond Dave (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
That would be reasonable.--JayJasper (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now created the section. I propose that once one of the latest two sources for a candidate's speculation ages over 6 months, they should be added to the "Formerly speculated candidates" section with their two latest sources. On January 22, if no more sources can be found for Jindal, he should be placed in the section along with his sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Good job with that. I suggest that the criteria for listing in the "Former" section be expanded to include those, like Sanford, that are still being written about in conjunction with 2012 but are no longer considered viable contenders for the nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I still don't like the idea of assuming someone is no longer viable just because a few sources are saying they were once a contender. I say we leave the former contenders list to candidates with at least one of two sources that is 6 months old. With that being said as long as no new sources show for Sanford he will be moved to the former section effective June 10, 2010.--Diamond Dave (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No. Being once a contender means nothing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Just because a media source says they are a former contender doesn't mean they won't or don't want to run. Since we don't know who will in fact run, we cannot intervene and label who will and will not run. All we can do is point out that interest them running in 2012 hasn't happened in 6 months.--Diamond Dave (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I still believe we should amend the criteria. I'm not in favor of "labeling." I'm in favor of a media source explicitly saying that at the current moment he/she is a potential candidate. For years to come, even after the 2012 election, media sources will continue to say that Mark Sanford was once a possible contender for the president. But after the scandal, most people said that he was once a candidate, and will say it for years to come. I'm not stubborn or obstructionist. I just want to compromise.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ensign should be removed

The article states that only people "who are being discussed - in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old - in regard to the 2012 primary" (emphasis mine) are to be included. One of the two sources (Talking Points Memo) for John Ensign discusses him only in regard to the Senate race in 2012 (when he is up for re-election) but makes no mention of the Presidential campaign. This means Ensign has fewer than 2 source in the last 6 mos. that mention him in regards to the primary. Therefore, he should be removed.-- (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The article says that he once was considered a presidential candidate for 2012. You never know the fact that he could be re-elected could make him decide to run, we simply don't know. You also left out the full description. No person has announced his or her intention to run for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nomination. For this reason some people listed may appear more likely to run than others, however, as the primaries have not yet begun, it is too early to definitively determine who will run and therefore this list only contains people who are being discussed in conjunction to the primary (some people may have no intention of running at all). The following list contains the names of people are who are being discussed - in two or more reputable sources that are less than six months old - in regard to the 2012 primary. They are listed in order of the date of the most recent media citation. This section was last updated January 19, 2010. This means the article is not about who is in fact running because it is too early and original work for us to state that. The article is strictly about names that are being discussed in conjunction to 2012. Just being discussed for us to assume that the quotes imply they will run or not is original work. This is why it needs to purely be about people who's names are being mentioned within the subject of the 2012 Presidential Election. --Diamond Dave (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article just makes a general reference to his "presidential ambitions" but does not specify 2012, so I still think that source should be removed. I see that another source has been added that clearly does mention the 2012 presidential campaign, so I guess he shouldn't be removed after all. However, in my opinion, he should have only 2 sources instead of 3, because the one dosen't explicitly mention the presidential election of 2012.-- (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, but for the sake of avoid further arguments, I will remove the article in question from John Ensign. Fair enough? --Diamond Dave (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, yes. Thank you.-- (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rick Perry

I'm pretty sure that Rick Perry is being mentioned in the press as a potential presidential candidate in 2012, however I do not have time to look for sources. It would be appreciated if someone with free time could do that. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I found this Texas Monthly article with the money quote "If Perry defeats Hutchison in the March 2 Republican primary and goes on to win a third full term in November, he will immediately join the crowd of potential presidential aspirants in 2012—if he hasn’t done so already." So if another source can be found (dated within past six months, of course) he'll be added. This seems likely to happen, now that you've put him on the editors' radar screen.--JayJasper (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Two more sources were found. Perry has been added.--Polly Ticker (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)