Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	United States presidential election, 2008
Status	Closed
Request date	07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Full list here
Mediator(s)	BrownHornet21
Comment	Compromise reached.

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|United States presidential election, 2008]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|United States presidential election, 2008]]

After considerable chat at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008, including several polls, several threads and an RFC, we still have not come up with consensus.

Who are the involved parties?

A very inclusive list:

• Carter (talk · contribs)
• conman33 (talk · contribs)
• Cyclone49 (talk · contribs)
• David Schaich (talk · contribs)
• Fifty7 (talk · contribs)
• Gang14 (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)
• Harro5 (talk · contribs)
• JayJasper (talk · contribs)
• Kudzu1 (talk · contribs)
• Leo III (talk · contribs)
• Metallurgist (talk · contribs)
• Nevermore27 (talk · contribs)
• Rational.renegade (talk · contribs)
• Rrius (talk · contribs)
• Seen0288 (talk · contribs)
• Tenchi2 (talk · contribs)
• The Evil Spartan (talk · contribs)
• Timmeh (talk · contribs)
• Uwmad (talk · contribs)
• XavierGreen (talk · contribs)
• White Cat (talk · contribs)

What's going on?

There seems to be no consensus on the pictures of whom should be included in the infobox, as in articles on previous elections. Some people say no pictures, some say the two major parties, some say other major parties, and other have proposed certain criteria, none of which has been fully agreed to.

What would you like to change about that?

There should be consensus.

Mediator notes

• Case submitted. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm thinking about this one... let me review the talk page, RFC, and other comments before I make a decision on whether to accept. Thanks, BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the BrownHornet and I have taken this case. Let's keep the discussion on this mediation page. I have a few ground rules:

• Refrain from engaging in personal attacks;
• Always assume everyone is acting in good faith;
• No personal attacks are allowed;
• Keep an open mind and a willingness to compromise to a reasonable solution;
• Comments by any and all are welcome;
• Did I mention that no personal attacks are allowed?;
• Don't make assumptions about the person(s) on the other side of the coin, such as "I like your proposal, but the other side will reject it"; too often this starts going down the path to the Dark Side; and you may be surprised by what is an acceptable solution to the other side; and
• I reserve the right to strike out personal attacks and any other general nastiness. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

Mediator's Initial Summary

Let me see if I can accurately summarize the dispute: 1. Every United States Presidential Election article on Wikipedia has an infobox, containing the major candidates (who either received electoral votes and/or a significant percentage of the popular vote) and their photos/images, along with relevant statistics (votes, electoral vote, states won, etc.). 2. There is a dispute over who exactly to include in the info box on the 2008 Presidential Election, divided (so it appears) into three four main camps:

a) Only list the Democratic and Republican candidates, Obama and McCain.

b) List all significant candidates, who appear to be Obama, McCain, Barr, and Nader. (My apologies in advance if I missed anyone.)

c) List only the candidates that participate in the major debates (presumably that will be Obama and McCain, and possibly Barr and/or Nader).

d) Don't list any candidates in the info box, not until the election is over in November.

Have I accurately summarized the dispute? Please feel free to comment and don't hesitate to tell me if I've gotten anything wrong. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sums it up. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you forgot one option and that was include only the candidates that participate in the major debates. Gang14 (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, letter c was really just one ad hoc possibility among many that was just thrown out there, though it received some traction. FYI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's Question(s)/Comment(s)

1. The 2004 Election Page is of No Help. While's it's not precedent, my first thought was to wonder what did editors do prior to the 2004 election. And it appears that there was no infobox prior to the 2004 election, because infoboxes were not widely used on Wikipedia back then. I haven't meticulously verified this for myself, beyond checking the diff provided by Cyclone49. If anyone disagrees with this, please feel free to drop a note and diff. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. What do each of you perceive is the role of the mediator? In other words, what is it you would like for me to do about this dispute? BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants' Comments

• We should wait until after the presidential election (November 4, 2008), before we include any images (and corresponding info) to the Infobox. After the election, we can implement whatever inclusion criteria we agree on, with confirmed numbers (electoral votes & popular votes having been recorded). GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the candidates that participate in the major debates is the best option because it leaves the photos down until the debates as well as including the candidates the average citizen usually remembers. Gang14 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is one that will draw increased interest as we draw closer to the election. No matter what course is chosen, it will have to be justified to editors who come later, otherwise we will be plunged back into this discussion repeatedly. My first preference is no candidates in the infobox until after the election. At that point, it will be be a past election article, and we can use past US presidential election infoboxes as a guide for selecting candidates for inclusion. This approach avoids problems with attempting to predict who will have a significant impact on the election, which runs afoul of WP:FUTURE. It also avoids allegations that some parties are excluded because of some editors' POV.
  
  The next best alternative is include the six candidates notable enough for treatment in the article: Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, Baldwin, and the eventual Green nominee. It has the same strengths of leaving out candidates, but with some weaknesses. First, we have to justify leaving out the Socialists, the Taxpayers Party, etc. I think that can be answered by notability, but the question will probably recur throughout the election season. It also makes for a wide infobox. I don't actually have a problem with that, but other editors seems to have a lot of trouble with that. Finally, if a seventh notable candidate were to emerge, we would not be able to include him or her. The relevant template only allows for six candidates. -Rrius (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, the difference in treatment of Nader, Barr, and the Greens as opposed to the rest of the parties is inclusion of pictures or delegate counts. I can't see why, for instance, the Greens would be included when the Constitution Party (which received more votes that the Greens in 2004) would not. If Constitution is in, why is Reform out? -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to see pictures of anybody likely to qualify to be on the ballot in more than one state. I don't see pictures as harmful, as long as they do not distract from the article, the main focus of which should be on the two candidates, and secondarily on candidates likely to win at least one electoral vote or to influence the election in any state. In the 2000 election, Patrick Buchanan and Ralph Nader certainly influenced the result in Florida and hence the electoral college. I do not like the idea of following the debate selections, which are always contentious. The debate participation criteria are not the same as Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Moreover, they may be neither a subset nor superset, but possibly a skewed intersection with Wikipedia's criteria. They can also change at the last minute due to the habitual lawsuits. -Colfer2 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • For clarity, the above unsigned comment "On second thought..." is not mine. Maybe the editor used 5-tildes instead of 4-tildes by mistake. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was me. It was a double mistake; I put it one comment below the one intended, and yes, I accidentally used five tildes. I must have been tired. I have put it where it was supposed to go and added my username to the signature. -Rrius (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like WP:NOTABILITY should be the governing rule. Outside the two major parties, people like Barr and Nader would certainly qualify (the Green Party would also likely qualify). Uwmad (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer to use some relatively simple, objective criteria to judge which candidates have enough notability to be pictured in the infobox. Unfortunately, at this point in the election, such information is a little scarce. The two simplest measures would be election results (not available until November) or ballot access (which will continue developing into September). I would be less comfortable using debate appearances, as rules governing debate participation are often ad hoc, variable, and contentious, when they are known at all. Polls have some of the same issues, plus there are many of them coming out all the time, which could lead to continued contentiousness. I don't have a great sense of urgency one way or the other, and feel no immediate need for images in the infobox. Cheers, David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

• I personally believe that not including any candidates at all is a form of... well, I can't quite come up with the exact logical fallacy, but I believe it's greedy reductionism. The only reason not to include all the notable ones is the assertion that we can't determine notability ourselves because it would violate NPOV. And well, then we'd have to include the party started by Uncle Joe who will get no more than 10 votes. And yet this is silly: we have notability guidelines, however, arbitrary they mean seem, for other things on Wikipedia (e.g., WP:BIO). And so does almost every national organization out there: the public debates have criteria, and the major news outlets and pollsters are pretty clear it's two parties, with 5 or 6 at most. Thus we wouldn't have WP:OR problems if someone is a real stickler about that. I truly believe that leaving out any candidate is, at its base, an unfortunate case of not seeing the forest the trees. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. More content is better unless it gets confusing. Pictures placed to the right are not very confusing. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We should be looking at past election articles as president and those have only three at most and it usually is the top vote getting or those who participated in the major debates Gang14 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another reason why I oppose inclusion ('til November)? A fight may break out over which candidate gets the top-left slot (which is occupied by the president-elect, in the preceding related articles). GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Talk:Australian federal election, 2007. There is still an arguement 8 months after the elections.. Guy0307 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly prefer leaving the candidates out until after the election. Therefore, it would not violate WP:FUTURE or WP:NPOV. This is the only solution that could possibly be neutral and non-arbitrary. We don't know about the debates yet, and even they are not a good indication of who will make a big impact on the election. If we are to include the Green nominee, why not the nominee of the Constitution Party or the Prohibition Party? We could argue up until the election on who to include in the infobox, and we probably will unless we can agree to wait until after the election. After the election, we can just use the past election articles as examples to whose pictures to include. Timmeh! 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, let me say it's an honor to be included in this mediation. I definitely look forward to having my voice heard in this WikiDemocracy. I can see the arguement about WP:FUTURE and not having Wikipedia be a crystal ball, but realistically, I just don't see the point in including third party candidates because realistically, Obama or McCain will be the President. I don't mean anything against voters on here that fully support Barr or Nader, but I just don't see them having a major impact on this election. I keep thinking that outsiders from the United States, say a guy from Britain wants to read up on WP about the election, and sees all of these candidates and thinks that it's a huge tossup, when in reality, it's a two-horse race. I don't think they'll be that clueless to think that our electoral system is in absolute chaos with a whole bunch of people running, but I think they should just be given the straight-up facts that it's either Obama or McCain that will take office in January. To repeat, I can see the "crystal ball" arguement, but I think pictures are necessary for just Obama and McCain, and they must be included before election day. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above comments by GoodDay, David Schaich, Timmeh, Rrius, and my own previous comments on the article's talk page on the subject, I strongly support no images until after election day. This is an encyclopedia, after all, the purpose of which is to present factual information and not serve as a crystal ball, no matter how reliable the polling data may be. As pointed out previously, all criteria based on ballot access, polling, notability, participation in the debates, etc. will be either arbitrary or ever-changing and subject to perpetual disputes and edit-warring. Also, one never can be sure what third party or independent candidate's campaign might gain enough traction between now and November to at least make a significant impact on the election, however unlikely that may seem at the present time. A standard is needed that it is clear, neutral and fair. Based on Wikipedia's stated policy of objectivity, it would seem that witholding all images from the infobox until the actual results of the election are known would be such a standard.--JayJasper (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it won't violate WP:FUTURE, as polls are a reliable source. If polls are reliable, then you could use them to show that Obama and McCain are the major candidates, and we we could also include only them. For example: Next Australian federal election. Guy0307 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see your point, Guy0307, but if we were to use polls, which would we use? What percent does someone need to have in the polls to be a "major candidate"? Timmeh! 14:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Use the major polling companies (SurveyUSA,Rasmussen,CNN, and don't start saying "what is a major polling company?"!).Instead of using national polls use State-by-state polls (http://electoral-vote.com), or if you use National Polls use a number like 25%. Guy0307 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do believe we had discussed an addition option previously, that would be to set some kind of requirement that canidates must surpass in order to be listed in the info box. Since it is infeasible to list all of the dozens of canidates, and unfair to only list the two major ones, why not set a standard for who gets on and who doesnt. I suggest that we place in the infobox the canidates who have enough ballot lines to feasibly win the election. Once a canidate has enough ballot lines to feasibly win the election he or she should be added, canidates who do not have access to the majority of electoral votes should not be listed. This keeps largely irrelevent canidates from cluttering the infobox. I believe at the moment only McCain, Obama, and Barr have enough ballot acccess to feasibly win via ballot access, although Nadar and or the Green party may also reach this milestone during the campaign. To me poling numbers can be skewed as we saw during the primaries and ballot access seems like a more reliable option. Does this seem like an acceptable option? Thoughts anyone? XavierGreen (talk)

• • I still support option D for reasons I've stated above. However, I could support the idea discussed by XavierGreen - list only candidates on enough ballots to theoretically obtain the number of electoral votes needed to win the election - as a second choice. It seems a more fair option than relying on polling data, which is ever-changing and, as XG pointed out, subject to skewing. It is also objective and clear. Again, not my first choice, but certainly worthy of consideration.--JayJasper (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with JayJasper, this is my second choice, and the only possible fair choice I can see if we are to keep the pictures there. Timmeh! 00:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changing my opinion I agree with JayJasper Gang14 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong no. Guy0307 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I proposed this once, as did Rational Renegade. In both cases, it never went anywhere. No one has explained rejecting this proposal other than GoodDay, who objected on the grounds that it is a proposal to have candidates in the box. In the end, I agree with JayJasper: no candidates is my preference, but I can live with this standard: it is not arbitrary and it is easy to explain. -Rrius (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I harped all along - I've no concern over who gets into the infobox (image or name). What concerns me is when they get in. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe that including every candidate in the info box is too much information and looks very cluttered. However, including the two major candidates is also POV. Therefore I believe that the best course of action would be to either have no candidates in the info box and maybe a list of parties involved instead or wait until the first major debate and include the candidates the major media sources included. These solutions are not perfect, but they seem to be a good compromise between those wanting them up now and those wishing to wait until November. The idea of including candidates by opinion polling does not work, in my opinion, as polls may change drastically numerous times throughout the election period and also leads to the debate about what poll results should count. Seen0288 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• My proposal: Until the election, insert only candidates which according to state polling will win any state. After the election, list only candidates who won any electoral votes and any candidates which had an influence on the result (more than X votes). Guy0307 (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Guy0307. Let's be realistic here: It's extremely unlikely that a third-party candidate will make a significant impact on the electoral math, here. If something huge happens to change that, that can be addressed, but let's cross that bridge IF and when we come to it. I don't believe it does any harm to have the two major party candidates in that infobox. But I think this feeds into a wider discussion that can be had: How many POVs are we trying to accommodate, and at what, if any, point can it be accepted to reject certain supposed POVs? I personally think it's delusional to believe that Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, or Ralph Nader will win a single electoral vote in this election. I guess my question is, who are we trying to accommodate, here? --Kudzu1 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Comments

• I don't think we should list every noteable candiate (Reform Party, Constitutional etc). I think we should either list only McCain and Obama OR McCain and Obama plus any other major third party candidates. We could also include only Obama and McCain now, and after the election include another one/two with the highest popular vote. I'll include more reasonings/details soon. Guy0307 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Obama and McCain only is more than fine. They are the candidates from the two major parties. They are the two who are most likely to win the presidency. Major debates will be between those two candidates, while 3rd party candidates will not be invited. Major news coverage focuses primarily on those two candidates. ScienceApe (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't think we should go with option D as it is clear that McCain and Obama are the main candidates. I don't think we should go with option B as those candidates wouldn't have any effect on the result, and probably won't participate in most debates. I think we should list only Obama and McCain now, and if the election result will be highly effected by a third party candidate we should list him/her as well. I don't think we should list any other candidates except for McCain and Obama. Guy0307 (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Usefulness to the casual reader who comes to Wikipedia should be the top concern. It makes sense to me to list the candidates that have a credible chance of winning the election (Obama, McCain) and then including a prominent wikilink to "Other Candidates" to allow readers to quickly go to the section of the article that covers all the candidates running if that is what the reader is interested in reading about. NoSeptember 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Guy0307 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree. Some have commented that Wikipedia should be objective. Including pictures of Obama and McCain only is objective, as it is an objective fact that there is no real reason at this stage to expect any other candidate to get an electoral vote (other than from a rogue elector), or even break 10% in any state. The fact that they could have an impact in certain states, by siphoning votes away from the two main candidates, is not an argument for including any minor party candidates, they werent included in 2000 for example. Of smaller parties like the Libertarians, Greens, Constitution, Socialists and Socialists Workers, relative to their distance from the two main parties, the difference between them will be so small, that there seems to be no justification to choose two rather than any others of them. It is an objective fact that, other than significant ruptures in one of the parties, like 1912, 1948 or 1968, the United States has a two-party system, not even two-and-half-party system like Britain. The point of a page on Wikipedia is to be useful, not to promote the idea that the other parties should get more time, so for these reasons the GOP and Democratic presumptive nominees, and only those, should be displayed, with a collective link to other candidates. --William Quill (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Showing only the Democrat and Republican is no more objective than including anyone in a position to get 270. Ignoring the other parties and their potential impact on the election (whether that means winning it or altering which of the major-party candidates wins) without a good reason is not objective. A continuing problem with this discussion is that editors on both sides keep looking at the role of the infobox as it will exist during the election as being the same as after the election. That is not the case. After the election, it will be a quick guide to the election results. During the election, it is a guide to the players. If the box had existed in 2000, it would only have made sense to have Nader. In retrospect, Buchanan should have been there, too, since his votes in Florida would have been enough to turn the election. The people most likely to have that kind of impact, whether in a given state or as part of a national trend, are Nader, Barr, and the Green. -Rrius (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes on past elections only include third-party candidates who won electoral votes, with one exception -- Ross Perot in '02, who gained nearly 19% of the popular vote. (John Anderson was not listed in the infobox in 1980, in spite of winning 6.6% of the popular vote.)

Having said that, here are my thoughts. There appears to be a plurality in support of no images until the election -- almost but not quite consensus -- followed closely second by McCain-and-Obama-only-approach.

"No Images" - Pros and Cons

The positive of the "no images" approach is that it seems to be the most neutral manner to deal with the candidates for the next four months. You're not shortchanging Nader or Barr, who may or may not have an effect on the outcome of the election.

The negatives are that images always help the article, and as some editors pointed out, it's unrealistic to expect anyone but McCain and Obama in the infobox after November.

I personally prefer this "no image" approach as most neutral, but until it gains consensus, I think a compromise will need to be reached with those that wish to include images in the infobox prior to the election. A number of individuals in favor of this approach also signal a willingness to compromise, as indicated in the Xavier Green proposal.

"Republican and Democratic Candidates Only" - Pros and Cons

The positives are its usefulness (images aid the reader), and that it has history in its side -- in four months time, the infobox will very likely have just McCain and Obama.

The negative is that this usefulness comes at the expense of third-party candidates. Maybe Nader or Barr will catch fire, and pull a rabbit out of his hat and win the election. But that's not realistic, given the history of modern presidential elections in the United States.

After November there probably will be little argument on who's in the box, because it will be awfully hard to argue with the final numbers. According to past presidential elections, the criteria to get in the box is either:

(a) be the Democratic or Republican candidate (which, as far as I know, both sides have won at least one state and one electoral vote in each election);

(b) win at least one state and/or electoral vote; or

(c) win a significant percentage of the popular vote (which, past elections tell us, is somewhere between 6.6% and 19%).

BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator Proposal

I propose a mash-up of the XavierGreen proposal with NoSeptember's proposal, along with my own thoughts:

Candidates must surpass the following requirements in order to be listed in the info box prior to the election:

a. The party candidate is listed on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes.

b. The party candidate must exceed 12% of the nationwide popular vote in any one of the following polls: ABC News, Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, Gallup, Ipsos, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time Magazine, US News & World Report, or USA Today.

Why 12%? Because it's a halfway point (of sorts) between the popular vote totals achieved by Ross Perot in 1992, who made the infobox with 18.9%, and John Anderson in 1980, who did not make the infobox with 6.6%.

What if the Candidate Dips Below 12%? Once a candidate gains the 12% milestone, they will remain in the infobox until November. This assumes the candidate is running around that figure, and not lost support entirely due to some scandal, gaffe, etc. If support drops below "the Anderson line," then discussion should ensue on the talk page to see if there's consensus to remove the candidate.

Why these polls? Because they are reliable, notable, and easily verifiable.

c. Any candidates who do not meet these criteria may be listed in a prominent wikilink to "Other Candidates." I personally don't mind including this link below the images in the infobox, but I don't know if the box's formatting allows for that. But if that can happen, I believe the link should be removed from the infobox after the election, to maintain uniformity with the infoboxes in past presidential elections.

I welcome comments from all. BrownHornet21 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can agree to this but the only question left is who will be the first picture. I suggest the person leading in the majority of polls. In the unlikly tie then we use whoever has the largest average lead with all polls Gang14 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Or alphabetical order but i would support the above statement as well. XavierGreen (talk)

Use whatever inclusion criteria ya'll wish; just don't implement it until November 4th. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about inclusion criteria for before the election. I like the above idea, but I really doubt we'd get even a majority of editors to agree to this. Timmeh! 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No inclusion until the Election; it's only 4 months away. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, GoodDay. We're talking about the mediator's proposal in this section, not whether to include the candidates' pictures or not. That's being discussed above. Explain your reasons there if you want to discuss it further. Timmeh! 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to listing names in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I stated my opposition to polls in the comments section, I believe that this proposal may actually work. It is better than having this argument over and over again anyways. I would suggest ranking them by poll numbers with the most recent (or most comprehensive) poll and the poll numbers included in the info box for clarity of their ranking. Regardless, whatever the consensus ends up being is fine by me. Seen0288 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I like BrownHornet's proposal, with pictures, it seems both realistic and fair. I know I have been a frequent contributor to the discussion, but I have checked this page near daily since the beginning of the year. William Quill (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the order, I'm not sure it matters two much when they're side by side, neither particularly seems more prominent. Does alphabetically mean McCain before Obama, or Democratic before Republican? I presume the latter, as that's how they'd be listed on the ballot, just think it should be cleared up now. William Quill (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to that. And at the risk of upping the ante: GoodDay, this is mediation, and everyone has to give: refusing any sort of compromise whatsoever is not helpful. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to any inclusion criteria; I'm just concerned with implementing it before the Election. Besides, I'm just one editor; I can't stop anybody (nor would I try) from adding names or images to the top of the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck folks, in finding a solution. PS- can't wait to see who the vice presidential running mates will be. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I can live with this proposal, despite my reservations about using polling data as criteria. Heaven knows it's high time we reached a resolution on this matter. Not my first preference, (not quite my second, either, but close) but as The Evil Spartan rightly points out, at this stage of the discussion, everyone has to give a little. As compromises go, this one seems overall fair and well thought-out. A tip of the hat to BrownHornet21 for taking on this seemingly bottomless pit of a dispute and diligently working to find a reasonable consensus amongst the vast diversity of opinion amongst the editors. --JayJasper (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposed addendum to mediator's proposal - we allow data from Rasmussen Reports, SurveyUSA, and Zogby International (but not Zogby Interactive aka. Zogby Online, which is historically less reliable), Washington Post, and Quinnipiac University (which has fairly good ratings historically). I also suggest we worry about order in which the candidates are placed after we worry about if they will put be up at all, i.e., not putting the cart before the horse. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've heard of the Washington Post, but not the others, so I'll defer to involved editors to chime in on whether these other polls are reliable, notable, and easily verifiable. But I will say that I think the odds would be good that if one poll has a third-party candidate at 12%, other polls will also have him at 12% (or not very far behind). BrownHornet21 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I missed the debate here, but I think this proposal is perfectly acceptable. While I would love to have third party candidates there, they are unlikely to be significant enough to warrant being added. If Barr or Nader or both start polling high, that's great and we can then put them up there prominently. But, to put a candidate that (unfortunately) the public doesn't care about is unnecessary. As for ordering, I don't think it matters. You can justify it any number of ways. (Who became presumptive first, who's on the ballot first, alphabetical by last name, alphabetical by party...)--Metallurgist (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

My problem with candidates in the infobox from early on has been stability. I have constantly challenged people to defend their criteria because it will have to be defended as the campaign wears on. I believe 12% is still arbitrary. The 270 proposal makes sense to me, as does the FEC matching funds requirement of being on ballots in 10 states. The former shows the potentiality of winning the election; the latter is what the government thinks a minor-party/independent candidate is. The 12% is especially dubious because Perot's inclusion is presumably based on more than his popular vote percentage: he participated in the televised debates and helped shape the overall election debate. In the end, I'll go along with whatever is decided, but I urge everyone to attempt to frame comments in a way that will satisfy the editors who will undoubtedly come to the article as the campaign season gears up. The infobox was unstable for, as I recall, approximately two weeks after we started putting candidates in, only stopping when discussion warnings were commented into the infobox. I fully anticipate this will happen again repeatedly as we make our way to November. Therefore, please consider the undesirability of having this discussion over and over again during the next four months and help figure out ways to avoid that. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Conclude Mediation

In an effort to wrap things up, I think we have a consensus (or perhaps the beginning of a consensus) on the Mediator's Proposal. I count 8 supporting, 1 not in favor, and 1 I (the mediator) am not sure about (Rrius). The comments have mostly died down here, and it appears the Mediator's Proposal is being implemented on the article's page. I'll keep the mediation open for about another week, and, barring any significant discussion between now and then, close it out as resolved. BrownHornet21 (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion

Recently, a proposal that is virtually identical to the one above by XavierGreen was made by an anonymous editor on the '08 election discussion page that has stimulated conversation among several editors involved in the discussion on this page. The new discussion suggests there is still much support for idea of including only candidates who are listed on enough ballots to potentially win at least 270 electoral votes, regardless of poll numbers. Thought it might be worth a look before concluding the mediation.--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to support this - I consider it less preferrable than the above, but it is doable. However, I would hope that we could implement the above agreement in the interim. Is that doable? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't really see anything new. Unless the consensus formed here changes their mind, I think we ought to stick with the already-implemented proposal. Cheers, BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have implemented the suggested qualifications that BrownHornet21 had juggested User:XavierGreen