Jump to content

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.78.91.188 (talk) at 21:16, 7 April 2023 (→Minor Candidate Article Tally: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Perry Johnson Classification

I don't think Perry Johnson should be the major candidate section currently. He has never been elected or been a nominee for a race, has not been polled in any polls yet nor has he been interviewed on any major cable news channels yet like the current 3 have gotten. The CPAC poll that was mentioned when the user added him to the major candidates section, I don't believe is enough to justify for him to be a major candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. (23.123.210.20 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
So do I. (Aricmfergie (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aricmfergie:, I have no horse in this race but logging out to agree with yourself is a gross violation of WP:SOCK. --Pokelova (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely getting 5% in one poll is better than getting 0.2% across 5 polls. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CPAC straw poll isn't a reputable nationwide poll by a polling service. Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if a candidate truly had 5% support nationwide among Republicans, as distinguished from 5% among the party activists at a specific conference, you would expect the candidate to repeatedly show up listed as a "volunteered" response in the national polls with, say, 2% to 8% support (to account for the margin of error). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he should be a major candidate. He meets the criteria for media coverage. Look at the major candidates list for the 2020 democrat primaries. It had people like Richard Ojeda and Wayne Messam who didn't receive much media attention. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether he is as notable as candidates of some previous election, but whether he meets the criteria. He meets neither of the two objective criteria of polling or service in a major political position. Whether he meets the third substantial media attention criterium requires consensus. Ramaswamy remained in minor candidate until there was consensus. There is no such consensus for Johnson, and so he will remain in minor candidate status until such consensus is reach, or he meets the polling criterium. As or Ojeda and Messam, Ojeda probably should never have been included as a major candidate, but committing an error once is no reason to commit it again, and as for Messam, he was included in several polls. Vrivasfl (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is is possible to have criteria for inclusion somewhere on talk page

Hi all, I've seen a few editors cite old discussions for what the current consensus is on inclusion in this page. Would it be possible to list the current consensus somewhere on the talk page permanently so new editors can know the criteria and experienced editors can all have the criteria in front of us when we're debating particular inclusions? There is something similar on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus that lists current page consensuses and I think something like that would be helpful here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this suggestion Perryj1622 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson five polls

Perry Johnson was readded to the major candidates section because of inclusion in five polls. Can someone link these five polls here? On page for Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, Perry is only included in one poll. If Johnson has appeared in five national polls, they should be included on that page. I invite User:Zander123sims4, who made the edit, to respond. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to see those five polls. HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably have to wait for a while. I'm pretty sure that four out of those "five polls" don't exist. Maybe things will change and Johnson will get into five polls, but he does not have them yet as of this writing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only see him in this Quinnipiac poll, he also appears in the CPAC poll but that doesn't count since it is a straw poll. Scu ba (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson media attention

In light of the substantial media attention Perry Johnson has received since his announcement for President, in particular, as a result of his performance of 3rd place at 5% in the CPAC straw poll, the SuperBowl ad he ran in Iowa, as well as the Fox Ads he perpetually is running in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he should be reconsidered for the declared major candidates category. At the very least, he meets it based on the criteria used for approving Ramaswamy which was "detailed news coverage from multiple major media sources." I have linked some significant articles and interviews below. ABC News Washington Times Fox News AP News NBC Chicago Freep US News Yahoo Sports Fox News HuffPost NewsMax Michigan Radio Bridgemi WXYZ News Metro Times SandiegoTribune Morganton StlToday Desmoineregister Mediate Fortworth Inc WLNS Newsbreak Fox2Detroit SeattleTimes The Gazette Fox Business Interview


That is, as long as major media attention is a criterion for someone to get on this page. If consensus does change so that this is not a criterion, then both Perry Johnson and Vivek Ramaswamy should be removed because both have received attention substantial enough to be included, in my view. Anything but including or disincluding both would be arbitrary. It's hard to know exactly where the cut-off of "substantial media attention is" and unless there's a way to quantify that, this becomes a very difficult balancing act. Either way, both will be in 5 or more polls within the next couple months and then they will both meet that objective criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What an anti-consensus view. It would not be arbitrary, and while I agree that Johnson should be added, you do not seem too fond of democracy. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding someone has "enough media attention" is arbitrary. I'm simply saying if Ramaswamy has enough then Johnson should also. The cut-off on "substantial media attention" should not be just less than Ramaswamy by default. Any assignment of the "right" amount of media attention to be on the page is arbitrary, as it is not a quantifiable metric. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that sense, everything is arbitrary, which makes the word “arbitrary” meaningless. Nobody said the cutoff was just below Ramaswamy. You are making a fool of yourself. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was implied by him being on and Johnson being off. Every rationale set forth on this talk-page previously would have Johnson on as well. None of them were accepted as firm criteria by consensus, by the way. 3 articles, 5, 10, each were proposed at various points. Thus, to have Ramaswamy on and Johnson off implies a hidden criteria not outlined exists. My argument is that any such criteria would only exist to specifically keep candidates with lower recognition than Ramswamy off the "major declared candidates" page. Perryj1622 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know how in the world you got that I wasn't a fan of democracy from that. Is disagreeing with consensus "anti-democracy"? Perryj1622 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This totals 24 news reports and 2 “national interviews.” I give the go-ahead on adding Johnson. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll preface this as saying that I think that Johnson should probably be added but I have some qualms with this whole situation.
@Perryj1622 is being decried as being anti-consensus even though it is plain to see in other entries in this talk page that there really isn't a consensus. I feel like we should try and pin down one before we go ahead with adding Johnson. Also call me paranoid but I've got a feeling that perryj is someone's sock puppet or biased based on their name, how they've only ever edited on this page, and how their advocating for their namesake to be added. Scu ba (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, you do seem pretty paranoid here and your comment was a little nameist but more importantly I think this whole discussion has been avoiding the main issue. My argument with BuiltByBromine was not really related to the issue and was really only because of a couple unnecessarily incendiary remarks by BuiltByBromine which did not really pertain to the issue at hand which is if Perry Johnson should be re-added to the Declared Major Candidates Page. BuiltByBromine agrees he should be added, Scruba agrees he probably should be added. I think that we should have some sort of a vote on the matter and if we agree he should be added, he should be added. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree there isn't really a consensus here. I saw the comments and there has been debate back and forth on this with Perry Johnson once being added several weeks ago because of him being in 5 polls and then being removed because of a failure to prove he had been in five national polls. I think the numerous news articles and interviews, many of them recent, that Perry Johnson has had up until this point, make it clear, however, that he should be added on the basis of significant media attention. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we are doing this, we should also come to a consensus opinion on what "significant media attention" means. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. It seems we should create consensus on a numerical standard for number of articles. This should’ve been done before-hand, to prevent from “fixing” the standard to selectively include and reject certain candidates, however, it seems a necessary requirement. BuiltByBromine (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to remind everyone that we did provide an objective definition of "substantial media coverage" on an earlier thread. Please feel free to go and look, but for everyone's convenience, I will copy it here:

  • be primarily about the individual's candidacy rather than just mentioning it
  • Thus, list articles such as this one do not count, and this one casually mentioning Perry Johnson doesn't count either. A candidate's name being in the title is a good sign that the article is about them.
  • be published by a reputable source that Wikipedia consensus considers to be reliable for political news
  • In edge cases such as Fox News, I think we can consider them reliable for basic facts such as whether a presidential candidate has declared. However, obviously unreputable sources like the Daily Mail would not qualify.
  • not be published by an regional affiliate network
  • For instance, this article covering Ramaswamy would not count because it was published by ABC 25 Columbia, an affiliate of ABC News; however, this article from the national news site would count
  • not be published by a network that already has covered the candidacy
  • In other words, two articles from the New York Times wouldn't count towards this criterion - they have to be from separate networks

At the time, no one voice ay opposition to these requirement. We did not reach an consensus on how many such articles. For what its worth, of the articles cited at the beginning of this thread, I counted 12 that might satisfy this standard, though maybe less if we treat local newspapers as local news affiliates and not count them. Is that enough? My vote is a soft no, but I can take it or leave it.Vrivasfl (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me, @Vrivasfl. I'm at a hard no, and I believe 20 articles should be the bare minimum. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting point, but I'm not completely convinced. If we are going to have stringent requirements for a candidate to meet the media requirement, there should be relatively few articles required. I think 5 is a good number for that. For the general criterion, either we should be less stringent with the nature of the articles and allow all articles of whom the candidate is the central focus, in which case we can raise the requirement to 10 or 20, or keep it at 5 articles and maintain these very rigid standards. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With the 20 major article requirement, maybe you should hold a vote because that would have major ramifications for current candidates currently considered "Major Declared Candidates." It would be so restrictive that it would be tantamount to removing it entirely. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rectifications

Is Johnson not considered a well-covered enough candidate? BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He has a lot of local coverage from Detriot and Michigan media, but those articles aren't considered for his media notability.
The articles that I could find that are from reputable sources that would count to his tally are:
1) this AP article
2) this ABC article
3) this US News and World Report article
4) this NBC article
5) this CBS article
This would put him at a perfect 5 articles, which is the minimum needed to be counted as notable. I will note he has also made an appearance in a huffington post article, but they're the huffington post and I wouldn't cite them for anything serious, and a fox sports (not fox itself) article, but that was just talking about how he bought a superbowl ad, and not about his presidency as a whole, also its sports media. I still have reservations about including him in the major candidates list due to the simple fact he isn't being included in any polls, besides a CPAC straw poll which doesn't count as a reputable poll, and this Quinnipiac poll, where he got a negligible percent, less than 1%. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that five articles from major media is, in my opinion, far, far too low for someone to qualify as a major candidate based on media coverage alone. If a candidate is covered when he declares his candidacy, and then afterward is largely ignored, that suggests to me that the media don't consider him to be a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's just that for some reason the earlier consensus was 5 articles. Scu ba (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What was your rationale for disinclining the Fox Business interview, the Washington Times Article and the US News article? Perryj1622 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Fox and Washington Times article are WP:MREL at WP:RSP and probably shouldn't be used if other better sources exist. Not sure on the US news article TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. News and World pass General Reliability. Command F for them in WP:RS. Scu ba (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see them now. I Command F'ed "US News" and not "U.S. news" and missed them. Thanks! TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, Fox is considered an edge case and can be used for purposes of proving significant media attention, as per previous consensus. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also question what was wrong with the ABC News article, as I believe that is an approved source as well. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That list is counting the same article (the Associated Press article) three times, once for the AP, once for US News & World Report, and once for CBS. It's the same article reprinted in more than one source and should only be counted once. See WP:SYNDICATED. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, ill run a strike through now.Scu ba (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably attain a consensus of either a minimum of 20 or 10 articles. Clearly all the major candidates have numerous (far above 10 or even 20) articles about them, and Johnson barely makes 3. BuiltByBromine (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like 10 would work, 5 is just too small of a number. I wouldn't be opposed to going to 20 but that would re-open the Ramaswamy can of worms. Scu ba (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem like it, as it seems that @Perryj1622's objections were mostly invalid. It seems Ramaswamy has 21 articles at least. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, referring back to the previous criteria Scu.ba agreed to, "not to establish criteria with the goal of getting a given candidate approved." This violates your proposed rule. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with this Fox News Perryj1622 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I had not previously realized the consensus was to use the incredibly strict standard of rejecting all WP:MREL articles. In that case, yes, all of these would be rejected, but so would many of the articles previously deemed acceptable for other candidates. We should have a fully-fleshed-out catalog of articles that are properly vetted to meet the standard for each questionable candidate, which we started to do, but there seems to be some disagreement with Ramaswamy articles when there shouldn't be because we can pretty easily verify which articles meet this standard. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other Criteria for Major Declared Candidates

I think it should at least be considered that many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria. In light of this, I think we should consider updating the criteria to include candidates who meet any of the following criteria:

1. Have finished in the top 5 in any reputable national poll, or straw poll that has a track record of accurately predicting the nominee, as long as the percentage of the vote received is 2% or more (candidates who finish in the top 5 but do not get 2% may be included because of preferential treatment that is not reflective of their true current performance and people may only be voting for them because their name is on the ballot; while this is significantly better than the 5 polls criterion, even without this stipulation, I think it would help distinguish strong candidates from very unpopular candidates who managed to get listed on a poll- we could consider an exemption for those who finished in the top 5 with less than 2% of the vote but did not appear on the ballot in the poll). I think it would be prudent to include the top candidates over worse-preforming candidates, regardless of sheer amount of polling which is a less reliable indicator of good performance in an election than ones actual performance in polls. This would have captured candidates who preformed well in polls who did not get a large amount of media coverage early on (i.e. Andrew Yang for the 2020 Democratic Primary). This is especially necessary before most candidates have an opportunity to be included in five national polls. If one is able to ever preform in the top 5 and get 2% in a national reputable poll, or highly correlative straw poll, they are a major candidate, regardless of any other factors.

2. Have spent or pledge to spend ten million dollars or more during the Presidential race, as these pledges reliably have tract to candidates who preformed near the top of the primary heap (e.g. Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Tom Steyer). Tom Steyer would not have been included for some time based on the current criteria, but would be considered a major candidate by this criteria which reliably predicts candidates who perform well. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) I disagree on removing the media coverage as part of the major candidate qualifications. Based on prior Ramaswamy discussions, I believe that 5 media entries is too little, while 20 is too much with 10 being a good balance.
2) I believe that the poll requirements should be presence in at least 5 reputable national polls, so the CPAC Straw Poll wouldn't count, which I believe was the consensus prior to this conversation
3) I believe that a major candidate should follow the previous two requirements. They need 10 qualified sources and a presence in at least 5 reputable nationwide polls.
Scu ba (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My major point was that the requirement of five major polls is
1) less important than ones performance in reputable national polls
2) is not much of a metric at the early stages in a primary race as fewer of these national polls have been conducted.
I never commented on the desired number of required media entries, but I might as well mention I like the initially proposed number of 5. The requirements for the nature of the entries is stringent, so if one is able to meet that criterion on five separate occasions, I think they should be considered a Major Candidate.
It is also worthy of note that if we were to adopt your proposed third criterion, only Haley and Trump would be currently considered, "Declared Major Candidates" which I think would be too stringent as current consensus at least sees Ramaswamy as a major candidate. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) he hasn't been in reputable polls either, CPAC is a straw poll, not a reputable poll. The only poll that I can find where he makes an apperance is this poll from Quinnipiac where he gets - and NA due to him getting less than 1% of the vote.
2) I'd suggest you head over to Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries to see that there have been quite a few reputable national polls. I count 6 in march alone.
3) yeah sorry, I just felt that the early conversation kinda ended without a consensus and wanted to bring it up again in this conversation. Ramaswamy is pushing the border of what is and isn't a major candidate too, but that whole conversation was already held and it was determined via consensus that he was. Scu ba (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I suppose if this new criteria were adopted we would have to have a vote on whether that poll is reputable. I would argue it is, as it has been the most accurate predictor of the Republican primary winner of any poll since its conception in 1980, predicting Reagan as the nominee, Dole, Bush and Romney in 2012. Further, regardless of whether the inclusion of this criterion would put Perry Johnson as a major declared candidate, I think it should still be adopted for the reasons I stated earlier.
2. It appears you might be right on this. There have been about twenty national polls since Ramaswamy, Haley, Johnson and Trump were all announced.
3. Consensus was also reached that only one of the three is required for a candidate to be major so that is the current rule under which Ramaswamy is a Declared Major Candidate. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has never counted any straw poll as a reputable poll. CPAC polls and other straw polls usually get included in their own sub-section of the opinion polling page. There is no need for a vote on that. Scu ba (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could also consider removing the "significant media attention" requirement if we cannot come to a consensus on a quantifiable metric for this criteria. 1 could be a replacement to the 5 polls criteria, or they could both be considered criteria. 1 can be amended as needed, but I think at the very least, an objective poll performance criterion, for reputable polls, should be permitted to allow candidates to be included under "Major Declared Candidates" for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryj1622 (talk • contribs)

  • I believe the premise for this section is inaccurate when it says, "... many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria." In fact, most of them would have been included as soon as they entered the race based on the current criteria, since most of them had held major political offices before. Of course, there were also some who had not, most notably Donald Trump in the 2016 race, but others as well such as Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Steve Forbes, etc. But the major non-officeholders who ran for president were included in national polls and so would have qualified that way. In fact, Trump, Fiorina, and Carson all reached the 5-poll mark even before they declared their candidacies in 2015. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, nor Tom Steyer in the 2020 Democratic Primary would have been included. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, it appears that Andrew Yang's 5th poll came no later than March 18, 2019; Marianne Williamson's no later than March 31, 2019; and Tom Steyer's no later than July 23, 2019. So it took Steyer no more than two weeks after entering the race to meet the poll criterion, and Williamson only about two months. It took Yang more than a year, but that's because (a) he entered the race in November 2017, and there were few polls held until 2019; and (b) he was not generally recognized as a major candidate at first; it took him a while to achieve that. See, for example, this 538.com article published March 19, 2019: "We started off the 2020 cycle with an informal heuristic: While many long shots would run for president, we would focus our coverage on candidates who had previously held elected office; others would have to earn enough media attention to prove they should be taken seriously. When businessman Andrew Yang, a political rookie, launched his presidential campaign with a New York Times profile in February 2018, he didn’t meet our standard for coverage. But Yang now looks likely to qualify for the Democratic primary debates this summer, so here is our belated take on the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not agree with expanding the criteria for inclusion as a major candidate with the goal of getting a specific candidate included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    seconded Scu ba (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not expanding the criteria with the goal of getting a specific candidate included. This is expanding the criteria with the goal of improving the metrics for deciding who "Major Declared Candidates" are. These new criteria would have included candidates who were major candidates in the past and would not be so expansive as to ever include candidates who are not notable, as the addition of these criteria never would have resulted in the inclusion of candidates who were not major in any democratic or republican primary. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Perryj1622 It might help if you look at policies like WP:UNDUE that are part of the reason we make the distinctions we do here. We have policies that instruct us to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I'd highlight the phrase "in proportion." Here, we're trying to balance our listing in proportion to what the reliable sources say. Its not enough to have media coverage in reliable sourcing for us to call someone a "major candidate" we need the proportion of coverage to also reflect that in line with WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we are giving a candidate more prominence than the sourcing justifies and we're violating policy. That's why we don't just list everyone as a major candidate and we try to reach consensus on who we label a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that we are trying to avoid giving undue weight to candidates but I think we should have a robust and provable standard for approving candidates as "major." I was always arguing that the inclusion of Perry Johnson as a major candidate was not giving him undue weight. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view the classification should be somewhat fluid. Perhaps requiring 5 news articles within the last month. Perry Johnson is a major candidate at present because he is one of only a few who have declared. If more candidates enter the race he could drop down to minor candidate status depending on if he is still getting the same media coverage. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnson doesn't have 5 articles at all let alone in the last month. Scu ba (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he does. Many of the articles were too hastily removed. Fox News, Washington Times, HuffPost and NewsBreak articles should still be included by WP:RSP and none of them are synicated. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the Fox News article, not the Fox business interview Perryj1622 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting Ramaswamy's Inclusion as a "Major Declared Candidate"

It seems there is substantial disagreement as to what the requirement for the number of articles there has to be for someone to be considered a "Major Declared Candidate." The only candidate who has achieved this status via the fulfillment of this requirement and this requirement alone is Vivek Ramaswamy, who achieved it upon 5 unique reputable national news articles about him being cited. It is currently being argued that because another candidate, Perry Johnson, does not meet a much higher threshold of articles, he should not be included as a major candidate, even though he meets the criteria by which Ramaswamy was first added. I propose we have a vote to determine the exact numerical requirement for one to be considered a major candidate and apply it accordingly. If we keep the requirement that we had previously, both candidates should be added. If it is changed, we should demonstrate Ramaswamy still belongs in the category based on the new criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per the earlier consensus this is a closed case. Despite him not being a prior politician, Ramaswamy passed notability due to being regularly included in polls, and the shear amount of media content that is out about his candidacy. Sure he is a fringe long-shot that probably stands no chance but with over 20 articles about his candidacy being published by over 20 different sources he has to be included. I copied and pasted a list from the earlier talk here:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Meanwhile Johnson only has 3 notable media stories, and has appeared in 1 singular poll, and hasn't held prior office. He isn't a major candidate by any of the established definitions. Scu ba (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deseret News (8), New Republic (10), Intelligencer (12), Gizmodo (14), The Daily Best (18), Yahoo Life (20) seem dubious. The Nation (17) is an expressly progressive-opinion source. I'm not sure about The Times of India (16) or TH (21), as these are international. The Washington Examiner (22) would be considered an edge case, but I think it would be allowed for these purposes. The same possible objection applies for Reason (11). Fox News is 23, but I believe it is considered reputable for these purposes. WSJ Opinion (24) is an opinion piece but I believe that is allowable for proof of media coverage. I'm not sure if we count RCP (25). This totals at most 19 sources and likely many fewer. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not my sources, but a list from the earlier talk on the subject. 19 is still more than 5 which is the requirement, or even 3 which is what Johnson has. Scu ba (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the requirement really is five, Johnson should be included. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, from this list, that most of your objections conflict with WP:RSP. These are:
  • Deseret News
  • New Republic
  • Intelligencer
  • Gizmodo
  • Yahoo Life! has no consensus; to be determined
  • Washington Examiner is fine for our purposes, and the statement was not published in an opinion column.
  • Reason is an approved sources, nor was this announcement made in an opinion column
  • Fox News would be considered allowed for our purposes, as this is not a specific political announcement nor a scientific one
Please refer to WP:RSP when disputing sources. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the new count, the only concerns are Times of India and RealClearPolitics. That makes 23. Far above any form of requirement, and as @TulsaPoliticsFan pointed out, he is listed in over ten polls on Fivethirtyeight. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Errata correction: Times of India, RealClearPolitics, Daily Beast, and potentially Yahoo Life. WSJ Opinion should be fine. This makes 21. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to be following the consensus standard of the disinclusion of all WP:MREL articles, under which all of these sources are disincluded. Fox News is a political article as it is discussing the candidacy of Ramaswamy, as it must for the article to even be considered. Reason has the same issue. Each of the sources I discussed are indeed WP:MREL for politics. Gizmodo, for example, is only reliable for tech, popular culture and entertainment articles. Deseret is considered credible only for local news. Please refer to WP:RSP. This brings Ramaswamy down to 17 acceptable articles. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: WSJ Opinion is WP:MREL as well as The Daily Beast and The Washington Examiner, and RCP, though I believe we already agreed The Daily Beast and RCP are not credible for these purposes. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This brings Ramaswamy to 14. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We refer to WP:RSP but all WP:MREL articles are also excluded. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, his number is more than three. Fox Business was not included in that tally, nor ABC News, both linked in the original post on that topic. If those are included, there are five very robust national articles that have Perry Johnson as the center of the article. The Washington Times, NewsMax and Newsbreak were all disincluded, even though they are national news websites just because they were not reputable enough. A large contingent of the sources listed for Ramaswamy here would be disqualified if the same criteria were applied to Ramaswamy's sources as were to Johnson's. It seems to me that at the very least Johnson still has five sources, as he would with the mere inclusion of the ABC and Fox Business articles.Perryj1622 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC article is included in the tally. Ramaswamy still has the required number of articles even with the disqualifications. 19 articles, you said so yourself. The Fox Business article isn't an article its a video, during which he talks about the SVB crisis the Tik Tok's stocks, the only mention of his presidency is a brief introduction in the beginning. Scu ba (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ramaswamy has been in over 10 polls listed on Fivethirtyeight since the earlier discussions on this talk page in late February/early March about his inclusion. He clearly meets our polling criteria now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Current State of Perry Johnson

To avoid the cluttered comments of the other five talk pages, I have created a sixth page to summarize so far what it seems Johnson's standing is as a reported candidate in the media. So far, it seems Johnson has been reported sufficiently in the following articles:

Johnson neither has any sufficient polling, his only poll is the CPAC straw poll, and does not make even the five article minimum. He should not be included by any metric we have chosen. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we regard HuffPost as a 0.5 or even a 1, we have that 3.5 < 5, and 4 < 5, so clearly Johnson fails the test. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be stupid to assign a part of a point to any source. It is either counted or not at all. I believe more sources count. Refer to the initial catalog in the earlier topic. I believe the Fox page to be valid. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Washington Times article and Newsbreak articles seem fine by Wikapedia's WP:RSP. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe this is a continuation of a previous discussion so it should have been added to "Perry Johnson media attention" instead of being a new topic. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those are Ramaswamy articles, not Johnson articles. BuiltByBromine (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the Perry Johnson articles, not the Ramaswamy articles. Refer back to "Perry Johnson media attention," which is really where this entire topic page should be because it is the exact same discussion. If you are amenable to it, I propose we copy this topic page and continue it on the former topic page. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I should start a counter for how many times we say that Fox, for political articles, doesn't pass notability due to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Scu ba (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should. Honestly, there should be a dedicated Wikipedia page specifically for counting that. I'd bet, among all talk pages, it is in the millions. BuiltByBromine (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The noted exception to WP:HUFFPO are political articles, as such this Huffington Post article should not be counted. Scu ba (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I feel as if it seems for basic facts such as a presidency, it should be OK, but it seems we should just ignore them entirely. I don't really understand what @Perryj1622's issues are. BuiltByBromine (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did verify that this is correct but you also advocated that it was a possibility HUFFPO is allowable. I do not think this slander is very productive. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is in one poll on FiveThirtyEight. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep all comments relevant and pertaining to the discussion. This comment has no bearing on the discussion at hand nor has this recently been disputed. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is a way to establish notability and relevant to a discussion of Johnson's inclusion. Plus, I was replying to @BuiltByBromine who said his only poll was the CPAC poll so they knew of the other poll. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, nevermind. Perryj1622 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Candidate Article Tally

With this lengthy ongoing debate about Johnson, I felt that it would be helpful if we had a ongoing count of the minor candidates and their inclusion in major media stories.

Starting with Corey Stapleton we have:

1) Yahoo!

Now Steve Laffey

1) The Hill

2) ABC

3) Newsweek Per WP:RSN#Newsweek Article this counts as a notable source.

4) Washington Examiner, there is no consensus to examiner articles so it could be omitted

5) The Forward Per WP:RSN#The Forward this counts as a notable source.

6) The Boston Globe Per conversation on WP:RSN Archive 283 this counts as a notable source.

The contentious Perry Johnson debate

1) AP

2) ABC

3) NBC

4) Washington Times Not omitted due to lack of other sources.

Lastly, at the time of me writing this, we have John Anthony Castro

1) Bloomberg

I politely ask users refrain from arguing if any of these candidates deserve to be included in the major candidate list on this section or what the criteria number for being listed as a major candidate should be. We should keep this section solely as a running tally for their notable news stories. If you find a news story that is about their candidacy that is published by a green listed publisher on WP:RSP, or by a yellow listed publisher with no consensus then reply here and I'll update the list. Scu ba (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Examiner is not consensus, so I'm not sure, but we seem to have only been including articles that have a consensus. The Boston Globe looks like a local source so it may not meet the criteria for "national source." Perryj1622 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boston globe isn't a regional affiliate of any news publisher and has a nationwide audience. And again, I said the examiner article could be omitted. Scu ba (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Boston Globe" is, from their own website, "New England's best source for news, sports, opinion and entertainment." This seems to imply this is a regional outlet. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is worthy of note that the standard we have been applying for other candidates is to not include any source that does not have consensus (See HuffPost Politics on WP:RSP, which has no consensus, yet was discounted for the candidate "Perry Johnson" on that basis). This would involve The Washington Examiner not being counted as a source, as well as "The Boston Globe," even if it were a national outlet, because it is not on WP:RSP and therefore does not have consensus. I think it is important to use consistent standards when evaluating the sources of all candidates. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check The Boston Globe Wikipedia page. It has 27 Pulitzer Prizes (5 under the current publisher). Looking through the WP:RSP archives (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Boston Globe) its also been considered reliable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems—via WP:RSP—that the Washington Examiner should be allowed for Johnson’s tally. This is due to

The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.

<meta />
BuiltByBromine (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the Times article to the tally. Scu ba (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 for Johnson.
Politico
Newsweek (each Newsweek article is determined for notability on a case by case basis but I think that this passes) 79.78.91.188 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Politico ”article” is an ad, it’s not even an article.
The Newsweek article isn’t focused on Johnson’s candidacy specifically, it merely mentions it. Neither count. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that is the wrong Politico article I linked to, there are two, this earlier dated one is awesome.
Politico Johnson launches campaign 79.78.91.188 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now this is interesting because I don't know what exactly to do with this. Politico just clipped a video from CPAC and uploaded it. There is no accompanying article, no commentary, nothing, just Johnson talking at CPAC. It would be like citing a youtube video and I'm not exactly sure if that counts as a reliable source. However, I don't know the exact syntax to putting a video like this as a source. So for now ill omit it until a power that be (someone who knows how this works) tells me otherwise, but it has been noted. The reason for my omission is because I have a feeling this should be treated like C-SPAN footage. It can be used for information in an article like Perry Johnson's own page, but it wouldn't pass as a notable source since it fails WP:SPS. It can only be used as a primary source on the entity in question as long as other sources exist to make the entity notable.Scu ba (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this, although just a video and a title, still may count as a reliable source under WP:RSP because it is from Politico and formatted as an article and thus should be treated as such. There is also no indication this is an ad. I am unaware of any threshold of text amount that would constitute any particular source as an article or exclude it from being an article. Anyone familiar with an page that deals with this matter please advise. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not formatted as an article, it is a video. Scu ba (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also a feature in this article [1]https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/
I think it's fair to say that Politico are covering Perry Johnson and consider him amongst the major candidates in the article, rather than the minor candidates which he currently resides. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson Declared

I feel like it should be unanimous to include him in the major candidate tally.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Im working on his section right after adding this topic Scu ba (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a former governor, he definitely qualifies. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second that he meets the criteria based on being a former governor. Anyone who has previously held public office should be included as a major candidate per the criteria. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"He would flex his muscle within the GOP..."

What in the world? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C476:A9B4:928F:3F53 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that entire section feels like it should be in a gossip tabloid, not Wikipedia. ill see if I can reword it for neutrality. Scu ba (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Abbott?

He was listed as a potential candidate, then removed entirely from the article. Thats the first time I can remember that happening and ive been following election pages since the 2016 election. I'm just asking if that was an error or if I missed something. Usually if they go out of the 'potential candidates' its because they declined or are about to announce. Any reason why he's nowhere now? Thanks! Sneakycrown (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His entry was hidden by @Kkuchnir: as one of Abbott's references had become outdated (older than six months). --Pokelova (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Potential candidates are only kept in the article if there has been speculation on their candidacy from a reliable source within the last 6 months. That hasn't been the case for Abbott and his entry was hidden. If you can find a new reliable source talking about him possibly running for president he can be added back. Scu ba (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick google search and I actually found some articles about Abbott saying he isn't going to run and is instead focusing all his attention on originally the 2022 Texas gubernatorial election, and after he won that, the 2024 Texas House of Representatives election.
[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
Specifically one quote here from the Houston chronicle about a possible presidential bid:

“We’ve never discussed this,” said Dave Carney, Abbott’s top political adviser who has worked on several presidential campaigns. “Never done any plans for it. No travel that would be a prelude to testing-the-waters type stuff. Just focused on things here in Texas.”

.
That being said he has yet to officially decline running himself, but I feel Abbott is no longer in the picture as a possible candidate. Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, interesting. Thank you! I was wondering why he had just disappeared. Thanks for keeping me up to date! Sneakycrown (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1148716387"