Talk:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ChaseOliverFeb2023.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lars Meapstead Portrait.png
• MiketerMaat.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

major candidate listing criteria

This is not an issue at the moment, as there are only a few people who have filed to run for president as a Libertarian so far, but there will be many more. In 2020, 65 people "ran" as Libertarians. We will need to agree on a standard that appropriately apprises the average non-Libertarian reader who is really running for the Libertarian nomination as opposed to those who just file paperwork in the most objective way possible. In 2020, we limited inclusion to those who had participated in at least two Libertarian Party-sponsored debates or whose campaigns have otherwise received significant media coverage. I think this is a good standard, but I am open to other ideas. Vrivasfl (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point. It did get a bit messy at one point last time around with the list getting bloated and overrun with token candidates. The two-debate and/or WP:RS-based significant media coverage standard worked pretty well for the most part in paring the list down to more serious/viable contenders for the nomination. That being said, I would like to see some consideration given to the three additional qualifiers that were discussed in the thread I linked to above, which were: a) candidate has served in an elected position on the Libertarian National Committee; b) has been a candidate on the ballot in a general election for a federal or state office (whether as Libertarian or otherwise); c) has previously run for the Libertarian nomination for president or vice president and received 5% or more of the vote (since <5% is the party's standard cutoff for elimination after the first ballot). Of course, a candidate would have to meet only one of the aforementioned criterions to be listed. Oh, and of course, if the candidate is Wikipedia-notable (i.e. has a standalone article and is a WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOL pass) and their candidacy is verifiable, they would obviously and automatically qualify for listing. IMO, this would be a fair and reasonable set of benchmarks, but I am also open to other ideas, and interested in hearing opinions and feedback from other editors. Sal2100 (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I am neutral about the first criterium. Is Arvin Vohra the only person this applies to? It's probably more common the other way around, previous political candidates ending up on the National Committee. I like the third criterium. I don't like the second criterium at all, and after reviewing the debate about this last time around, it's looks like we never reached a consensus as to which offices counts. We'll leave this open, but right now, we have (tentative) consensus on:

(1) has served in an elected position on the Libertarian National Committee;

(2) has received at least 5% of the vote in the nominating round of a previous run for president as a Libertarian (which is to say, they actually got on the ballot at the convention and were therefore actually eligible for the nomination);

(3) has been invited to participate in at least two Libertarian Party-sponsored presidential debates; or

(4) has received substantial media coverage, or is otherwise a Wikipedia-notable individual. Vrivasfl (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the second criterium (in my above comments), I believe the dispute last time around centered around state offices. I don't think there was disagreement regarding federal offices. Perhaps it should be revised to "has been a candidate on the ballot in a general election for a federal office or as a gubernatorial candidate (whether as Libertarian or otherwise)." I think there would be consensus that Governor, although a state office, is a major enough office to meet the benchmark. Sal2100 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Objection to "major" candidate designation

By declaring a "major" candidate it serves as an effectively an endorsement of those candidates who just happen to be more present.

We should strive to consider a more neutral stance on wikipedia rather than those solely selected as "notable"

As such I have to disagree with putting certain candidates over other ones in this respect, and instead listing candidates as a whole under a single umbrella as to not try to push for certain candidates over others.

additionally because of the infighting in the LP, certain candidates would be put as notable, then removed/replaced due to the feirce and toxic competition. Leading to edit wars on this page.

I would suggest not putting notable candidates at all, just to prevent any future edit wars and infighting in the forseeable future, and keeping wikipedia from being utilised as a sort of battleground among candidates. Dieselkeough (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone is free to add candidates sourced to reliable, independent sources. I noticed you added several that were sourced only to the candidates' own websites, so they had to be removed. You may re-add them if reliable news media has written stories about their candidacies. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to third parties traditional media does not cover them.

As such the representation that the media potrays does not reflect the entirety of the candidates who are actually running, and who will be seen at conventions and voted upon.

Therefore for a more complete picture of all candidates running, you must consider this is a convention party, and not a primary party. Most announcements come from the candidates themselves. Dieselkeough (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

For reference here is the 2020 Libertarian Candidates List many of these candidates received little to no media coverage and thus no media sources, however it includes every candidate who was voted on at the convention. Dieselkeough (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If they are not covered in "traditional media" they are not covered in Wikipedia. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is. Please familiarize yourself with our policy, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Yes, it is common for editors not to comply with the guidelines but that does not invalidate them; those are just poorly-written articles. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen here, Jack, this is a list, not a biography, and it’s simply not fair to not at least mention some of the other candidates who’ve filed. You can’t be goin’ on tryin’ to limit what the people wanna know, FEC filings are official as they get when it comes to who runnin’ and who ain’t runnin’ for president. So this ain’t no malarkey, it’s purely facts, facts the Wikipedia people need to be seein’. After all,!ain’t Wikipedia supposed to be the "largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written”? TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to Third parties, you cannot expect the same amount of coverage as The major parties would get. Often Wikipedia is the biggest source for people to learn about them as a result because of its open nature.

FEC filings should suffice as evidence enough that a candidate is running for President. Which is what the list is primarily for- not a biography which would nessecitate more mainstream media attention.

The fact of the matter is that this is not a biography. This is not an entire wikipedia page for each individual.

It is a list, and by not including candidates, the list itself is inaccurate, and the information on this page would be inaccurate.

If a candidate themselves say that they are running for the nomination, have filed with the FEC as such, and have participated in the convention process, this should be all that is required to mark them as a candidate. Dieselkeough (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that Jacob Hornberger is a wikipedia notable individual and has his own wikipedia page. Dieselkeough (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

25 star.

THIS IS A LIST.

Im not sure how to get it through your thick skull that the same standards you want to impose DO. NOT. APPLY. HERE.

Notability gudelines state clearly that:

"The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria"

The due weight and balance in no way justify what you are trying to implement here. And in fact, in the greater libertarian circle, which is what will be utilised /IN THE ELECTION/ Due to the convention style of voting, you are giving undu weight towards Joe Exotic, while disregaurding every single other mainstream candidate who have attended statewide conventions as /SPEAKER ROLES/.

Major contenders such as Mike Ter Maat, and Jacob hornberger who are running this cycle and are well known figures are being tossed aside because of this ridiculous notion you are setting yourself up as.

I cannot express enough how MINOR Joe exotic is when it comes to libertarian party internal politics. And you are setting standards so high that you are setting this wikipedia article up for incorrect and misleading information.

Lpediahas a far more accurate and up-to-date list of the people who are running. Because /this is a list/ and does not according to wikipedia itself, require those same ludicrous staindards you are trying to enforce here. 76.244.4.5 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, hear hear I suppose. TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You are expecting for libertarian candidates, often shunned by media (unless its a gag like Joe exotic) to somehow miraculously be able to get a major news network.

Hell we are using this as a source at the bottom.

We are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel here, and with Multiple sources, candidates themselves, convention speakers, Third party news outlets, Even a Stock market site have all repeatedly confirmed this, with multiple sources with multiple authors confirming it. I am not sure what to say.

This is a /list/. Not a biography of each individual. The Wikipedia:Notability guidelines state as much.

It is hard enough for libertarians to get noticed by the press all working together. You need to take into consideration that libertarians just wont get as much coverage, unless it is a celebrity who tosses their name in as a joke, and who ultimately will get nowhere in the party writ large due to the convention structure.

All that needs to be known is that they are running, because campaign announcements wont be touched. It is a pariah. Dieselkeough (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

While it's true that WP:NOTABILITY dosen't apply to lists, WP:VERIFY does. The point is that published reliable secondary sources are needed to verify the information. I disagree with the notion that FEC filings alone should suffice as a valid reference for several reasons:

a) As Vrivasfl pointed out in the original posting of this thread, 65 people filed as Libertarians in the last presidential election. The majority of them were merely vanity candidates who did little or nothing campaign-wise beyond filing with FEC, and were complete non-factors in the nomination race.

b) FEC filings are a primary source that virtually anybody can create. In recent election cycles, presidential filers have included a teenager and a cat.

c) A committee can file on a potential candidate's behalf before the candidate actually commits to a campaign. In some such cases, the would-be candidate never followed through.

So it's obvious that FEC filings are not, in and of themselves, reliable sources for verifying a legitimate candidacy. It does indeed suck that minor party candidates get so little press from reputable sources, but original research is disallowed on Wikipedia and we have to work within those parameters. With that being said, we have made allowances in the past for candidates listed as presidential candidates on the official LP website (per WP:PRIMARY plank#3). Presently, there are no candidates listed on the party site, but there will be in due time and I am confident that ones who removed from the page - Hornberger ter Maat, and Mapsted (among others) - will make that list. Sal2100 (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: found an RS that covers Mapsted and Ter Maat, so they have been re-added to the page. Sal2100 (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems fair and reasonable. Hopefully more coverage will be garnered or LPN puts out a "major" candidates listing.

Though we may need to change the citation regaurding third party watch, as its reliability may be questionable. Dieselkeough (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction, it was already fixed. I didnt see it. Dieselkeough (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Joe Exotic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joe Exotic has recently changed his affiliation and intention to run for the Democratic Party Nomination, rather than the Libertarian Party Nomination.

I beleive that he should be removed from the list as such.

However i think a footnote regaurding it should be laid out, with Joe Exotics candidacy being notable, we should also add a portion detailing the fight with Angela McArdle as that is also notable to that topic.

Src:https://www.fox23.com/news/fox23-speaks-with-joe-exotic-on-his-2024-presidential-run/article_3263f15c-d4bc-11ed-bce8-4706242f9e2e.html Dieselkeough (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hornberger as a major declared canidate?

Hornberger has declared his candidacy and despite not receiving any substantial media attention I believe he should be listed as a major candidate. Hornberger is among the most well-known libertarian candidates, and likely the most prominent out of any candidate declared so far. However, he has been listed by local3news, though I doubt that counts as a major source

https://www.local3news.com/local-news/full-and-ongoing-list-of-2024-registered-presidential-candidates/article_1e12ae46-03ce-11ee-8e5e-3fc55dc27e77.html Expoe34 (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike ter Maat link

If you click on Mike ter Maat's name on this page, you're redirected back to this page again. Nogoodbooks (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks for the notice.Sal2100 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add Michael Rectenwald to candidates list

Source:

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2023/08/author-and-scholar-michael-rectenwald-files-for-libertarian-presidential-bid/ ZekeOdak (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I followed your request and added a wikibox for him in the major declared candidates section. Additionally, I uploaded a photo of him for use on this page and for his Wikipedia article. Expoe34 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Chris Fronzak to declared intent to run

On "X," the platform formerly known as Twitter, musician Chris Fronzak made a declaration of his intent to run for the presidency. However, as of now, there has been no FEC filing submitted by Fronzak. To address this, I recommend creating a dedicated "Declared Intent to Run" section for him. I would be willing to contribute to this section, but I lack the technical skills required to do so. Expoe34 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If we were to have a section like that, it may be best to put both him and Joe Exotic in the same section, as to not clutter it. Wed need to find a good way to put both in the same section in my opinion. Dieselkeough (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have added him to the potential candidates list, as it is particularly notable. However, until we get an FEC filing, I dont think we should put him in the "declared candidates" section. Dieselkeough (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Amash out of the race.

Amash has said on his subscriber channel on twitter that he not seeking the libertarian nomination. However i am unsure how we can relay that as a source, seeing as its gated in a way to not allow a link to it for folks to verify. (Here is a link confirming he said it, but is mostly unrelated)

https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1709980745941283047?t=QgFrWsG7r_0qygCzd84Zkg&s=19 Dieselkeough (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

To do List

This is a list of things I intend to add when I have a chance, but it would be great if fellow editors could assist me in adding.

•Libertarian "Pumpkins & Peace" debate hosted by the N.J. L.P. on October 3rd. Featuring Joshua Smith, Chase Oliver, Mike Ter Maat, and Michael Rectenwald.

•Campaign logos for Smith, Mapstead, and Mallay (all look as if they're too simple to cross threshold of originality, so should be ok to add)

•Updating camapign finance table

•South Carolina LP debate scheduled to take place on November 11) (Check the South Carolina Libertarian Party Twitter/X account for details

Expoe34 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Libertarian Candidate

Please add Charles Ballay, MD to the candidate list 12.228.154.70 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A reliable secondary published source (not just an FEC filing and/or campaign website) that verifies the candidacy is needed for a candidate to be added to the list. If you have one, please post it here.Sal2100 (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Done, Charles Ballay has been added to the candidates section. It would be great if another editor can assist me in finding a copyright commons image to use, in addition to a high quality image of his campaign logo. Expoe34 (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

uploaded to commons. awaiting approval 198.135.255.21 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Candidate needs to be added.

Candidate Charles Ballay, MD needs to be included under candidates. www.Ballay2024.com. The candidate has a legit website, financing and registered with FEC. CB70072 (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Argumentative edits

Under the "Candidates" Section, I previously reverted a change a couple of months ago which stated:

"In previous cycles, the majority of these candidates did not appear on any ballots, raise money, or otherwise attempt to formally run a campaign."

Recently, this has come up again, and so I would like to bring it up here. This line is Argumentative, and provides no important context to the article at large, rather what it does do is attempt to paint a sour picture of the candidates that are being presented, rather than presenting the candidates as is.

I do not believe that this line is necessary, as in my opinion, it is a line that adds no real context to the candidates, and no information of any importance to the facts being presented, other than to throw shade.

Thanks kindly, Dieselkeough (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The same sentence appears in the "Candidates" section of the Democratic, Republican, and Green Party primaries page as well. I believe the intent is to give the reader some clarity as to why the majority of filed candidates are not included in the article. IMO, this serves a practical purpose and I don't believe the line is intended to be argumentative or "throw shade" on the candidates.

That being said, I can understand - with the way it's presently worded - how it could easily be taken that way. A re-phrasing would seem to be in order. Wording that is more neutralized and doesn't so easily lend itself to a negative interpretation. I welcome suggestions and feedback from fellow editors on this. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the this article in particular, I believe the Qualifications in the Declared candidates section does a handy job at clarifying to the reader what candidates the wiki covers, and how they are added.

I believe something like what we see in first paragraph of 'declared candidates', to clarify the qualifiers may be, are far better and far more fair and neutral for this purpose, laying out in clear terms what qualifies a candidate. (of course the qualifiers would need to be different for the Republicans and Democrats, simply because they gain more mainstream attention)

That is, unless there is another intent behind its inclusion. If there is another intent as to why it is necessary to include it in all US Primary wikis, I think its a good idea to seek clarification on the matter from the author of that particular addition, because otherwise, I don't really see it as particularly necessary for inclusion.

Additionally, The citation is showing the Democratic Party primaries for 2020 rather than the Libertarian Party. It may be worth fixing that as well, assuming we find a reputable source for it.Dieselkeough (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are all fair points. I am pinging @Politicdude:, the editor who originally inserted the line in the major parties primaries articles (it should be noted that the wording has been tweaked by other editors since it was first added), and whose input here - if they so desire to chime in - would be helpful and appreciated. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I added this because I thought that it was interesting to add the total number of candidates filed with the FEC, but it's important to note that it's very easy to appear on that list, as you just need to file a form; you don't need to even be eligible to run for President, and it doesn't guarantee ballot access, as that's handled by states. Since a "Presidential candidate" in the common usage of the term is someone who appears on the ballot, I think that caveat is very important to include, but I don't have any opinion for how it should be worded, and I definitely think we could use a better source. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2024-primary/cert-list-candidates.pdf CB70072 (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That's just for California, and even then it doesn't fully support the claim much better than any other sources. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Primaries ballot access

It is well known that the LP nominates at convention and does not allow primaries to bind delegates. Therefore, the primaries are not necessarily reflective of who is a 'legitimate' candidate and who isn't. Thus, when keeping track of primary ballot access it is best to be focused on who is on these primary ballots. Joshua Smith is more of a legitimate candidate in terms of presence and coverage than Charles Ballay, but Smith is only on the North Carolina ballot which is the most crowded and includes a Toad and a Time Traveler. Ballay is on two primary ballots and is the only candidate on in California. A primary ballot access chart that includes a column for Smith and doesn't include one for Ballay is not performing its primary function of conveying who is on what primary ballots in the most efficient manner, nor will it make sense when the results of these primaries are shown to have a candidate winning a primary who is only listed on the ballot access chart as a footnote. A chart that has a column for Ballay and not one for Smith more accurately reflects the reality of ballot status as well as the reality that the primaries will not directly affect delegate voting at convention. Okcgunner (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Ballay does not currently meet the requirements to be a major candidate, and candidates who don't meet major candidate requirements do not get a separate column in the ballot access table. If Ballay actually receives significant votes in the elections, he will become a major candidate.

Right now the best thing would be to find reliable sources citing Ballay as a candidate so that he can be moved to the proper place. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Keenan Dunham Wallace

Despite not meeting the qualification criteria for any ballots, I argue that he meets the notability criteria, given his coverage by an independent source, furthermore, he was featured in the Libertarian Party's 2020 Wikipedia page. Expoe34 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The source you linked, Grumblings Media, appears to be a self-published source which does not satisfy WP:RS. As for his being listed on the 2020 page, if I recall correctly, it was because he qualified for multiple party-sponsored debates in that race. If he does the same in the 2024 race, or if his campaign receives non-trivial coverage in an RS, he can be added to the main candidate list. For the time being, however, he does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Art Olivier as a major canidate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems that Art Olivier is vying for the Libertarian Party's nomination and currently satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. However, I couldn't locate any FEC filing attributed to him. The question is whether he should be placed in the "declared candidates" section or listed among potential candidates, similar to Chris Fronzak, who declared a bid but never had any FEC filings. Expoe34 (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

https://art2024.org/art-olivier-for-president-2024/ Expoe34 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Until we can find some official sources to verify his candidacy, I think he should be listed as a potential candidate à la Chris Fronzak. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please add Charles Ballay, MD to declared candidate list 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please add Charles Ballay, MD to declared candidate list 2024. Candidate is registered with FEC

https://health.usnews.com/doctors/charles-ballay-122541 CB70072 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Approved. By virtue of being invited to 2 LNC-sanctioned debates, Charles Ballay has met the requirements of being a major candidate and has been added as such. Longestview (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Please add Charles Ballay to declared Presidential Candidiates 2024 CB70072 (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Declined The request states that the candidate is registered with the FEC, but no reference was provided confirming this. Regards,  Spintendo 

The overriding issue is that the candidate is presently lacking coverage in published secondary/independent reliable media sources (at least none has been found thus far). Per WP:V (and a longstanding consensus among Wikipedia editors based on that policy), primary (e.g. FEC filing) and self-published (e.g. campaign website) sources alone are not sufficient. If this were the case, then pretty much anyone who wanted to get their name/picture in Wikipedia could do nothing more than fill out the the fec forms and have a website created, to be listed as a "candidate". To distinguish between the legitimate candidates and the "on paper only" candidates (of which there are many in every cycle), we need independent verification of the candidacy via reputable secondary sources and/or official recognition of the candidate by the party (e.g. an official listing of party-recognized candidates, verified inclusion in more than one party-sponsored debate/forum). If and when the candidate meets this criteria, he will be to the "declared candidates" listing. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for addressing what the inclusion criteria was here, it's much appreciated! Regards,  Spintendo  23:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

FEC form is here. Secondary source issue remains. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

https://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/52233-california-secretary-of-state-releases-list-of-presidential-candidates-for-march-5-2024-presidential-primary-election

Ballay is included. CB70072 (talk) 14:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.carolinajournal.com/north-carolinas-2024-presidential-primary-candidates-approved/ 2603:8080:4D00:4514:A93D:5E92:DFC5:2D5B (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forums section

Has there been any recent non-debate canidate forums to add? It's severely outdated. 2603:8080:4D00:4514:3486:4E10:4298:BD23 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Major candidate threshold

Via the current guidelines of being invited to two debates, Charles Ballay is a major candidate now. However, as there have already been nine debates announced (and with four months until the convention we are on pace for like 20) I feel the two invite threshold should be raised. Any thoughts? Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I think instead of "invited" being the threshold, it should be "participated" this way it thins out the list for those who are actually travelling to multiple different states to campaign rather than the stay-at-home ballot fillers. Dieselkeough (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Texas Debate

LPTX has made it clear that not all listed for their donation drive will make it to the debates.

We should hold off on describing who has been "invited" for the purpouses of the debates section and the major candidates section until the LPTX debates happen proper. Dieselkeough (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is listed as invited on the chart for the Texas debate? Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think someone mentioned it as part of a qualifier for another candidate because they were listed as part of the people who had the potential to participate. so I thought it was worth mentioning. Dieselkeough (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Debate qualifications

Was able to find the qualification rules for the SC + TX debates and the OK forum but if anyone is aware of the rules for other debates please add! (bit of a longshot I know) Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Any CC images of Joseph Collins Jr.?

With Collins' inclusion into the major candidates section, he's the sole candidate without an image. On my own, I have attempted to find any potential creative commons videos on YouTube or images on Flickr, to no avail.

I am wondering if anyone could aid in my search. Expoe34 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

He's also the only candidate without his date of birth listed. It would be helpful if someone could get that information as well. 172.59.221.184 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Vice presidential candidate section seems undue

The Vice presidential candidate section seems to be in violation of WP:UNDUE and of the page's currently established inclusion standards. The two individuals listed are both non-notable and one is sourced by a twitter/x post, the other by Independent Political Report (which has been deemed an unreliable source on WP). There are no inclusion standards listed in the section, which I think there should be. IMO, the same inclusion standards that apply to the presidential candidates should apply to the VP candidates as well, or at least something comparable. At the very least, we should require better than primary or non-WP:RS-compliant sources, particularly for non-notable individuals. Sal2100 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, and I totally agree Expoe34 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Reforming the candidate requirements

Collins hasn't even had a news article covering him, doesn't even have a known birthdate or image and only reaches the criteria through being in a debate, which mostly anyone could qualify for. 2603:8080:4D00:4514:E40E:ACF5:1773:16F2 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents, I believe in order for a candidate to qualify, they must've atleast won a single vote. Expoe34 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Mass. results and unofficial numbers

Does anyone have the results for the Massachusetts primary that took place on Super Tuesday? I've not been able to find this information on the web. Also, I've noticed that many of the vote totals listed are "unofficial", according to their sources. Should there be a note saying that these numbers are not yet official, and subject to revision? I think that would be helpful to the reader. Alf73ey (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

David TimeTraveler Dunlap

I believe a candidate should be included as long as they reach 1% of the vote. With Dunalp's 1.2% he currently has a higher share of the vote than featured candidates: Joseph Collins Jr., Art Olivier and Joshua Smith; And is about even with Mike Ter Maat. Expoe34 (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)