Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Rfc on inclusion for the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Interest in this discussion has declined sufficiently to warrant closure; there is a clear consensus to implement option B. ——Serial 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

We already established that we are not going to add the Libertarian or the Green party in the infobox. This means that the "access to 270 electoral votes" criteria is not in use anymore.
Question: What should qualify for a candidate's inclusion in the infobox?
Options:
A. Must be a major political party
B. above 5% average in polls
C. Access to 270 electoral votes (old)
D. other

Thanks, Nojus R (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment - just to clarify, we are talking about before the election, not after the election. Nojus R (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

B - Post election, a candidate must have 5% or more to be in the infobox, so it would make sense to include candidates polling over 5%. Nojus R (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A - Third party figures are not (automatically) notable, relevant, or legitimate. KidAd (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

B - Per the reasoning of Nojus R above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

B If you want consistency, here it is, consistent pre- and post-election. However, polling averages change over time so I would expect 5% to be at least reasonably maintained, not adding (or removing) someone the moment they poll above (below) that, noting that pollsters have consistently observed third parties underperform their polls. While A is decent starting point, it is not tenable in all cases. Ballot access has negligible relationship to RS coverage (WP:UNDUE), voter interest, or actual results so C is preposterous. Reywas92^Talk 05:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

C - Tying it to polling averages, which are constantly in flux throughout an election campaign seems arbitrary and ultimately not a good idea. It's also possible many if not a majority of polling firms would not include the third-parties (as they seem to be doing this year) which would make it impossible for the third-parties regardless. I also anticipate there would be a lot of arguing over which polls to include and not include in the average. I think the previous consensus on access to 270 was fine. It feels like to go beyond that in judging inclusion or exclusion from the infobox is unfair. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

B This is the criterion that would be most respectful with WP:V, WP:NPOV and avoid WP:UNDUE issues. We should be giving candidates as much prominence as sources do award them, not attempt to have Wikipedia lead the way by artificially awarding such prominence ourselves. Criterion A is problematic because there may be sometimes where candidates outside any major party may attain prominence on their own, whereas C was a very tricky criterion which had nothing to do with actual notability (plus, it was unfair: it meant that a candidate having access to 270 EVs would be given equal prominence to one having access to the full 538 college. On which basis?). B is the most coherent one and the most respectful of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so by all means go for it. Impru20^talk 10:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If a political party has over a million registered voters, ballot access to enough electoral college votes to win, and its running a candidate for office, how is it WP:UNDUE to include them in the article, but not the infobox? Likewise, how is it not a WP:CBALL violation to not include them in the page when we in fact have no idea as to how they will preform in the actual election?XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

A million registered voters in a country of over a hundred million registered voters is very insignificant, if what you suggest is to count that as some sort of qualifier. The infobox is meant as a summary depicting the most notable candidacies, not as a representation of every minor candidate running for election. Precisely, putting a candidate with just one million registered voters at par with those with tens of millions of registered voters is what constitutes UNDUE. Wikipedia is limited to representing sources. It cannot "right" any perceived injustice nor serve as a platform to raise the notability of minor candidacies.

Likewise, how is it not a WP:CBALL violation to not include them in the page when we in fact have no idea as to how they will preform in the actual election? Can you explain how would that be a CBALL violation, please? I can't see the point at all. Specially when they are included elsewhere in the article: we do not exclude information from candidates in the article, but there is a misconception of the infobox having to show every candidate and that not doing so is unfair. That's not the case at all. Impru20^talk 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

B, I think B is fair enough, if a candidate is averaging (emphasis on averaging) 5% in polling, then clearly they are of some significance to the race, since that is a reasonably high bar. For example, Gary Johnson, assuming we are taking the step of averaging out poll aggregators, did not reach that bar on election night 2016. If a third party candidate ever has legitimate traction in the vein of Ross Perot or early-mid 2016 Gary Johnson they will be in the infobox, if they are just a random nobody they will get excluded. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

B I agree that 5% polling average seems a decent indicator of notablity for wikipedia encyclopedic purposes. Though I do have concerns about a candidate who is right on the line and people coming and adding and removing said candidate based upon the day's average polling. Perhaps if they reach 5% average, they have earned their spot for the rest of the election?Tchouppy (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Soft B (leaning more inclusive) - After the election, as usual, we should include anyone who receives Electoral College delegates (and was actually running) or who receives >5% of the vote. That said, this RfC seems to be about what to do before the election has occurred. In the past, I have been in support of some kind of polling criteria (if it can be fairly applied) but as Basil the Bat Lord there can be problems with this criteria if the third parties (and any serious independent) are not included in the polls. I think this criteria would have to be based on these four-way polls. Perhaps, it would be appropriate for it to be slightly lower, say 4% (but I can live with 5%). While it doesn't affect things this time around, I also think any party (or independent) who received 5% of the vote or won a state/DC in the previous election should be included in the infobox of the following election if they are running or running a party candidate (the previous election rule). Furthermore, if any candidate is consistently polling over 5% in state/DC polls (or had received 5% in the last election in that state/DC), I think they should be included in the infobox for the particular state/DC race (but not in the infobox for this main page, unless they meet the other criteria). This perhaps should be called the Evan McMullin rule. I think it is clear that he should be in the 2016 United States presidential election in Utah infobox and should have been before the 2016 election as well, because he was garnering significant coverage and polling above 5%. If he runs again, though I haven't seen anything to say he will be, I think we should automatically include him in the Utah infobox (because he received over 20% last time).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, by "Soft B" I mean I lean towards more inclusive options. I am opposed to A (only ever including Dems/GOP), but not fully convinced ballot access alone should be the test we apply. While my view comes with a lot of caveats as outlined below, I generally think we should be on the more permissive side of Option B.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

D 5% of actual votes cast in the election - no polls. Polls often overstate how many people vote for the third party candidate. Let them actually reach 5% on Election Day before putting them in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, unless I am mistaken, we are talking about the standard for before the election has occurred. After the election, the usual standard of 5% (or perhaps alternatively winning electoral college votes) would apply. What do you think the standard should be for inclusion before the election? Before we know how people will vote?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, didn't notice that. Then I guess I'm with you on the Soft B in that most third party candidates aren't relevant even if they do get to 5%, but there are some cases where it may be worth mentioning on a case by case basis. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

2%'. I agree with the sentiment in B. No need for low-polling (before elections) or low-result (after elections) candidates. 5% is however high, above 2% is more inclusive. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
C The old ballot access standard worked fine, I would argue it should be changed to eliminate write in access though. It is highly unlikely that more than 5 or 6 candidates at most will actually get more than 270 electoral votes worth of ballot access. Its a fair objective standard that is not subject to any Wiki:Crystal violations. Most other countries election pages have in excess of 2 candidates listed, so any arguement about cluttering the infobox is void. There are no wiki:Weight issues because as the election has not happened yet, we don't know which candidates will in fact meet the 5% threshold to remain on the page and it has already been determined that the Green and Libertarian parties have enough notability to be mentioned in the lead and other parts of the article already.XavierGreen (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment I'd wish to supplement my !vote earlier, but wish to put this separately since I think this could be an important addition. Aside of the 5%-nationwide polling criterion, we should be able to add a candidate to the infobox, even if they fall the 5% criterion, whenever they poll, on average, as the most voted candidate in any given state. This is rare nowadays, but take for example the situation of the 1948 United States presidential election: Thurmond was not polling near 5%, neither qualified for running in at least 50%+1 of EVs (266 back then), yet he won with 70-80% of the vote in several states and is shown in the infobox because of winning electoral votes. And I said "rare" and not "impossible" because back in 2016 Evan McMullin was speculated to be close to win Utah, and thus, being able to secure some EVs despite him hardly polling above 1% on average nationally (and he only had access to 84 EVs as well, so C wouldn't work in situations like these either). This was my clarification. Impru20^talk 19:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
C Ballot access standard should be the norm. Relying on polling stats is not sufficient, as polls have historically not included 3rd party candidates, simply listing them as "Independent" or "Other," which is not an accurate representation. Simply stating they aren't important enough is a Crystal Ball (I'm sorry, I don't know how to make those cool links, still learning how to edit things), as we have no way of knowing if this is the year a 3rd party actually is relevant, which has been the case in other elections around the world. By changing the consensus from previous years ballot access to 5%, the bar is being raised seemingly on purpose to exclude 3rd party candidates, when they may have met the previous standards. If they poll at 5%, theoretically the bar could be raised next election to 7%, or to having so many electoral votes in previous elections etc, which could then be interpreted as editors using the I don't like it (again, sorry, I don't know how to add the link), to avoid adding the candidate no matter what consensus was reached, simply because they don't want to. By common logic, if I can walk into my polling place and click the button for a third party candidate by name, they should be listed in the infobox, as they are a viable option. Ballots don't put third party candidates that qualify on the last page at the bottom in smaller print. --Boogiesmommy2004 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability. If polls and reliable sources do not give enough notability to third party candidates, it is not the work of Wikipedia to "right" that. Impru20^talk 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It is verifiable that when I go to vote in the United States election as a United States citizen, she will be listed by name on the ballot with the other three candidates, not tucked into the bottom somewhere out of sight. And polls are arguably not verifiable information, as evidenced by the 2016 election where Hillary polled higher than Trump and ended up losing, and it would depend on which polls used; as the numbers would vary and some wouldn't include certain candidates at all, then there would be a whole new debate over why the polls should or should not count.*edited to add my signature--Boogiesmommy2004 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not what WP:V means. V, together with WP:NPOV, means that information (and notability) must be verifiable, and that hose must be presented fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. Note that it says "proportionally": i.e. fairness is not determined by giving equal prominence to all candidates, as that would mean outweighting some candidates compared to others with respect to what sources told us about them.

The infobox is meant as a summary of the election, not as your "ballot paper"; all information pertaining to all election candidates is already present in the article, and this is something that should be reminded again and again and again and as many times as it's needed. It's just not true that they're ommited. But the infobox only summarizes those bits of information which are more relevant or more notable. As you yourself point out, the 2016 election can be used as an example of many things: it can also be used as an example of how Libertarian and Green candidates ended up in a much lower place than what initial expectations predicted, so as to not being able to even reach the 5% threshold that is typically used to add candidates in US election infoboxes. Expectations for those candidates as of 2020 are much, much lower, according to currently published, reliable sources. And we, as Wikipedia, cannot help further or create an illusion of such expectations when sources do not provide for them. Impru20^talk 23:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

C - Not that I think it will happen, I'm sure another fire brigade would be called in should it seem that the original consensus might be restored. --Ariostos (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment, I’m going to ping everyone who participated in the previous discussion who has not yet commented here, since this has turned into yet another discussion over the old criteria. Why must we insist on having these spats every couple of weeks. JLMadrigal, Casprings, Cards84664, Jgstokes, SharabSalam, Nice4What, DemonDays64, Shivertimbers433, Yeah 93, Antony-22, User:JayCoop, Benjamin.P.L, Rami R, Jp16103, Governor123987. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest this is because consensus is not actually being reached. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It was. Twice. Tallies of 18-8 and 16-7 in favour of exclusion are about as clear a consensus as you can get. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At least one of those was inappropriately closed by a sockpuppet, and at any rate, "Consensus is not a Majority Vote" (I don't know how to make pretty links or I would include one here) HeroofTime55 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that a sockpuppet closed the discussion does not make The discussion illegitimate, it just means it should be relisted and closed by someone else. WP:NOTAVOTE applies in a situation where a discussion is home to people who clearly do not know what they are doing, like say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Iversen. This is a situation where two groups of editors are disagreeing, both citing different policies and what they believe is the right thing to do. It is kind of hard to claim that your position is the consensus option when your are outnumbered two to one by editors in good standing arguing legitimate points. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not arguing that my position is a consensus, I am arguing that it is questionable if we have one, or had one, and whether or not it is strong enough to override prior long-established consensus. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we had a consensus. Clear as day, and to claim otherwise is a denial of the facts and basic logic. The previous consensus was established in a messy discussion on the 2012 Talk Page that clearly did not have any structure at all, and there was no serious further discussion until the first discussion we had not long ago. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

D - Case by case consensus basis to include or not include. I realize that's not what the goal is here, but I don't see any reasonable way around it. I would support a polling cutoff, but as some have discussed above, there are many details to deal with. Need there be just one poll at 5% or above? Three polls? Only polls from selected pollsters? A polling average? Which polling average? I think in any case, we will still be back here discussing whether some candidate has reached some threshold or not. Another factor to consider is performance of a particular party in the past election. In my opinion (just my opinion!), the third-party candidates are weaker than those in 2016. Past consensus is not wrong in my view. Third parties will have a role in this election just as any other, but will not rise to the level of Ross Perot or John Anderson, and it is clear to me that this is an election of Trump versus Biden. The infobox should reflect that, with the article discussing all the nuances such as third-party candidates in appropriate sections. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
B, per WP:UNDUE. Cards84664 22:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I do want to address the UNDUE claim. This seems to be rooted in media polling as an estimate for the likelihood of a candidate winning. But many prominent sources list both the LP and Green candidates as running, and if the infobox is meant as a summary of the upcoming election, it should encompass the accurate picture of that upcoming election. Media polling is not the only kind of source, and a survey of the top results on Google for "2020 presidential candidates" reveals (to me) the following list, in order:

NY Times article listing Trump and Biden[1]
Ballotpedia entry listing Biden, Trump, Jorgensen, and Hawkins[2]
Fox News entry listing Biden, Trump, and inexplicably, Mark Cuban[3]
CNN entry listing Biden and Trump[4]
This very Wikipedia article, WP:NOTSOURCE applies
Town And Country Mag listing Trump, Biden, Jorgensen, Hawkins, and West (despite West having not filed with FEC)[5]
A dated article from The Atlantic that opens with speculation on Justin Amash running for the LP nomination, before going into an extensive list of Primary candidates for R and D as well as a smattering of speculative 3rd Party possibilities.[6]

Search results of course will vary depending on who is doing the search, as is how these massive tech companies operate, but I would imagine most people would find a similar result. This suggests that it is not at all undue weight being given to prominent 3rd party candidates to include them in the infobox. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A and if another candidate increases, consensus to add based on WP:RS and polls.Casprings (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
C - First of all, above all else, I believe changing the metric on the eve of an election is dangerous and invites bias; if there is a cause to change the criteria, I believe that the consensus must be overwhelming. I believe a 'lower standard for consensus,' for lack of a better phrasing, is acceptable to discuss the criteria for 2024 and beyond, but on the eve of the 2020 election, it is almost unavoidable that our biases don't influence our opinions. Therefore, I consider it the best route to tend to stick with prior consensus unless there is an overwhelming consensus to change, which I do not believe we have. To the question of which criteria is best, I do also believe ballot access to 270 electoral votes is the best criteria to use. 270 electoral votes being the number necessary to win the election, this essentially provides a list of all persons qualified to win the election, of which to my best knowledge, there are four (Trump, Biden, Jorgensen, and Hawkins), and there will only be four as deadlines for qualification have passed (so no Kanye, for example). This is not an overly excessive number so as to cause clutter, and despite some arguments that the LP and Greens are not notable enough, I believe that is merely the insertion of political opinion. They are notable in that they have qualified to win, regardless of anyone's perceptions of their chances. There is no undue weight whatsoever in fully listing the very tiny number of people who have actually qualified to win office. There is no undue weight whatsoever to listing candidates that have managed the very difficult task of mustering 270-EV ballot access. The leading counter-proposal seems to be 5% average in polls, which I will state flatly is a deeply flawed mechanism, if for no other reason than that the LP and Greens are routinely excluded from reliable polling, by media organizations that, frankly, are more interested in the polarized Trump vs Biden debate right now than in polling for all candidates. 5% polling average is deeply flawed as it relies on media sources rather than the National Popular Vote, which is used to determine the post-election infobox. These numbers are NOT the same, and media polling simply cannot be treated as a reliable or accurate figure. The Popular Vote rules for post-election infobox are fine, but media polls are not the equivalent of actual votes. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I wish to amend my position - I believe the best criteria should be to include in the infobox any party that has a section in the article since the infobox is supposed to reflect and summarize the article. Anything less would be inaccurate. However, I still think the 270EV standard is superior to 5% in media polling which doesn't include third parties as an option (and which include "Other" polling anywhere from 5%-10%), and so I should still be counted as supporting C over B (although I also don't believe C should be to the exclusion of other criteria, such as a candidate polling extremely well in only a handful of States). But really, the infobox should just be a reflection of the article. HeroofTime55 (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended discussion between HeroofTime55 and Impru20. Closer and others may wish to read, but collapsed for convenience.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Being qualified to win the election does not make a candidate any more likely to win any EV nor, for instance, more notable. Strom Thurmond was a notable candidate in the 1948 United States presidential election, won 39 electoral votes and four states (securing >70% of the votes in three of them) yet he was not "qualified to win the election" (he only had ballot access to 194 EVs, far below the 266 then required to win). It's common for many candidates "qualifying to win the election" to have lackluster performances (there's plenty of historical evidence for that, the latest of which you can find in the 2016 election itself), so that by itself is not an useful standard. UNDUE is typically brought because arguing that media and polling cannot be regarded as reliable sources and that we should judge ourselves on a candidate's notability is outrightly contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (and, in essence, to its second pillar). Impru20^talk 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, judging the likelihood of them winning an actual EV is WP:CRYSTAL. The election is 4 months away, and things can change, people are firing up their campaigns, a lot is in flux. Likewise, prior performance means nothing related to future performance. This isn't about the 2016 election, it's about 2020 and beyond. Media polling most often does not even include LP or Green as options. There are, strictly speaking, biased reasons for that. Excluding qualified candidates, strictly speaking, is a bias unto itself. I am not "judging for myself" a candidate's notability, and in fact, it seems that you are the one doing so, in judging a candidate's lack of notability. The Strom Thurmond case is an interesting one, as clearly he had the potential to influence the outcome of that election. In a hypothetical upcoming election with similar circumstances, I would not consider the 270-EV rule to be exclusionary to someone who is significantly notable on other metrics. It's an inclusive rule rather than an exclusive rule. Secondary standards could and should be devised. Perhaps if Kanye starts polling above a threshold in certain states with open write-in ballots, the argument could start to be made that he may win some EVs and upset the balance of the election. But as it stands, we KNOW that the LP and the Greens have a consistent track record of upsetting the balance, their vote totals each routinely significantly exceeding the margin of difference between the D and R in prior elections. I've already accused you of predicting the future and I am dangerously close to being a hypocrite on that - I don't believe that argument should be the one that is used, it's merely a different counter-argument than the one I rely on, which is that 270-EV access is a clear marker of qualification to win, and it is bias to make the assumption that one cannot based on media performance or past party performance. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is excluding them from the infobox based on any likelihood of them winning an actual EV; factually, one could also argue that pushing to have them in the infobox by assuming they have any reasonable chance of securing any EV, despite this not being provided for in any source, would be equally (or more) CRYSTALBALLish. Their likelihood (or lack thereof) of securing any EV is not an element of decision-making here. Nor should be. It's sources that should guide the way for us, and these are very overwhelming on this issue. Pretending to set a 270 EV-ballot access criterion which means nothing in terms of notability (remember: being qualified to win an election does not make a candidate any more likely to win any EV) is a false pretense: hundreds of candidates being qualified for 50%+1 of EVs have historically and utterly failed in winning any single EV. Only a handful of those have done so, and an even lesser number have went on to subsequently become POTUS. Concurrently, we've seen examples of candidates "unqualified for winning" becoming notable on their own right. Thus, the ballot access criterion clearly misses the point entirely, fails its alleged function and only helps raise WP:UNDUE concerns. It's fairly obvious we should move on and stick to some criteria that not only is more respectful of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but also is more helpful in achieving its aim to fairly and proportionately represent notable candidates in the infobox. Opinion polling would be a fairly good register at that.

Otherwise, and picking up a reply from you to another comment below, why 270? Why not the full 538 college? Or 400? Or 200? Setting the focus of argument on the alleged arbitrariness of one value will only raise questions on the arbitrariness of the other value. No source establishes 270 as a criterion under which a candidate automatically becomes notable, and we shouldn't be determining ourselves such notability based on our own pre-judged and unsourced criteria. Remember, every information posted in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Anything beyond that falls in the category of original research. Impru20^talk 00:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Why 270? Because 270 is currently the required number of EVs that a candidate needs to win the Electoral College (barring it getting kicked to the House of Representatives for nobody meeting that threshold). Simple as that. Having ballot access to 270 EVs determines whether or not it is in the realm of possibility of winning the Electoral College. Obviously, this number should change when the Census comes in and if any other States are admitted to the Union, to consistently be equal to the number needed to win the EC outright. This makes absolutely perfect sense, and the requirements to gain ballot access to this many EVs are quite significant, and certainly noteworthy - I flatly reject the claim that this falls under UNDUE. It does not. The Green and LP, again, routinely collect a significant amount of votes that exceed the margin between candidates in various states, and therefore routinely influence the outcome of the election. That is anything but undue weight. I will make the suggestion that the motive to change the requirements in this hyper-partisan era largely rests with a desire to limit the exposure of "spoiler" candidates. That is why, at the core of my suggestion, is that prior consensus should be kept (having been improperly overruled by questionable voting) and this should be decided AFTER the 2020 election, well in advance of 2024, so as to avoid the influence of personal biases - and yes, the bias to exclude perceived "spoiler" candidates is absolutely a bias. 270 is a clear line, either you are qualified to win or you are not. The Consensus from 2012 and 2016 should be upheld and this discussion should take place after the election and WELL in advance of 2024. There is far too much potential for the injection of bias right now, and and I feel an absolutely overwhelming level of consensus would be necessary to change prior rules now, on the eve of the election. I do strongly believe that this change has been pushed to exclude legitimate candidates from their very much DUE placement in the infobox. They're qualified, they're running; erasing them, based on their performance in polls they are not even presented in, is biased and wrong. The decision cannot be made until after the election without being called into question for bias, and that is why prior efforts to achieve consensus have failed repeatedly. The timing is extremely poor.

The 270 threshold means something - it means that they are qualified to win. 5% in media polls means nothing and is arbitrary, and choosing a number such as 5% instead of 4% or 6% means that you are judging their notability in ways that simply using a qualification standard (270 EVs) does not judge. The prior standard is clear and consistent and not subject to shifting winds. HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Why 270? Because 270 is currently the required number of EVs that a candidate needs to win the Electoral College And once again, this has no relevance whatsover on a candidate's notability or chances ahead of an election, nor do sources use it as a value for acknowledging a candidate's notability. This is why it's problematic. Taking my previous arguments for reproduced since this is a mere reiteration of previous reasonings and I don't want to be circular in here. Impru20^talk 08:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You are straight up wrong about sources declaring candidates not notable. I'm personally a fan of Ballotpedia as a pretty unbiased and fair source, and their page literally states that 4 candidates have met their standards for notability.[7] Their metric is different (capturing ballot access in 15 states, rather than 270 EVs which is a higher standard) but has the same outcome in the case of the 2020 election. Notability is inherent in qualifying, and is not arbitrary, like 5% is. HeroofTime55 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Doublepost, but any argument from "chances" is WP:CRYSTAL so "notability" is the only concern, and qualifying is notable. You have also failed to address the concern of heavy bias to making these changes on the eve of an election as opposed to years in advance, when the changes SHOULD be made. The new threshold being promoted is arbitrary, poorly-timed, and improperly implemented without the level of consensus needed. Revert to old standard and discuss after the election when bias can be removed from the situation. 5% was chosen with the predetermined goal of removing the LP and Green parties - you're crafting a standard to meet political objectives. HeroofTime55 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources. Ballotpedia may do as they please, but that's not of our concern nor can they be regarded as a reliable source.

No one is making any argument from "chances". What we say is that the infobox is not intended to reflect a ballot paper. All information about candidates is already included in the article, but information in the infobox is limited to the most notable candidates, because it's intended as a summary and not as an include-all template. Once again, if sources do not give such notability, it's not Wikipedia's job to give it ourselves.

On the "heavy bias" issue: firstly, it's not biased just because the consensus is happening before the election. I find that troubling. Discussions about this issue already took place earlier in the year, yet despite the consensus for change being clear it was delayed because of several intermediating issues. Reaching consensus is by no means a matter of "heavy bias". If that was the case, you should know that the previous consensus for 2016 was established in an (albeit somewhat chaotic) discussion that spanned from October 2016 (this is, barely one month before the election) to election day itself. I don't think anyone thought back then than doing so implied a "heavy bias". Impru20^talk 15:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

First Ballotpedia is NOT a mirror of Wikipedia - a mirror means a clone. Just because they use a wiki format does not render them a clone, fork, or sister project of Wikipedia, and they unequivocally are none of those things. Ballotpedia is privately edited by a hired staff, and is lauded as a reliable and neutral source. WP:NOTSOURCE does not apply here.

Secondly, you have literally used the word "chances" multiple times now in describing why you think certain candidates should be excluded, and in in the very post I was replying to, don't gaslight me. You have struggled to come up with a rationale for why achieving 270 EV ballot access is not sufficient notability for the infobox. As it stands, the current infobox (with only 2 candidates) fails to represent the election accurately. The argument for 270 EV is crystal clear - it includes by definition all candidates that are qualified to win the Electoral College. For 2020, that is four candidates, no more, no less. There is plenty of DUE cause and weight to have the infobox properly reflect the actual election, rather than for it to be a canvas for certain persons to erase candidates that they would rather not have visible. That's an accusation, but I have yet to hear any rational reason for why 5% in media polls is better than 3% or 8% or any other arbitrary number, let alone why it is superior to 270 EV ballot access, and further, even at the top of this very RfC, it is stated that "it was decided that the LP and Green won't be included" - No decision of any standard, but rather, a decision targeting parties, and a discussion to craft a standard around meeting that objective. The bias here is crystal clear. The 2012 and 2016 standard should be kept, and this article should be immediately reverted to the prior consensus. Erasure of "third parties" is a real thing, it's a biased thing, and you're doing it. There's zero rational reason why 5% polling average should be used, except that it happens to exclude candidates you want excluded.

As to the bias, it is inescapable at this point in the cycle. People who want to see their "big party" candidate elected have a vested and strong interest in erasing the visibility of what they perceive as "spoiler" candidates they think are a threat to their chances. And yes, proponents of those candidates naturally are upset when they see this bias implemented, which is in itself another bias. It is impossible to separate that, and that is why the best course would be to maintain the prior 8 years of consensus and then discuss future changes for 2024 and beyond AFTER this election has taken place, when biases will no longer be running on overdrive in the midst of an intense electoral season. That is why I believe the required level of consensus to override the established criteria must be truly overwhelming and with very good and rational cause - say, in your Strom Thurmond example, where there would have been good cause to make an adjustment. There is no such cause here, only (an openly stated) motivation to erase the LP and Greens and come up with a reason for it after you've already decided that desired outcome. HeroofTime55 (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ballotpedia was originally was a "community-contributed web site, modeled after Wikipedia" which is now edited by paid staff. It "contains volumes of information about initiatives, referenda, and recalls." It's not the exact same as Wikipedia, in the sense that it's now edited by paid staff, but the point still upholds. You wouldn't use another wiki or enclosed-contribution site as a reliable source (and definitely not about their own made-up criteria for determining relevancy, which so far no other source seems to back up), but even in the case you would, you'd still have to weight Ballotpedia together with all other sources in the larger picture. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of sources do not support your claim, so you cherry-picking of one source and sticking on to it only increases the UNDUE concerns at stake here.

Too long, I won't read a repetition of the same 270-EV arguments/foundless accusations for the eleventh time. What you say about what I said is simply not true, and I've already explained myself countless times.

Again, previous discussions in 2012 and 2016 took place up until election day. If you insist on your absurd "heavy bias" accusation, then you yourself would have to acknowledge than the previous ballot access criterion was "heavily biased", because it was established right before the actual elections. Absurd, right? No serious discussion about infobox criteria for inclusion has ever taken place after an election (nor would do, because literally no one cares for it three years before it's of any concern LOL), and that you insist on demanding people to wait until after the election to replace a dead consensus is just as unreasonable as your logic here. Impru20^talk 18:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I did see that you only used the argument from "chances" once, I was going to go back and edit my comment to reflect that but it's too late now. I apologize for accusing you of doing it more than once.

Ballotpedia is an "enclosed contribution" site much like... any other source in the world? It's a source. Sources typically have people contributing to them. Otherwise it wouldn't exist. This is an absurd argument for its exclusion, while promoting a criteria based on biased media polling that doesn't even include LP and Green as options, thus rendering these polls explicitly inaccurate. I didn't cherry pick it, though it may look that way I suppose if you want to stack it side by side with MSNBC and Fox News polling that seeks to present a biased view of who is running. It's a site I use frequently because it is unbiased and informative. It's a site that has been itself lauded by media outlets as a valuable resource for elections.

Your desire to tune out and ignore the rational case for 270 EV and replace it with an ill explained 5% standard doesn't make the issue go away.

I do insist that the discussion of standards should take place outside of a moment of highly charged political bias, so as to eliminate said bias, and doing so will not be possible until after the election. I intend to be present for any such discussion, where I will again argue for the 270 EV case (or whatever number becomes required to win the EC after the Census or if a new State is admitted). That is the best time to hold such a discussion, unequivocally. The argument that "nobody cares..." exactly. Nobody will care, the political bias will be gone, and a fair and solid standard can be crafted by those with a vested interest in the Wikipedia project rather than those interested in using Wikipedia as a tool for political propaganda. That's the point, to do it when people don't care about their political motivations. Right now, people are motivated, on both sides of this discussion, to use the infobox as a political tool. That is why prior, longstanding consensus, which has rational reasons for being the old consensus, should be maintained, and certainly should not be altered without very good justifiable cause, of which there is currently little to none - arguments from UNDUE have been refuted and boil down to personal opinion. HeroofTime55 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ballotpedia is an "enclosed contribution" site much like... any other source in the world? Which started out as a community-contributed web site modeled after Wikipedia, so not like "any source in the world" (except other wiki sites). But yes, there are a whole lot of other sources in the world and I commend you for acknowledging that; now weight them in and you'd still find yourself without a verifiable basis to back up your plan (unless you still want to stick to Ballotpedia for some unknown reason I can't grasp, but that would by itself constitute a perfect example of giving undue weight to a specific viewpoint).

I have explicitly explained (and not one, but several times) that the rationale for the 270 EV ballot access criterion is entirely unrelated to the issue of whether a candidate has notability or not, making such criterion useless. That's different than "ignoring the rationale". I haven't ignored it, I've taken on it and explained how and why it has nothing to do with a candidate being notable in an election. You are not explaining why reaching a consensus now constitutes "bias" other than you simply not liking that we get rid of an already dead criterion right away, and entirely ignoring the fact that your preferred 270 ballot access criterion was established precisely much closer in time to the election at hand. If you are only going to keep text-walling the same mantras over and over and over again, then we may very well end the discussion here. Impru20^talk 19:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ballotpedia being modeled after Wikipedia once upon a time does not make it a clone of Wikipedia. WP:NOTSOURCE does not apply, full stop. A clone of Wikipedia is one that copied articles from Wikipedia. Please stop trying to imply a source is invalid because it demonstrates something not to your liking.

This article is about the 2020 Presidential Election. There are 4 notable candidates running in this election. The crafting of a standard around the goal of intentionally removing two of them is a biased process. There are 4 candidates qualified to win the EC (via ballot access to 270 or more EVs), this is verified information. The infobox should represent the qualified candidates, not just ones deemed important enough to then construct a standard around, with no rational reason why it is set at 5% and not 3% or 8% or any other %. You have yet to answer that, your only response was to "no u" me and ask "why 270 EVs" to which I gave you a simple and coherent reply. You have not indicated why 5% in media polling is a good or reasonable number. Given that most polls are interested in presenting a biased picture (I have seen lists of candidates, from major outlets, that list true fringe candidates like Mark Cuban before they will list candidates from LP or Green who have actual ballot access), simply citing that there are more biased outlets out there is no basis to change prior consensus. The infobox is being used now for political propaganda purposes instead of presenting an accurate picture of the 2020 race.

You have cited UNDUE but you are making a value judgement. They have ballot access, there are 4 and only 4 people who have ballot access in the 2020 election. These are, essentially, by any reasonable metric, the "real" candidates. Media polling is totally irrelevant and indeed unreliable, especially when those polls intentionally fail to include candidates in an act of bias by those outlets. I have provided sources to show that the LP and Green candidates are notable, and those sources are hand-waived away as "invalid." I will note that Ballotpedia is the second Google result for "2020 presidential candidates" and various other related search phrases - hardly a cherrypicked fringe. It is a major source for unbiased coverage, it is lauded as an important resource, and it deserves significant weight as a source, certainly more than media outlets that have a political agenda when they construct their polls that you rely on with your arbitrary 5% metric.

And yes, I tend to write a lot. You have as well. I'm not going to attack the size of the responses you've put forth in dodging my request to explain why 5% is better than 2% or 6%, would appreciate if you granted me the same respect. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Here[8] is another source, 6th from the same Google search (5th if you exclude this very Wikipedia page which ranked 4th). It's not a poll, it's an actual source. So 2 of the top 5 search results (not counting Wikipedia because WP:NOTSOURCE) list these top 4 candidates. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, you keep pushing Ballotpedia here because it says something loosely resembling what you like to hear. The point is clear. As for the other source you bring, it's not clear what does it demonstrates (from the very beginning, it already states Democratic and Republican nominees are at an higher level of notability. It then goes on to mention Jorgensen and Hawkins, yes... and also Kanye West, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Buttigieg and so on. And I'm sure you are not pushing for Sanders and Harris to be in the infobox, yes?).

The infobox should represent the qualified candidates Yes, and we are seeing you explain to all of us who the qualified candidates are and how wrongly everyone else of us seemingly are. not just ones deemed important enough to then construct a standard around Wait wait wait. Isn't this exactly what you're doing here as well? Isn't the 270 EV-ballot access criterion a standard constructed to deem any given candidate as... important enough? Lol. The difference between the 270-EV ballot access criterion and the 5% opinion polling one is that the latter one does have something to do with a candidate's relevance, and foremost of all it is based on sources. It brings zero UNDUE issues. Do you think it's arbitrary? Just as picking up 270 as the number to go for ballot access.

Firstly, the ballot access criterion pretends to construct notability out of the false assumption than having access to 270 EVs makes a candidate relevant. That's untrue, and you can see that such a view is unsupported both by sources and by all the historical examples of candidates utterly failing despite having access to 50%+1 of EVs. You can have access to the full 538-college and be entirely irrelevant. You can have access to 10 EVs and be a very relevant candidate. I have put this forward like a thousand times yet you always respond with the same "it's all biased, unreliable and arbitrary"-mantra, when you have not been able to justify for a single time how does having ballot access to 270s EVs makes a candidate notable nor how it's unbiased, reliable and unarbitray.

And here comes my second point (once again) that "being qualified for winning the election" means nothing and constitutes a false dilemma. What does "win the election" mean for you? Every single candidate having access to at least the EVs of one state can potentially win the EVs of that state and, thus, become notable. Because if there's something set into stone is that winning EVs makes a candidate eligible to be in the infobox after the election, so we'd have to find for ways that better reflect the best positioned candidates to secure any EVs. It all comes down to this. So again, your rationale does not hold, unless you actually defend to add every candidate to the infobox, but I think you won't find much support for that around here. It's the 5% threshold perfect? Surely not. It's way better than the 270 EV-ballot access criterion? Definitely.

(I would write much less myself if I was not required to reply to such massive text walls nor was forced to explain such obvious things, btw). Impru20^talk 21:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

You continue to do an amazing job ignoring the rationale behind 270EV and continue to suggest that this was somehow an arbitrary number pulled out of the aether (like 5%). 270 has an exact rationale for why that is the specific number, and not 269 or 271. Perhaps I wouldn't need to explain this over and over if you were not so intent on ignoring it and telling me how 5% is such a better criteria while consistently failing to mention how you got 5%, and not 2%, 8%, 3.14159%, or any other number. One of us is being arbitrary, and it is not me. You are making a value judgement to draw the line at 5% (in polls where these candidates are not even presented as options, but "Other" is polling at give or take 10%[9]). The polls are, very clearly and obviously, a deeply flawed metric to go by. But that doesn't matter at all, because the objective is not to be.... objective. It's to design an impossible criteria to intentionally exclude candidates you have already determined you want excluded. If these candidates started being shown in polls and you saw them getting 5%, I am sure the arbitrary line would be raised to 8% or 10%, or maybe you would follow the CPD and put it all the way at 15%. Does it matter? You're crafting a standard in pursuit of an outcome goal which has been explicitly stated. There's nothing to stop the goalposts being moved again, and that's why this debate is going to pop up time and time again, because there is no consensus for what you are doing, there never was. Not only have I proved how the polling metric is flawed (no representation alongside ~10% "Other" in polls[10]), but I even gave you sources[11][12] to demonstrate notability and that doesn't count either. I have answered your concerns, you have yet to address mine. HeroofTime55 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, that you don't like what I said about 270EV does not mean that I ignore its rationale (much to the contrary, as explained). Once the election is held, candidates winning as low as one EV could get into the infobox by that virtue. Being qualified for access to 270 EV does not make a candidate any more likely to secure one EV; once again, ballot access does not determine notability.

I've never given my opinion about the 5% value itself, so it's curious how you say I'm making a "value judgement" on that. I said 5% is not perfect. Yet I said it's much better than 270EV.

The polls are, very clearly and obviously, a deeply flawed metric to go by. That's a value judgement you make about valid source information, but I'd rather stick to source information rather than to your personal opinion or preferences.

It's to design an impossible criteria to intentionally exclude candidates you have already determined you want excluded. This is outrightly false. The 5% metric would have allowed Johnson (and probably Stein) to be included in the 2016 election infobox. That Jorgensen and Hawkins are polling miserably in comparison is not our fault, nor does it mean that any one of us want them excluded. So far, it's you who seem intent on designing an extremely favourable criterion so as to intentionally include candidates who have very little relevance in comparison to the Republican and Democratic nominees, and that in this election cycle are remarkably unnotable as compared to previous cycles. And that's what WP:UNDUE is all about.

In your last sentence you make a false assumption (you do know that the chunk for "Others" does include Undecided in many opinion polls, right?), then go on to repeat the same sources which I've already commented and refuted. Nothing new, again. Impru20^talk 22:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your rationale against 270EV was that in and of itself being one of the 4 people qualified to win the Electoral College is not notable enough (by what standard?). Despite it taking considerable effort and broad support to get ballot access to that many EVs, this is not enough for you to consider notability. So you have turned to the Wikipedia standard of sourcing notability, which is quite fair! I have thus provided sources to demonstrate that these candidates have broad popular support. This was also not enough, and you attempted to discredit one of these sources by first citing a rule (WP:NOTSOURCE) that does not apply to it (calling it a Wikipedia clone when it is not), and then by saying that I had "cherry-picked" one source (the second google result) and so I provided another (the 5th ranked google result, excluding the result for this very page). If that does not meet notability standards, then I don't know what does.

You also seem to be conflating post-election infoboxes with pre-election infoboxes. The former are based on actual results, and using 5% of the National Popular Vote after and election has taken place is perfectly fine. That has been the going standard. The going standard for pre-election infoboxes had been ballot access to 270 EVs. So yes,^{Sorry, I got mixed up in this complicated topic, others were doing this and I projected it onto you} Johnson and Stein would have been included in the pre-election infobox, and then removed post-election when they failed to get 5% NPV. That's fine! The error is in trying to draw a congruence between the NPV (which is a real electoral result that means something) and media polls (which are biased and do not represent the full ballot, while "Other" polls at 10% or more in these polls). It amounts to WP:CRYSTAL and trying to, to use your words, predict how "likely to secure one EV" any one candidate is. You do have a point with cases like Strom Thurmond, and if a candidate was polling well above 50% in any particular State, there would be good cause to include that candidate, regardless of ballot access, in addition to the 270 EV rule. I don't propose 270 EV (which is not a standard I am "designing" as you have accused, but instead is the prior consensus from 2012 and 2016) to the exclusion of other criteria that may make a candidate otherwise notable without gaining 270 EV ballot access.

I still await an explanation of why you believe precisely 5% is the % to go with, notwithstanding the multitude of other flaws that go with using media polling as a stand in for predicting future results. It's hard to know what "Others" contains when it is not broken down. I dug through at least one 300+ page polling report and did see that there was about 5% "undecided" and 5% "other" but this is never broken down in anything remotely resembling a convenient and digestible manner HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your rationale against 270EV was that in and of itself being one of the 4 people qualified to win the Electoral College is not notable enough (by what standard?). I have never explicitly said this, so this can't be "my" rationale. I stand by my argument that "being qualified to win the EC" is irrelevant to a candidate's notability in an election. Many historical candidates qualifying for such have never reached any notability of sorts. Many historical candidates not being qualified to win the EC have attained notability on their won.

I have thus provided sources to demonstrate that these candidates have broad popular support (...). One source out of a million telling you that Jorgensen is relevant only means that there are 999,999 telling you the opposite. That's what WP:UNDUE is all about.

You also seem to be conflating post-election infoboxes with pre-election infoboxes (...). No. My comments on the likeness of securing EVs are remarks aimed at refuting 270EV, in the sense that it's ultimately as useful (or useless) for a candidate to qualify for 270 EVs than to do so for 10 EVs. Doing that only means they have access to X number of EVs. No more, no less. It's not any implication about their future chances on winning the election, and indeed, your insistence on 270EV only makes it appear that you are doing such an interpretation yourself: i.e. that a candidate having access to 270 EVs is somehow more relevant than one having access 10 EVs... on which standard?

media polls (which are biased and do not represent the full ballot (...)/notwithstanding the multitude of other flaws that go with using media polling Stop it already. You won't convince me that opinion polls are more biased than your particular opinion. Polls = sources. Wikipedia bases itself on sources. If you do think it's unfair, think that Wikipedia's aim is not to right unfairness in the world. I'm sorry.

I dug through at least one 300+ page polling report and did see that there was about 5% "undecided" and 5% "other" but this is never broken down in anything remotely resembling a convenient and digestible manner It's not Wikipedia's job to dig into that and re-interpret it in any "convenient and digestible" way. 5% for "Others" means 5% for "Others". No more, no less.

I still await an explanation of why you believe precisely 5% is the % to go with I'd have thought that this would be obvious to you by now since you should have been able to read all arguments from everyone up to this point. 5% is the threshold for inclusion after the election. It only seems consistent and logical to maintain it before the election. Because doing otherwise (and not, as you say, sticking to it) would be the arbitrary choice right here. Plus, it's the one value garnering the most consensus right now, so it's ironic that you find it as controversial.

You do have a point with cases like Strom Thurmond, and if a candidate was polling well above 50% in any particular State, there would be good cause to include that candidate So you have criticized the 5% threshold, then go on to set your own arbitrary 50% threshold yourself (you're aware that many swing states in 2016 were won with less than 50%, right? You now that, historically, there have been states that have been won with as low as high 30s/low 40s, right?). This only demonstrates once again that 270EV is useless for its aimed purpose.

(...) but instead is the prior consensus from 2012 and 2016 (...) Oh yes, you still have not replied about why you said that reaching a consensus for infobox inclusion criteria four months before the election could spark suspicions of "heavy bias" and political motivation, despite the consensus from 2012 and 2016 having discussion on the eve of election itself.

Also note that from now on, and for the sake of everyone's mental sanity, I'll just reply to those arguments to which I have not replied already. This is becoming too circular by now. Impru20^talk 00:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Going to copy your response style at this point because there are so many different angles to this...

I have never explicitly said this, so this can't be "my" rationale. I stand by my argument that "being qualified to win the EC" is irrelevant to a candidate's notability in an election. So it's not your rationale, because your rationale is [same thing stated in a different way].

One source out of a million telling you that Jorgensen is relevant only means that there are 999,999 telling you the opposite. That's what WP:UNDUE is all about. Colorful characterization here, it's 2 sources out of the top 5, not 1 out of 1,000,000. At some point, it's not cherry-picking. Also, this is not about Jorgensen specifically.

No. My comments on the likeness of securing EVs are remarks aimed at refuting 270EV, in the sense that it's ultimately as useful (or useless) for a candidate to qualify for 270 EVs than to do so for 10 EVs. (...) your insistence on 270EV only makes it appear that you are doing such an interpretation yourself: i.e. that a candidate having access to 270 EVs is somehow more relevant than one having access 10 EVs... on which standard? On two standards: Firstly, and most importantly, one cannot win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 EVs, but secondly, the more EVs one has access to, the more broad support they have and therefore the more notable they are. A candidate with ballot access to only 10 EVs (say, an Evan McMullen in Utah) is far less notable and could reasonably be excluded from the infobox, where it is far less reasonable to exclude someone who has qualified in enough races to actually win the Electoral College

Example text I have provided sources which have gone ignored or falsely "refuted." You are using a metric to judge them when the metric is not actually judging them, lumping them together in "other," etc. According to a different page on Wikipedia with a link I could not decipher, at least Jorgensen did attain 5% in one 4 way poll. Are you advocating that we use only 4 way polls or that you assign 0% to candidates that are not represented in binary polls? Binary polls are highly problematic. Your refusal to admit that they are does not change that they are.

It's not Wikipedia's job to dig into that and re-interpret it in any "convenient and digestible" way. 5% for "Others" means 5% for "Others". No more, no less. This was not a commentary on what Wikipedia should be, it was a commentary on the difficulty I had trying to dig deep into polling data, in trying to decipher what the 10% "other" meant in some of these aggregated reports.

5% is the threshold for inclusion after the election. It only seems consistent and logical to maintain it before the election. That's 5% national popular vote after the election, a number which can be verified and which is an official tally. Media polls are not that. Media polls are not even close to that, and subject to significant (for these purposes) statistical error in the neighborhood of ~3%. When you're aiming for 5%, plus or minus 3% is quite significant. Coupled with the fact that it's all blended together in an "Other" category, independents aren't being represented as options, etc. It is beyond messy where the National Popular Vote standard post-election is not. 5% of NPV is also an important legal threshold for automatic ballot access, so there's a good reason that makes it non-arbitrary as opposed to media polling, which is not a legal standard for anything.

So you have criticized the 5% threshold, then go on to set your own arbitrary 50% threshold yourself (you're aware that many swing states in 2016 were won with less than 50%, right? Good lord, nothing like setting up one hell of a straw man like that. I was not making an official proposal there, I was addressing a prior example of yours where he was getting 70% popular vote in a few states. You know, to illustrate that the 270EV proposal is not exclusionary, as that has been one of your arguments against it.

Oh yes, you still have not replied about why you said that reaching a consensus for infobox inclusion criteria four months before the election could spark suspicions of "heavy bias" and political motivation, despite the consensus from 2012 and 2016 having discussion on the eve of election itself. I don't think it is appropriate to decide these things on the eve of an election, and possibly there were issues with that. However, those elections were less hyper-polarized as this one. All the more cause to not, in this moment, change a consensus which was good enough for 8 years. Yes, consensus can change, but the timing here is subject to heavy bias, and many of the comments in favor of changing it were very brief votes, not arguments. In the first, you can practically pick out the moment in time when the "fire brigade" was called in to alter the "consensus." The second RfC was closed by a sockpuppet. Those are highly questionable circumstances that were used to install a new "consensus" which we are now working from, instead of the old consensus. Perhaps we need a higher level of resolution to this process, because to me it smells suspect (not addressed at you specifically).

Also note that from now on, and for the sake of everyone's mental sanity, I'll just reply to those arguments to which I have not replied already. This comment was....cute.

I also want to address a prior complaint about my second source - you state It then goes on to mention Jorgensen and Hawkins, yes... and also Kanye West, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Buttigieg and so on. - It lists Trump, Biden, Jorgensen, Hawkins, and West, as "candidates," and all of the other names are listed below a large box that reads "Out of the running". So the other names are no longer running and obviously should not be included in the infobox, and with regards to West, he has not filed with the FEC and does not (and will not, due to filing deadlines) qualify for ballot access, and so his name can be discarded (as the publicity stunt that it is) HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

6 Kb in a single reply. Wow. Just wow. About the colorful characterization, you should probably get the point of examples when they are examples. About the point where you say that one cannot win the Electoral College with fewer than 270 EVs, well, one can win EVs even without being able to win the EC. Considering that winning EVs is one of the criteria allowing candidates/parties to be included in US infoboxes after the election, you cannot pretend to move the focus for notability before the election away from that as if it was suddenly unimportant. If being able to win the EC was the determining factor, then the logical step would be for us to only show in post-election infoboxes those candidates winning the EC. Not what is done, right? the more EVs one has access to, the more broad support they have and therefore the more notable they are This, again, is just your synthesized opinion, not a verifiable (neither by sources nor by historical examples) fact.

[Complaining about opinion polls again] It's fairly simple: when a third-party candidate becomes more notable, they do get mentioned in opinion polls (see examples for 2016 (Johnson/Stein), 2000 (Nader) 1996/1992 (Perot) etc). The fact that almost all current polls only show results for Trump/Biden is a proof that other candidates are not notable enough, not the other way around. If you think this is unfair, fill a legal complaint or bring polling companies to court. Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Also, about statistical error in the neighborhood of ~3%, an opinion poll's MOE applies to the whole sample. It does not mean that a candidate at 2% can get anywhere between 5% and -1%. Typically, the MOE for choices polling either very lowly (close to 0%) or very highly (close to 100%) is much lower than those polling in-between (40-50-60%) and the MOE for the whole sample.

5% Excuse me but your argument against 5% is just idiotic. 5% after the election is as random a value as before the election. You complained about how bad it was to "draw the line at 5%", you got the reasoning for it, and now you just utterly ignore it. That's your problem, not mine.

to illustrate that the 270EV proposal is not exclusionary Setting up as a criteria for candidates to wear suits wouldn't be exclusionary either. But just as 270EV, it has nothing to do with a candidate's notability. The point couldn't be made clearer, yet you keep refusing to get it.

I don't think it is appropriate to decide these things on the eve of an election [then goes on to justify previous actions because this election is "special" and because those were for setting up the criterion he likes]. There's absolutely no issue, neither in terms of bias nor in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in reaching a consensus before an election takes place. None at all. Proof of it is that this has happened many times before and will surely happen many times in the future.

prior complaint about my second source (...) You again cherry-pick the part of the source you like the most. That same source literally starts out saying that For good reason, the candidates named by American's main two parties—Democrat and Republican—receive the lion's share of attention. And then goes on to say that Here, a list of everyone that's thrown their hat in the ring for president in 2020, from the two heavyweights, Donald Trump and Joe Biden, to the lesser-known candidates. This source contradicts your own view. It's specific in highlighting the importance of Trump/Biden over other candidates, but then mentions the other candidates as well. Exactly-what-this-Wikipedia-article-is-already-doing: i.e. reporting on all candidates, but highlighting the two getting the most attention in the infobox. I can't see nothing wrong with that. Impru20^talk 12:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You want to talk about WP:SYNTH, that's exactly what you are doing by playing with media polling averages instead of a hard objective standard such as "did they qualify to win, yes or no." And using polls to justify your desired outcome, while ignoring sources that have declared the notability of these candidates. You are nowhere near NPOV on any of this.

I intend to reply further but... I need to take a break today from this. HeroofTime55 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Media polling is sourced and verifiable, and gives a good measure of the relevance and notability of each candidate. Once again, being "qualified to win the EC" is irrelevant; any candidate qualified to win one EV has the same potential to be relevant in electoral terms. (...) using polls to justify your desired outcome Or rejecting sources/polls and labelling them as biased because they do not suit your "desired outcome", maybe? This is dangerous territory for you to enter. I'm not even from the US nor am a frequent editor of these articles, so I don't have a "desired outcome", my friend. Impru20^talk 16:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

B Candidates with no support from the electorate shouldn't be featured in the infobox. The 5% threshold seems like a good starting point if we were to include other candidates. --yeah_93 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

May I ask, why 5%? Why not 7%? 2%? It seems arbitrary. 5% in polling means nothing. 270 EV ballot access has a very clear reasoning behind the standard - it produces an exact list of every person who has qualified to actually win the election outright (not considering the election getting kicked to the House of Representatives if nobody meets the 270-EV threshold, in which case a wider array of persons could potentially win). The 5% in media polling seems quite arbitrary. And what is to stop people from shifting this % to include or exclude candidates as they see fit? Anyone who has reached ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes is very much notable and worthy of inclusion in the infobox. Besides, both the Greens and the LP routinely win enough votes to "spoil" elections, their totals each frequently exceeding the margin of difference between the "Big" parties, and so they absolutely have a huge impact on elections. I strongly feel that "5% in media polling" is both arbitrary and unreliable. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

B - For a candidate to be considered of being included in the infobox, it would be more realistic if the candidates polling is no less than 5% as per earlier discussions above. Idealigic (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
B and C They obviously should be on the ballot in enough states to make it to 270, because why include them if it's physically impossible for them to win. They should be polling above(Or at an average.) of %5 in two or more polls to be included in the info-box, 2% is to low of a threshold while 5% is practical. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 18:49 , 8 July 2020 (UTC)
B Per WP:UNDUE. It's the only fair way to give independents a chance of appearing, and 5% seems to be a reasonable threshold for notability. Would it be a minimum 5% average from one source, or all three major polling sources (270, RCP, 538)? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

How are independents supposed to get 5% in "Trump vs Biden" polls where they are not an option? This hardly seems fair. Post election, when you have a National Popular Vote to look at, it seems absolutely fair to continue to use 5% of NPV for post-election infobox, but media polls are not the same as actual voting tallies. They aren't even close. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Or, where independents are only counted as "Other"[13] (which incidentally "Other" is polling in the neighborhood of 10% - so how do you split that up? HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

C Changing the previous consensus rule during an election year is clearly problematic. We should definitely discuss whether criteria should be updated for future elections. Alternatively, include candidates who meet any one of A, B, or C. For future years, I'd suggest including candidates that appear in short lists from reliable sources. --Eliyak T·C 16:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the 2012 consensus was also established during an election year, so by that logic it is also illegitimate. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

In fact, discussions for ascertaining consensus on election issues (not just for the US, but elsewhere in Wikipedia as well) typically take place in election years. Because consensus is a decision-making process required for situations when legitimate concerns between editors result in edit conflicts. Aaaand such conflicts will frequently happen in election year because... that's when most editors will come to edit the article. So it's rather illogical that we are being told that we cannot reach consensus now because it will cause conflict; consensus is meant to solve conflict (people not willing to get the point once consensus is ascertained does not count as legitimate conflict).

Besides, arguing that we should reach a consensus that will only be of application within four years, when changing circunstances may require us to update, change or expand on such consensus, is just entirely impractical. Impru20^talk 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

My argument, at least, is not that we are forbidden from obtaining consensus, but that it needs to be "overwhelming" in the moment, especially since the prior consensus was long established. Obviously, new circumstances could arise that require action to be taken, but I do not believe such an event has occurred in this cycle as of yet to necessitate a change from prior consensus. Right now, I hold we would require higher standard to change prior consensus than would be required after the election, when we can be assured bias is not at play. Which is why I suggested that we should restore the old consensus, as the new (and I argue improperly reached) criteria is clearly causing conflict. I fail to understand why new criteria cannot be chosen afterwards, when everyone all around will have less bias.

And I know you are referencing our own lengthy debate, but arguing that my perspective is "invalid" because I have not simply come to accept your view, that is a bit silly, is it not? This RfC is still active.

Consensus is meant to solve conflict, not sweep it under the rug. HeroofTime55 (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not responding to you nor was meant to mention or make reference to you in any sort of way. Do not bludgeon the debate, please. Impru20^talk 08:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

C If a person has the mathematical ability, based on ballot access, to be elected president then they should be included. Anything else would not be consistent with WP:NPOV and would require us to apply arbitrary standards in determining what polls we were examining for inclusion, leading to endless arguments. The ballot access standard, by contrast, is objective. And, achieving ballot access in states totaling 270 electoral votes is an incredibly high threshold that requires extensive organizing and millions in legal fees, filing fees, and petitioning expenses. No more than four or five candidates in any election are able to reach this threshold so there is scant chance the infobox will ever be overwhelmed with purely nonsense candidates like Vermin Supreme. Chetsford (talk) 04:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
B I can't find a recent U.S. presidential election infobox which had a candidate with less than 5%. Just sticking to the major political parties (A) can be exculsive, as there have been valid third party candidates such as George Wallace in 1968. C wouldn't really work because that still includes most of the third parties who have access to all states, creating an infobox with 10ish people. D would just create the the world's largest infobox. Giraffer (munch) 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Most third party candidates don't have ballot access to 270 electoral college votes. Generally in each presidential election, the number of third party or independent candidates getting access to 270 is 2 or 3. As such, your assertion that the infobox would have 10 people is inaccurate. At most it would likely have 4 to 6, which is in line with other countries presidential election infoboxes.XavierGreen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that we are discussing criteria for upcoming elections. There will be no article to compare to, as those are all for past elections. The standard for past elections is 5% of the National Popular Vote, which is an exact verifiable figure, unlike media polling, which is variable and often does not include all ballot options. The criteria must by necessity be different, articles on past elections are examining historical results, while articles on future elections are attempting to paint a picture of the field of competition. HeroofTime55 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the infobox template only permits up to 9 candidates. So even if we wanted to include more, nine is the maximum.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A - B puts third party candidates in a catch 22 situation. It is nearly impossible for third party candidates to receive appreciable numbers in polls if they are not well known, and if they don't poll well, they can't be listed in the infobox. If they're not listed in the infobox, they are overlooked, so they aren't well known. —DoRD (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

If they're not listed in the infobox, they are overlooked, so they aren't well known. Wikipedia policies are specifically against it being used as some form of soapbox or platform from which to raise a candidate's notability. If sources do not give such notability to candidates, it is not Wikipedia's job to "fix" that. Impru20^talk 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully aware of the relevant guidelines and policies, but in some instances, this one included, they are only helping to preserve the status quo. —DoRD (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia only aims at reflecting the current state of affairs, not changing it. It can only reflect on what sources report. If those are "unfair" (and this is a very subjective concept), it's not Wikipedia's duty to right them. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, but something else. Impru20^talk 20:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It is true that we are not to soapbox, but we shouldn't completely ignore the effect the project has on the outside world either. While our job is not to right wrongs, Wikipedia is not just supposed to be a fun hobby. It is supposed to make information more accessible to the masses. If we do a good job (or a bad one) it does affect the outside world. We shouldn't lose sight of that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The essay you point out is meant for situations where misinformation in Wikipedia articles could spread to the outside world, requiring for us to immediately correct it. It has nothing to do with us deciding ourselves that we should artificially raise the relevance of some information because we don't like how media outlets present it and we think that it should have a greater impact in the outside world. This is advocacy. Wikipedia is a source for information, not an opinion creator/influencer. Impru20^talk 21:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure, the focus of that essay is largely the danger of misinformation, but the point I am making is that policy exists for a real world purpose. Denying that isn't helpful. False balance, POV, soapboxing and omitting relevant information/viewpoints also have real world effects we should avoid (even if they aren't exactly "misinformation"). I am not arguing we should "advocate" for a viewpoint here. My !vote and comment should speak for themselves above. I am just making the point that we need to balance not being a soapbox with also not suppressing information and viewpoints we disagree with. WP:DUE requires us to fairly summarize things, and represent all non-fringe view points while not losing sight of proportion. The pursuit of this does not need to be divorced from real world considerations. We should be mindful of them. If the Libertarians end up polling well, we do our readers a disservice by hiding that. If they aren't, we may be doing a disservice by suggesting they they are a significant player. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw that line without neccisarily pushing a point of view.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I see, but here we are not suppressing any information. All candidates are mentioned and get their own coverage elsewhere in the article; the main focus here is on the infobox, which are also regulated under their own guidelines themselves. I do agree that if Libertarians (or any other, by that point) do end up polling highly they should get their own place in it. Impru20^talk 00:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOX states that the infobox is intended to provide a concise summary of the article. If the LP and Greens are notable enough to feature their own sections in the article, then they are noteworthy enough to be summarized in the infobox as well. The Infobox currently fails to provide an accurate summary by their exclusion. Perhaps criteria shouldn't at all be based on 270 or 5%, but rather, on whether or not candidates are notable enough to have sections of the article devoted to them.

WP:DEADLINENOW also very specifically mentions "As a corollary, when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible." and "For this reason Wikipedia is frequently the first thing people read when, for example, they wish to find out about a political party or candidate during an election. Although it ought not be the final stop for someone seeking information of this kind, its ease of access frequently does make it the first and last source of information for many people."

While Wikipedia doesn't exist to right wrongs, what is currently occuring is the active commission of a wrong, and Wikipedia DOES have a responsibility to not actively commit a wrong, especially one which does not reflect the actual notability of candidates, for which I have already cited several major sources, that you elected to dismiss with a hand-wave because they didn't fit the objective (explicitly stated) of excluding, by name, the LP and Green candidates. HeroofTime55 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, you were not being addressed here and you only keep pursuing me throughout the thread with the same repetitive mantra I have already replied over and over again. Picking and throwing up random Wikipedia guidelines won't make your case any more convincing to me, so stop bludgeoning the thread because you've made your point of view very clear already. Impru20^talk 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that when you reply to someone, I lose all rights to add my thoughts as well. I was replying towards WP guidelines that had already been mentioned in this string to give my thoughts on them (hardly "random guidelines"), and my post was hardly repetitive, I actually came to a novel position, as I have been trying to adapt to concerns raised, and the discussion gave me a different perspective. "...that you elected to dismiss with a hand-wave because they didn't fit the objective (explicitly stated) of excluding, by name, the LP and Green candidates." was probably over the line, but I stand by the rest of what I said. HeroofTime55 (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are only pursuing me throughout the discussion every time I reply to someone else, to copy-paste the same arguments over and over again. I've already discussed all of this with you, you don't need to pursue me around here when I'm discussing with someone else just to keep arguing the same that you did before, because I'll keep responding the same to you. This is bludgeoning. And most specially when, for the most part, it comes to just random accusations of me somehow "seeking" to exclude LP and Green out of political motives. It's not the first time you go "over the line". I couldn't care any less about the politicalness of this issue; the criterion I'm supporting in this discussion would have in fact allowed both LP and Green into the infobox in 2016. But by keeping calling the kettle black, you may just draw attention on your own behaviour and on whether it's you the one pushing to include some candidates in the infobox to use Wikipedia to artificially raise their profile. So, keep your over-the-line tone down and stop chasing me unless you have something new to discuss that we haven't already. Cheers. Impru20^talk 16:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Imagine a world, if you will, where you just let me add a thought to the conversation, instead of making it all about you, and causing the discussion to pivot to a personal fight. I've been replying to lots of people, get over yourself. And it's clear as day you didn't read my post before you started flying into a rage because I had the mere audacity to comment.

And just to be clear, I am not saying it's just you with a goal to keep the LP and Green out of the infobox. Look at the opening remarks to this discussion, that specifies them by name. This entire discussion opens with the premise that the LP and Green should be kept out. Bias infects from the initial premise (which you didn't post, to be clear).

I have largely moved on from 270EV for infobox and have moved towards a new position, that any party notable enough to have a section in the article deserves a place in the infobox (so, this would fall under "D" I guess). 270EV remains a better metric than 5%, but truly, there shouldn't be a goofy metric at all, it should summarize the article contents instead. You don't know my new position, because you won't read what I write without attacking me in a blind rage. Okay. HeroofTime55 (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, you just defined what bludgeoning is. You don't need to "reply to lots of people" repeating the same argument over and over again, and much less with the occasional accusation implying that someone is involved in some kind of political desire to hinder some candidate or the other.

Look at the opening remarks to this discussion (...) Since you were a dormant account having only recently reactivated to participate in this specific discussion, I'll assume good faith and consider that you did not notice the two previous discussions on this issue that took place in the previous months. Two discussions which revolved on the issue of whether the LP and Green candidates should be in the infobox or not, and which resulted in an overwhelming consensus in favour of them being left out. That's what the opening remarks of this RfC are referring to, so it's not any kind of "bias infection". Probably you should take your time to review the whole affair, get yourself updated and put yourself into the context of it so that you don't come again around here launching random bias accusations at everyone, then having to come back to say sorry because you mistook who said what or misinterpreted the comment of someone. Impru20^talk 18:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand the policy now, it's bludgeoning when I respond to a lot of people, but when you do it, it's.... Legitimate, somehow? Probably because you have a lot of edits under your account and I never really bothered to log in when I made minor edits and fixes over the years. Got it.

And I get the whole "tune me out and claim I am just repeating myself" strategy you're going for, but anyone else can read my words for themselves. I am now at the point where I am afraid to comment in other strings where you have, specifically because I know if I do, you're going to attack me again personally. HeroofTime55 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm done participating in this derailment. HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

No. It's legitimate discussion when you discuss the topic at hand, or address one person's new concerns, or bring forward new reasonings not previously considered. It's bludgeoning when you keep copy-pasting the same text walls to everyone, or even multiple times to the same person (specially when that person has stopped addressing you or getting involved in discussions you are taking part of). That and the subtle (and not-so subtle) accusations assuming bad faith from others just for not supporting your preferred choice and the throw-the-stone/hide-the-hand tactics. Yeah. Funny that now you say it's you the one that is being attacked personally, when I've had to politely withstand a lot of things here. Fortunately yes, everyone can read your words and mine in this whole discussion if they please. I was done a couple times before already but you kept insisting by pursuing me through the thread. Now I hope you do stop. Impru20^talk 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

A Though I'm not entirely against B, the criteria for carrying out B as a process seems like it would be more arbitrary than just including major parties. Which polls count? Are we relying on reliable source reporting on polls? Does it need to be a single (or certain number of) poll or an average? If a candidate meets the criteria one month, then they poll lower the following month, do we remove them from the infobox? I would think those questions need to be answered in order to support B. Xeio (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
B - A doesn't really work because there have been credible non major party performances in the past, such as Ross Perot in 1992 or Evan McMullin in 2016 in Utah for example. Not to mention George Wallace in 1968. At the same time, including minor party candidates who are barely getting any support in the main infobox is an issue of undue weight. B is the best solution to this. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Question: @Nojus R: Is there any particular reason that there isn’t an option for if the party’s candidate in the most recent election got >5% of the vote? I thought that was a criterion already in use, at least for the articles on individual states. Does this RfC only apply to the main election page? — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 07:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- The only reason I did not include it is because I did not think of it when I wrote it, but that is a good idea. Nojus R (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

That has little bearing on how a party's candidate will preform in this election and absolutely none for an independent candidate. For example, an independent candidate could poll 10% of the vote in September, but not have run before so would be unwarrantedly excluded from the infobox just because he or she didnt run in the previous election. Likewise a party could have gotten 1% in the prior election but be polling 10% in October, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R: I agree with XavierGreen and wouldn’t support it myself, but it’s being used to determine on which state pages Jo Jorgensen is included. Is the goal of the RfC to establish criteria for those state pages, as well? I think it would make sense for it to apply to state pages and the main page alike. My preference would be option B. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I think if a party or candidate recieved 5% in the last election that would warrent their inclusion in the infobox up to the date of the election (when we would find out if they actually had 5% this election). This is often used as a basis to include parties in Canadian/UK election boxes. It should not be used as a means to exclude them though. In otherwords, a party candidate should be included if they recieved 5% last election (because that suggests they might this election) OR if they are polling above 5%. Sure, past elections are not completely predictive of future ones, nor are polls, but we are working with uncertainty before the election. A party/candidate should only need one of those two (not both) to be included. If they subsiquently get less than 5% (or no electoral college delegates), then they will be removed after the election. Before the election, polls and past preformance is the best information we have though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I don’t strongly oppose that, but it seems a bit too complicated. Like with the Democratic Party presidential primaries infobox, I think a single criterion is preferable. >5% from the same party in the last election seems like the weaker of these two criteria. In the UK and Canada, past performance of the party makes more sense, since there isn’t a nationwide election for a single office. People elect MPs representing their constituency only, and the party with the most MPs gets to form a government. So, the election campaigns are party-centric, not candidate-centric. In the US, it’s all about the specific candidates, so the assumption that a past candidate’s performance will predict another candidate’s performance just because they share a party affiliation is dubious. We need to think about how the consensus will be appropriately enforced and communicated. Darryl Kerrigan, your idea to combine multiple metrics strikes me as unnecessary. Respectfully, I think this level of complexity is part of what caused the process on the Democratic Party primaries to drag on for so long. Even after you agreed to using a single criterion and we finally approached a consensus, you later tried to rescind that agreement with a comment on my talk page. Again, I really mean no disrespect by saying this and I know you’re giving this a great deal of attention. But I see this evolving into another quagmire; it shouldn’t take a paragraph to summarize the inclusion criteria. I think Nojus R has given us three sufficiently concise and elegant options to choose from. Can’t we just keep it to >5% in polling? I doubt there would be a material difference in who gets included. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The effects of standings from the last election are somewhat academic for our purposes because no third party or independent received 5% nationally in the last election. That said, I disagree that it is unnecessarily complicated. Firstly, Canadians and Brits seems to be able to figure out multiple metrics. I don't accept that American's aren't able to deal with this basic level of complexity when others can. Secondly, this level of complexity is needed and helpful for future elections (and for the subpages). What we are trying to determine is whether a party is significant enough that it should be included in a summary of the election (ie the infobox). As others have pointed to the 5% polling criteria is a helpful one, but it has its weaknesses. There can be arguments about what polls to use and editors can argue for the removal of a party that falls briefly bellow the cutoff (ie they have a bad poll, month, etc). The previous election rule is helpful to level these out. Before an election it is helpful for us to assume that a party that received 5% last time has significant support, and even if they end up doing worse in this election it cannot be fairly said it was WP:UNDUE to included them before the election. If they received 5% last time, they will likely receive significant coverage. It will be a story if they are polling better, or worse. If you don't apply that rule, there can be extensive debates about polling, what polls to use, and whether we should average them, whether we should forgive one bad poll if many others have them over 5% etc. Conversely, if you rely only on the "previous election" criteria, there is no way to acknowledge that new parties/independents (or ones that preformed poorly last time) might be significant in this election (ie recent surge). Relying only on the results of the last election is inflexible and might not recognize new realities. In many elections we use multiple criteria. For Canadian elections, we generally include parties that had representation in the House of Commons/Legislature at dissolution or received 5% in the last election (even if they didn't have a seat). We also recognize that sometimes new parties polling over 5% should be included (even if they have not been represented in government before). Also the new criteria of whether a party is invited to official debates hosted by the Leaders' Debates Commission (which has only been around for the last election) has also been something widely considered. With the Democratic primaries, multiple criterias became a thing because they were used in articles about past elections and because editors were insisting on them. If a person wins a state but gets less than 5% nationally, editors will insist they be included (as they almost almost always should be). In that way, setting only one criteria, when others are significant, doesn't make things easier in the long run. It ensures more conflict down the road.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: Alright, this seems reasonable enough to me. I see that this issue is very different from the Democratic Party primaries one, since here we are writing about something that hasn't happened yet. I'm willing to support including candidates that meet one of multiple criteria. In the interest of reaching a consensus, I'm going to explicitly support B for now, but if your idea gains traction, feel free to ping me here and I'll comment on it. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I'm thinking of some sort of combination of B and C? For example, if a candidate has access to 270 electoral votes, maybe an average of 3-4%(?) national polling would merit inclusion. Whereas a candidate that does not have access to 270 would need 5% polling. However, only keep a candidate in the post-election infobox if they received a minimum 5% of the popular vote or won a state. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm warming up to something like this. @Darryl Kerrigan: What would you think about making it >5% of the vote for the same party in the last election or >5% in polling or access to at least 270 electoral votes? — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I am open to something like that: polling at 5% OR ballot access to 270 electoral college votes and polling above a reasonable number (3-4%?). I think that is what Nice4What seems to be suggesting. Some editors above seem to be against a criteria that is only based on ballot access, or would permit someone to qualify for inclusion only on that basis. I tend to think 5% is slightly high since anyone who receives over 5% of votes will be included after the election. So in theory you could have a party polling on average at say 4% before the election and then due to a margin of error, few people changing their mind on voting day etc. they could be in the infobox after the election even though we excluded them before. So I tend to think the polling criterias should be slightly more permissive before the election (when there is uncertainty) than after the election (when the hard facts are known). I also think it is good not to require all candidates to have access to 270 electoral college votes. Having broad ballot access is a good measure of significance but not the only measure (so a general 5% criteria might also be helpful, in addition to the combo ballot access/polling one). I would hope this would capture someone that was polling really well in one or a few states and was likely to win a state (or several). Because after an election we generally include anyone that wins a state/DC, I would think we would want to include someone in the infobox if they were polling at like 35% in a state, certainly a big state, or region even if they didn't have access to 270 votes. This might be called the George Wallace rule (though I am not sure if he had enough ballot access to win or not). Anyway, all I am saying is that our pre-election rules should probably bear some semblience of relation to the post election ones, which I understand to be recieving over 5% of the vote, OR winning a state, OR recieving a significant number of electoral college votes.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: I'm fine with that. I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees. It might be necessary to start a new RfC as neither 270 electoral votes nor >5% for the same party in the last election were even mentioned in this one. I'd be willing to contribute to that. @Nojus R: As the creator of the RfC, what would be your thoughts on how to proceed? — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that may be helpful. Unfortunately, the RfC process has a hard time dealing with complexity because they are usually more !votes and less discussions (even though they are not supposed to be). With infoboxes, I think that means we often forget the important exceptions to the general rules we create. Often these exceptions are somewhat academic and hypothedical until suddenly they're not. If no one mentions them now, then when they later become real there is no time to deal with it. But I think generally editors would agree that if an idependent or third party candidate was running a strong regional campaign and had a real likelyhood to win a state or several, we would be including them in the infobox before the election (see Strom Thurmond and George Wallace). I also think most would agree if an independent or third party recieved over 5% in the last presidental election, we would include them in the next one. I don't think many would have had an issue with Ross Perot being included in the infobox of the 1996 election before that election had occured (if Wikipedia was around then). Having recieved 18.9% of the vote in 1992, I think everyone knew he was a significant candidate and they didn't need polling to tell them that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's a little weird to propose restarting the RfC when it's already well underway (and when one choice is clearly favoured over the others). Few people (if any at all) have voiced opposition to EV ballot access as an only criterion; it's typically criticized as a whole and in itself. I, for my case, have already explained that both criteria are not very compatible: with opinion polls, you at least have some sourced, verifiable information related to a candidate's notability, whereas ballot access is a Wikipedia made-up criterion which sources as a whole do not use to ascertain notability (be careful with some of the policies of application here), and which has no connection with the ultimate notability or significance of any given candidate (nor with that candidate's chances of winning any EVs by that case, which is the actual post-election requirement).

As for the % required for polling, I do not have a particular preference but it must be the same than the one used after the election. Doing otherwise would undoubtely raise suspicions of arbitrariness or of attempting to manually set the pre-election % to favour any given candidate.

For people polling well or very well in any given state (so as to hypothetically grant that person any chances to win it, so to speak; call it the Evan McMullin rule), we could set an additional, alternative state threshold, so that even if a candidate is nowhere near 5% nationally but is polling well enough in a state to be competitive, then he or she could be featured in the infobox as well. In this case, I'd suggest such a threshold not being set over the percentage of the vote share, but rather, over the margin to victory (i.e. polling at 25% but trailing the frontrunner by 5-10 points in any given state could be as noticeworthy or more as someone polling at 35% but trailing by 25 points. Numbers are just examples). Factually, I'd say these situations of people being strong in a particular state or group of states should be given immensely more priority than the ballot access issue. Simply because, historically, it has been way more common for strong regional contenders to show up than for people having access to over 50%+1 EVs (and not the Democratic/Republican candidates of the time) winning any single EV. Impru20^talk 01:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: That's what I meant, yep. A candidate would be included in the infobox if a) They were polling at an average of 5% or more, or b) They had access to 270 electoral votes are were polling at 3% or 4%.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just so make my point, I am opposed to this. A candidate should not be in the infobox for any reason unless they are polling at 5% nationally, and if they do not have access to 270 electoral votes they should not even be mentioned on this page outside of the eventual results table after the voting has actually taken. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: So if polling indicated a third party candidate or independent was going to win a state/DC and their electoral college votes (but was still polling under 5% nationally) you would exclude them from the infobox? Do you agree if a candidate wins a state/DC they should be in the infobox regardless of whether they receive 5% nationally?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I would favor a scheme with several different options for inclusion, off the top of my head it would be 270 EV ballot access (with no polling requirements attached), OR 5% in some national polling, OR party having won an EV in the last election (excluding faithless electors imo), OR party having had 5% National Popular Vote in the last election, OR candidate is polling extremely well (say ~25%) in at least one State. I don't think any criteria needs to be to the exclusion of other criteria.

But, I also think the infobox generally should summarize whoever has a section in the article. People come to Wikipedia and may only look at the infobox for a summary of information, they may not read the article. Any candidate notable enough to have a section in the article should be appropriately summarized in the infobox.

5% polling to the exclusion of any other criteria remains highly problematic in my opinion when candidates are not included in polls but "Other" in the poll results shows up anywhere from 5% to 15%. Polling in general remains problematic, until there are more reliable results that include more candidates (and, specifically, the LP and Green candidates, which are the most notable outside the D and R parties). HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@HeroofTime55: Thanks for your comments about the desirability of multiple criteria. I think that is helpful. Concerning the ballot assess one though, I think as you have seen above there is little support for a ballot access standard that does not include a polling criteria. As others have said above, getting on the ballot alone does not establish notability. You are welcome to disagree, but restating it here is unlikely to change those folks minds. Could you live with a ballot criteria that included a polling requirement of say 3%? Or 4%?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be less unreasonable to use polling data if polls include the candidates. The big trouble of course is that the vast majority of polls do not. While they list anywhere from 5% to 10% "Other" (and not including "Undecided" from what I can tell), I think there is a likelihood that these candidates ARE reaching 3-4%, it's just a problem because polls don't want to report on it. I just don't see why it is necessary to develop a separate standard for the infobox though, it's not an overly crowded field, and to be honest there should be the same standards for inclusion as used in the article, with 4 candidates notable enough to get their own sections, and all other parties and candidates listed on a separate page. The infobox should correctly summarize that.

I am, in fact, of the opinion that media polls are purposely excluding 3rd party candidates perhaps in an effort to avoid "splitting the vote" in what is perceived (probably correctly) as a very important election, with two perceived (probably correctly) awful candidates for the "big two parties." Using media polling thus would reflect the same biases into the infobox. There are ample major reliable sources outside of polls to establish the notability of the LP and Green candidates, I've linked them elsewhere. If it's enough to be in the article, it should be enough to be in the infobox. HeroofTime55 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I take your point that many polls are not including the Libertarian or Green candidates. That said, there are some that do as noted here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is more workable, but what is the metric exactly? In 10 polls with Jorgensen represented, in 5 of them her results are 3% or greater. Hawkins only has 3% in 2 of 8. Which of these would be considered sufficient for a 3% polling requirement? And Kanye polled 8% in one, but I would argue strongly that he should be excluded since he is not eligible for ballot access anywhere and to my knowledge has yet to file with the FEC and so his candidacy should only be considered a PR stunt and not a serious bid. He would be included under 5% polling criteria but not in a 270 EV criteria, one more reason why the 5% polling by itself makes little sense to me. HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting side note, I noticed in the first poll listed, the numbers listed on Wikipedia are incorrect. WP lists Jorgensen at 3% and Hawkins at 2%, but the actual poll data shows Jorgensen at 4% and Hawkins at 1%. (linked in the source as "Battleground Toplines" pdf[14]) I am not sure what is going on here so I am not going to edit that myself (also for fear of the appearance of a conflict of interest). I only looked at the first poll. HeroofTime55 (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Disregard, I believe I was reading the incorrect data, lol. It's 4 AM, probably time for bed lol. HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Did the little tiny bit of information that was previously visible on Jo and Howie (without having to click) vindictively disappear as a result of one or more requests for them to be included in the infobox? Billbrandy (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

C is the obvious choice. A candidate that has a mathematical chance of garnering 270 Electoral College votes and winning the election must be included in the infobox - regardless of party affiliation or popularity at the time of writing. Duh! It's not the job of an encyclopedia to mimic the sensationalist press and report events after the fact - or making predictions based on the past. We provide information regarding these candidates and their stances on the issues in order for the voters to make an informed decision. That's why they come to this page. JLMadrigal @ 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

This may sound repetitive, but it's important to highlight it since it looks like some people are mistaking what the topic of discussion is: the result of this RfC is not on whether information on third-party candidates should be shown in the article or not. That's already there and will always be. The RfC is about candidates' infobox presence, something which neither adds nor subtracts any information on any candidate that is not already found elsewhere in the article (since infoboxes are merely meant as summaries). Impru20^talk 23:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you put your comment with mine, Impru20, I'll assume it's directed at me. Delaying mention of a candidate until halfway through an article is censorship, just as is ignoring, marginalizing, and demonizing him. Again, ALL candidates with a mathematical chance of winning must be placed in the infobox, because they are legitimate candidates, and equally worthy of the title. It's not our job to rank them - unless there is a section about "current popularity". JLMadrigal @ 00:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was replying to you.

Ugh, no. All positions should be represented according to their weight in reliable sources, because doing otherwise as we see fit goes against Wikipedia's policy. Also, no candidate is "ignored", "marginalized", "demonized" or made "illegitimate" just because not being shown in the infobox. Those are very strong terms, which seem to hint to a heavy point-of-view position existing here. It's not our job to rank them: that's a job for the sources to do. And if sources give much greater relevance to some candidates over others, it's not our "duty" to "right" them, because then we would be serving as an advocacy platform for someone, which is outrightly against our second pillar. Impru20^talk 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

You would have a pretty tough time trying to find a reliable source that disputes the legitimacy of a candidate that has the necessary ballot access. Any such claims are, as you say, POV. Not a single vote has been cast. JLMadrigal @ 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion has nothing to do with legitimacy, this is a false equivalence. Your whole point here is wrong. Impru20^talk 01:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox is for info (information). It informs the reader in box form about the legitimate candidates without prejudice. JLMadrigal @ 11:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say it again: Infobox inclusion has nothing to do with legitimacy, this is a false equivalence. Your whole point here is wrong.

Also, one of the most commented reasons for people opposing the 270 EV ballot access criterion are the WP:UNDUE concerns behind it. The style of your comments and your tone will not help cast off such concerns at all (much to the contrary, tbh). Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Impru20^talk 12:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is irrelevant here because it concerns inclusion of viewpoints. We're not talking about viewpoints here - or arbitrary poll numbers. We're talking about quantifiable measures (actual ballot access numbers). JLMadrigal @ 14:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the article is not about who may win if current trends continue. It's about the handful of legitimate candidates running for the office of POTUS. They must be treated without prejudice. JLMadrigal @ 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

What you are saying here and your own insistence on claiming that "prejudices" or alleged concerns on legitimacy exist just because of being left out of infobox conform to a specific POV. Your own claim that poll numbers are "arbitrary" (more or less than your own opinion? Polling numbers are verifiable, thus not "arbitrary") conform to a specific POV. So yes, UNDUE is a very valid concern. No one is arguing that LP or Green candidates are not legitimate as you suggest, but neither has infobox presence anything to do with legitimacy, so I'd please ask you to stop hinting that the RfC is about that. Impru20^talk 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The RfC is about which candidates are to be included in the infobox. I assert that all legitimate candidates be included. You concur that candidates achieving ballot sufficient access to secure the election are legitimate candidates.

You assert that polling numbers are not arbitrary. I remind you that they are - by a multitude of standards:

Polling samples are inherently arbitrary (phone, likely voters)
Polling questions are inherently arbitrary (and often omit candidates)
The fraction used to determine whether a candidate is listed is inherently arbitrary.
&c

JLMadrigal @ 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The infobox should include the relevant candidates. That does not preclude anything about their legitimacy or lack thereof. Despite your own opinionated claims, opinion poll results can be easily sourced, confirmed and verifiable, so they pose absolutely no qualms or issues and conform fully to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Conservely, your edit summarites (this, this, this or this) only keep deepening on the UNDUE concerns; once again, Wikipedia is not the place for righting what you perceive as a great wrong. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Impru20^talk 16:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

If there's any "great wrong" that needs to be righted, Impru20, it's authors who treat this article as an opinion piece. Just because poll results can be verified, doesn't make them any less arbitrary or provide an objective basis for exclusion from the infobox. I have no objection to including poll results in the article, but they are not the litmus test for determining the eligibility or legitimacy of a candidate. Unlike political polls, informative Wikipedia articles are not popularity contests. Save those for a section of the article. JLMadrigal @ 11:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Wikipedia must report on what sources say, not comment or opine on them (and if we do, that would be because other sources do comment or opine on the previous ones, not because we make our own opinions on them). You may think that opinion polls are arbitrary. Your own opinions on that are arbitrary as well. But Wikipedia is built on sources and verifiability, not on its editors' opinions. Once again, no one but you is discussing candidate legitimacy here. Further, WP:UNDUE is very clear when it states that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects; it has nothing to do with "controversial" aspects as you said in a comment below. I'm unsure whether you may be attempting to poison the well here, but this is clearly going around in circles. Impru20^talk 12:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the fact that there are legitimate candidates other than Republicans and Democrats is not a minority viewpoint, so WP:UNDUE is irrelevant. We all know your point of view, Impru. BTW, when was there a consensus to overturn the electoral vote standard for inclusion in the infobox? Clearly such a consensus doesn't currently exist. JLMadrigal @ 16:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I would note that there are ample sources[15][16] for verifying the notability of the LP and Green candidates (enough so that they have dedicated sections in the article already), the infobox is not about giving "as much or as detailed" a description but rather serves to summarize the article contents (and so should be an accurate summary), and that interpreting poll data is heavy duty WP:OR. "C" happens to give a result that aligns with the article contents (this season at least), but realistically, the LP and Green candidates should be in the infobox simply because they're in the article. It's silly that we're at this point. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Again, legitimacy is not a topic concern in this discussion. All candidates (even those having access to less than 270 EVs) are legitimate. Should we consider that, because of defending the 270-ballot access criterion, you're supporting the view that candidates not reaching that threshold are illegitimate? Absurd, yes? Your persistent claims on legitimacy are non-sense.

Nonetheless, this does not preclude the fact that both LP and Green are minority parties (yes, they are) in comparison to the Democratic and Republican ones. Absolutely no one is arguing for their exclusion from the article, but it's fairly obvious they can't be given as much detail as the latter ones, because an immense, overwhelming majority of reliable sources (both past and current sources, we are not discussing the future) do not give them such a prominence. WP:UNDUE is, thus, not only a very relevant policy here: it's also a legitimate concern against those who seem to be favouring using Wikipedia as some sort of soapbox or advocacy platform to artificially raise the prominence of these candidates ahead of the election (something which has been—and still is—explicitly defended by some users in this discussion).

BTW, when was there a consensus to overturn the electoral vote standard for inclusion in the infobox? Clearly such a consensus doesn't currently exist. Oh yes, it does exist. There were two discussions on it, but if there were still any doubts about it, it seems that consensus in this discussion is also being clearly swayed towards some criteria other than ballot access. Cheers. Impru20^talk 16:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A or B out of these, though the real underlying criteria should be D based on the depth and breadth of coverage, and any criteria (especially A) would need to be used with the clear understanding that it would have to be changed rapidly if coverage shifted. Per both WP:UNDUE and WP:ASTONISH, we should avoid placing undue emphasis on candidates that both have virtually have no realistic chance of earning any electorial votes. It is clearly WP:UNDUE to treat give any current third-party candidates weight or focus comparable to the major party ones - coverage is so distinct as to be in totally different universes. This could change (and has been different in the past), but WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies - rather than trying to craft some sort of magical perfect rule that can apply for every election into the future (which is absurd and impossible), we should assess coverage and base or update our list according to that. I lean towards A because right now that clearly points towards only the two major-party candidates getting any real focus or attention; and including any other candidates should require another discussion to reassess coverage, rather than just "welp, they have 5.01" or "welp, on paper they are in X states". I also somewhat object to the framing of this RFC (in that "based on coverage" is clearly the policy-based answer, yet it is excluded completely; "other" is obviously going to be hard to get a consensus around, so the framing of this RFC implicitly forces us towards a decision where some sort of WP:OR based on numbers and statistics and figures are used to determine inclusion, rather than assessing WP:DUE from coverage in reliable sources as required by policy. But even knowing this I still have to voice support for A or B because C, which would cause a result that directly contradicts current coverage, is anathema.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Readers who want a regurgitation of media coverage are not going to visit Wikipedia. They will just sit back and soak in the sensationalist narrative. Our readers are more interested in the issues - and perhaps the "whys" and "wheres" of media coverage and lack thereof. As stated above, WP:UNDUE has to do with inclusion of controversial viewpoints, so it is irrelevant here. No reliable source claims that there are only two candidates in the running. Perpetuating that myth destroys Wikipedia's credibility. JLMadrigal @ 11:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the premise that this RfC was opened poorly with limited options or room for discussion of alternatives, and broadly with the complaint that much of this is WP:OR on steroids. I likely disagree with @Aquillion: on the end result, however, as I've stated (stance changed since my initial position in support of C) that the infobox should reflect and summarize the article contents, of which there are 4 candidates with sections in the article, and therefore there should be 4 candidates in the infobox to match. HeroofTime55 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Note - I have requested a formal close here. I don't think this is ready to be closed yet, but given the high profile nature of this article (and the fact that November is quickly approaching), it is probably best that this is closed quickly once it has run its natural course. That probably, but not nessisarily, means it should remain open for 30 days. I will leave that to the ultimate closer. Anyway, it can't hurt to give potental closers a heads up.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

My vote would be for C and either A or B. Getting on the ballot, while requiring significant resources and funds, is still significantly easier than winning an election, and a candidate who is polling under 5% and/or not a major party candidate has no realistic chance of winning. I would even argue in favor of raising the percentage threshold, since unlike in the primaries, gaining some percentage of the vote means nothing if a candidate doesn't win any states. Obviously C makes sense as a blanket requirement, but candidates should additionally clear either A or B before being added to the infobox. Debate qualification might be another criterion to explore as the election gets closer. --WMSR (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

As a note, using debate qualification as a criteria would be equivalent to simply saying "Democrats and Republicans only" as the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is a joint Republican/Democratic venture that is pretty much designed to exclude 3rd party access, and they will raise the qualification requirements the instant 3rd parties meet the current requirements. This would be the worst criteria of all proposals thus far to use. HeroofTime55 (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I would even argue in favor of raising the percentage threshold, since unlike in the primaries, gaining some percentage of the vote means nothing if a candidate doesn't win any states. This fundamentally misunderstands what the infobox is for (and what happens in the primaries where candidates often recieve over 5% but no convention delegates). An infobox is a summary of the election, not simply a tally of electoral college delegates. It contains those that win and those that lose. It attempts to provide a balanced summary of the important points of the entire election. While electoral college votes are important, it is a mistake to think they are the only thing that matters to the summary. Someone that recieves 5% of the vote will have nearly seven million votes (if voter turnout is comparable to 2016). Whether the electoral college system rewards that or not, it is significant and something that belongs in a summary. It is also important to remember that in close races (or not so close ones), 5% going to a third party candidate or independent almost certainly changes the election by splitting the vote and affecting the vote in some states. Finally, it would represent a significant increase in third party support (50% increase if the Libertainians just accomplished it, nearly a quintupling if the Greens accomplished it). That significant improvement on its own would warrent prominent mention. We should not confuse how the system decides to give meaning to the votes (electoral college delegates) with what is significant in that election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The arguement that a candidate who gets less than 5% of the vote is irrelevant because they can't win states is factually incorrect. For example, in the 1948 United States presidential election Strom Thurmond won 4 states but received only 2.4% of the vote. In 1960, a slate of unpledged electors backing Harry Byrd won in Mississippi and yet got only 0.42% nationally.XavierGreen (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: I would certainly be open to a statewide threshold as well (such as 30% in one state or 5% overall). @Darryl Kerrigan: if reliable sources report that a candidate is likely to have a significant impact on the election, then they would certainly warrant inclusion, but speculation isn't the answer. A close race is a close race, and a Green or Libertarian Party candidate doesn't usually change that. The vast majority of reliable sources refer to this election as a choice between two candidates, not four. --WMSR (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment. It should be noted that JLMadrigal has attempted to WP:CANVASS the RfC by "requiring" several editors (who they seemingly thought could be favourable or swayed to their view) to pick choice C. [17] [18] [19]. I've posted them a warning and the issue will be brought to WP:ANI if it persists, considering that they also opened a discussion fork of this same RfC below in an attempt to unduly seek support for their view. Impru20^talk 21:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction: I messaged 2 or 3 editors who had already commented that they were concerned that Jo Jorgenson was not pictured in the article. Under the current options (based on this discussion), in order for her to be pictured, the required criteria would be that of access to 270 electoral college votes. Whoever suggested that I was spamming editors and telling them that they were required to vote for option C was either misreading the note, or is willfully engaged in a campaign to intimidate editors who are in favor of inclusion. Here is the text of my message:

“

I noticed that you would like to see Jo Jorgensen listed in the infobox on the 2020 United States presidential election page. There is currently an RfC (request for comment) discussion taking place on the talk page where you can voice your opinion. The old criteria of requiring ballot access to 270 electoral votes would allow her inclusion in the infobox. (Option C"). JLMadrigal @ 14:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

”

I apparently misinterpreted Tartan357's comment above, and sent him the message inadvertently:

“

I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees.

”

There was no malicious intent, I assure you.

JLMadrigal @

@JLMadrigal: WP:CANVASSING is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way and is malicious by nature. The literal text of your message (which you have quoted above) is textbook canvassing, i.e. notifying editors who you think will support your cause to bring them into the discussion to influence its outcome in your preferred way (and it indeed happens that both Billbrandy and Give the Facts2020, whom you notified, had shown support for Jo Jorgensen being included in the infobox in past edit requests: [20] [21]). In the case of Tartan357, you also used the "Option C vote required for placement of Jo Jorgensen in the infobox"-heading in the notification ([22]), which you didn't use for the other two users. Further, this came after you had opened a discussion fork below commenting that There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria [...] This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria ([23]), so it's obvious you sought to artificially increase the number of "opposers" to reinforce your own argument in order to attempt torpedoing the RfC because it wasn't going the way you liked. So much for "no malicious attempt" when the evidence is all over there.

I chose to not bring you to WP:ANI right away, despite being asked to do so, in order to give you a proper warning so that you had the opportunity to refrain from engaging in such behaviour any further. But all of these can be considered as bad faith actions (which hint at some WP:ADVOCACY issues as well), and will lead to you being brought to ANI next time around. Cheers. Impru20^talk 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

If they were messaging editors who are already in the conversation, is that really canvassing? They aren't really "bringing in editors" so hard to argue it's canvassing tbh. Any discussion of that nature are much better served by pinging the person to reply to them in the RfC itself though. Nothing wrong with trying to convince someone who is already participating, but do it in the RfC where it belongs. I agree talk page messages shouldn't have been sent, or the fork made. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

They were not participating in the conversation, that's the point. They merely happened to comment in the talk page in support of Jo Jorgensen in unrelated discussions to this one. I could buy your argument if JLMadrigal had messaged all editors having participated in this talk page around the same time (and without suggesting them what should they say, obviously), but he only did so for those people he knew would support his position, specifically asking them to do exactly that and just at a time when it was so convenient for reinforcing his own argument here. That's what canvassing is. Impru20^talk 21:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Billbrandy and Tartan357 previously participated in the RfC, but Give the Facts2020 did not (and oh boy does that user name imply things). That would be canvassing, indeed, in the latter case. All three instances are more broadly questionable, I agree. I do think we can move on from this now though, as per Tartan357 and Darryl Kerrigan in the section below. HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't dub this as "participation", actually; rather seems an out-of-place comment (and omg the other user's name is... lol). But yes, JLMadrigal has been sufficiently warned on canvassing and should know how to proceed from now on, so we can (and should) move on from this. Impru20^talk 22:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment I am going to lay this out in a separate comment by itself so that it is not clouded with other discussions, because I don't think I've laid it out by itself yet, but I believe that the infobox should summarize the article contents and therefore, should have all 4 candidates that have dedicated sections in the article. Notability has already been established (they are, after all, included in the article) and the infobox is supposed to provide a summary of the article contents. I don't see why there should be any criteria beyond this. I would like to get other's thoughts on this specific proposal. Thanks! HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

B - If a candidate has EVER polled at or above 5%, they should be included in the infobox, perhaps on a second line. Considering the extreme measures employed to keep third parties out of the discussion, from ballot access petitions to exclusion from polls and debates, any candidate who achieves this level of interest deserves to be recognized and voters should have access to their information in the interests of education. Especially considering that more than 85% of people polled in a recent MSNBC poll (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-are-you-considering-voting-the-libertarian-party-nominee) indicated that they will be considering the Libertarian Party candidate, it would be inappropriate to exclude Dr. Jorgensen from a top billing on this page. Many voters are very interested in third parties, but fear that voting for a third party will allow "the greater evil" to win - at least until Ranked Choice Voting is more common in the US. so it would make sense to include candidates polling over 5%. Nojus R (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Kevinwm0 (talk) 12:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As a note, the internet polls are not the ones being used to make the 5% determination. There's no question that Libertarians are able to mobilize an effort to vote in an online poll, but they are not considered scientific. Jo Jorgensen has, however, met a 5% threshold in at least one of the polls that would be considered. HeroofTime55 (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

C - The criteria offered up as option B is insufficiently clear. What polls should be included in evaluating that criteria? For what time period should those polling results be maintained? What of the myriad polls that are conducted without actually including all the candidates? If a candidate meets the criteria for some period of time but then their polling numbers drop for whatever reason, should they be removed? Why the "magic" number of 5% anyway? This criteria is not objective, stable, or easily evaluated and will still lead to a lot of churn if it is not clarified and even if it is. On the other hand, C is an easily evaluated and stable criteria. Once a candidate has objectively complied with the ballot access requirements in any state, they are unlikely to be removed from the ballot at a later date, and it leaves 51 distinct sources that can be checked and verified to ascertain compliance. B is arbitrary. C is not. Citizenslave (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that these are Citizenslave’s very first edits. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was initially very gratified to see that more than just the usual two candidates were being credited on the top of the page based on the Zogby result, then even more dismayed to see that the change had been reverted. It motivated me to finally register a Wiki account after I saw some of the discussion here and that there was an ongoing survey that explained why there was no consensus on including more easily accessible information vs giving credibility to the notion that voters and readers can't handle too many facts. This is a very interesting process and I look forward to getting more involved in the community.Citizenslave (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

C - C is a pretty natural definition for A: a minor candidate is one who does not, mathematically, have ballot access to sufficient electoral votes to win. Opinion polls are not fundamental to the election, whereas ballot access, by definition, is a real measure of a candidate's support locally and, in aggregate, nationally. Polls are unreliable and they're biased against candidates other than those from the Republican and Democratic parties because few pollsters regularly prompt for them. In B the 5% cutoff is arbitrary and B is open to endless nitpicking about the perceived quality of pollsters, the necessity to average polls, which polls should be averaged, how many should be averaged, etc. ad nauseam. Etsnev (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Off-wiki canvassing There is an ongoing off-wiki canvassing attempt through Twitter (yes, ANOTHER ONE) from promotional accounts of Jorgensen and the Libertarian Party to force her into the infobox in this article. This explains the sudden appearance of new/sleeper accounts throughout the last hours coming out with similarly-themed arguments in favour of Jorgensen. They are even collecting signatures through Change.org in order for her to be added into the infobox in this article LMAO. Impru20^talk 11:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You should consider perhaps that maybe some people just rarely use Wikipedia and wish for their candidate to receive the proper documentation they deserve based on long standing rules, in a time when voter suppression and media manipulation are at a all time high. The fact you are laughing at the collection of signatures shows you care more about being right than doing what is right. You're just a bully. Thyme Cypher 14:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Next time you insult me, you will be reported. First and last warning. I've never ever met you before yet you are showing a particular and insidious grudge on me at every turn while casting unfounded aspersions on me (also denoted by your latest revert accusing me of WP:OWN despite my edit count in this article being almost non-existant). If I've to bring you to WP:ANI to ascertain what your true motives here are, I will, but it's highly surprising that an account that has been inactive for five years suddenly comes here to insult me. Impru20^talk 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

C There are problems with both A and B that make them unfit for Wikipedia as a whole. While "There's always been two parties" - what those two parties are has changed over time. While we're in a holding pattern, it's very clear that the country is warming up to the idea of replacing one of those parties as has happened through the course of the countries history. As per WP:CBALL, to say that this shift won't occur because it hasn't yet is predicting the future and thus a violation of the policy (as has been brought up before) - thus A should be off the books. B has a bit more leeway except that most reliable polls do not include third party candidates broken out. Many of these polls put "Other / Third Party" at a VERY high percentage with many breaking 20% and some as high as 30%, but without it being split among all available third party candidates, it's impossible to tell which. Acting on the assumptions of the value of a poll is bad - we can try to argue which candidate received the majority of that 20-30% but data loss is data loss - it's impossible to assert which candidates are which in that percentage. C is the only one that fulfills Wikipedia's standard of quality across the board, and will result in more than 2 candidates being a VERY rare occurrence, much less 4, ensuring the box stays clean every election (as the entire reason for limiting should strictly be about keeping the info boxes clean, as their purpose is to provide a snapshot of the article) but in the event a candidate proves ABLE (regardless of chance) to win, they should be included. Despite targeted attacks on this page my stance is unrelated to my voting preferences - I would make this same argument in favor of any third party - in the spirit of transparency it's the fact it is the candidate I am in support of that has brought me to action. Accusations of accounts being created to vandalize or force her inclusion is childish and unwelcome and need to cease immediately. Thyme Cypher 14:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC Results

There are at least eight voices in opposition to overturning the original criteria of allowing inclusion of all candidates who have sufficient ballot access to secure victory in the presidential election - 270 electoral college votes - in the infobox. This implies that there is no consensus for changing the criteria. Doing so would be contentious at this moment. Since there is no consensus for overturning the original criteria, it's time to close this RfC and put these four candidates in the infobox. They are currently Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Jo Jorgenson, and Howie Hawkins. JLMadrigal @ 12:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction: Howie Hawkins currently has access to 262 electoral college votes (if his page is up-to-date - and my tally is correct), so he will qualify after his team gets ballot access in one or two more states - depending on their respective ballot access numbers. JLMadrigal @ 12:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been 23 voices opposing the maintaining of the current criteria (with one of the alternative criteria having been supported by 16 people so far), which is consistent with two previous discussions on the issue also seeing an overwhelming consensus in favour of a change. It's fairly obvious that you want the current criteria to stay, but also that these are not supported by the community as of currently, if they ever had any such support. And your current tone and language throughout the RfC as well as this seemingly desperate attempt of opening a new section (when the RfC is still open) to demand its closing the way you seek, then pretending to silence all voices opposing your view, is quite concerning. Respect procedure.

PS. Claiming that a different consensus can't be reached "at this moment" because "it would be contentious" is ridiculous. Various levels of consensus and discussions took place up to election day in 2012 and 2016, and there were no complaints back then that doing so would be "contentious" (factually, I see it as more contentious that this issue is being kept revisited over and over again throughout the last few months—again, three discussions, including this RfC, in 2020 alone!—because of some people not seemingly willing to accept that their views are not the ones gathering the most consensus). Again, respect procedure and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Impru20^talk 13:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Citing your own numbers, more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteria. BTW, speaking of Wikipedia guidelines, shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet? JLMadrigal @ 13:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

more than a third of these editors would like to keep the ballot access criteria And? What does this even mean? WP:CONSENSUS does not require getting 100% support for a change to be approved (and nonetheless, 1) 66% > 33%, and 2) Arguments proposed for change are most sensible to Wikipedia's policies than attempts to advocate for some particular candidates). Do you suggest that, for some reason, you have a right to constitute some sort of "veto minority" that can blockade any attempt to change consensus?

shouldn't the Infobox currently have all three candidates - since the RfC hasn't been settled yet? You seem to have missed the part where two previous discussions this year already resulted in a large consensus for removing them.

Now, be polite and respect procedure. Impru20^talk 14:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is implying that consensus means 100%. This is not a vote counting game (the editing, that is). Consensus implies agreement, however, and we are far from that. Exclusion of legitimate candidates (who have a mathematical possibility of winning based on verifiable ballot access) from the infobox is censorship, so it requires a darn good explanation. JLMadrigal @ 15:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been explained multiple times. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Explanation to the readers - not the editors, David. JLMadrigal @ 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus implies agreement, yes. It does not imply that those not willing to agree can turn themselves into a vetoing-able minority that can blockade the agreement reached by everyone else as you seemingly hint. No, it's not censorship. Unless, of course, that you somehow acknowledge that your exclusion of candidates having access to less than 270 EVs is censorship as well... duh! Finally, it's you who started the head-counting btw, I was only replying to you here.

Someone should probably close this discussion and defer it to the main RfC above. Impru20^talk 16:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Agree that this belongs in the RfC. But a consensus clearly has not been reached, there is not some fringe minority holding up the process, there is a significant number of people in opposition. Consensus is not a vote, certainly not a vote tally leaning in favor of committing WP:OR and disregarding the purpose of the infobox to accurately summarize article contents. HeroofTime55 (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Feels a lot like a "consensus" to commit rampant WP:OR fiddling around with media polling. Inclusion should be based on either a simple, objective verifiable fact (like ballot access), or much more appropriately, the infobox should summarize the article which at present contains 4 sections for 4 different candidates. If the standards are going to change, it should be done right, not go even deeper into a rabbit hole of WP:OR on steroids. Is consensus to commit WP:OR a valid consensus under Wikipedia policy? HeroofTime55 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What it feels is like a pair of users that are not feeling good with what they think will be the hypothesized outcome of the RfC above, thinking that by opening new threads in this talk page and shouting out loud that their view is the one that should be counted for deciding the issue, the whole RfC will be overriden. It's not even over yet and the whole RfC is being sought to be amended just because of not agreeing with the (as of now) majority position. In consensus decision-making, there's no way a "significant minority" can hold an emerging consensus from being enforced (Btw, 1/3 is "significant"? I've seen plenty of RfCs succeeding throughout Wikipedia with much more opposition than that). It's obvious by now that this is a mere discussion fork of the (still open) RfC above. All comments on the RfC issue should be made there instead of prompting duplicate discussions. Talk pages are not forums for chit chatting. All users involved, respect procedure. Impru20^talk 21:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The aggression is cute enough, but you failed to address the issues with WP:OR going on here, and whether or not a bare majority vote is sufficient to override broader policy. And I note that there is a mere 1/6 difference separating 1/3 and 1/2 and nobody would argue that there is a consensus with less than half in agreement, so yeah, it's actually a fairly significant number of folks who are not in agreement.

I am glad that this discussion is moved back to the RfC where it belongs, though I think the title declaring "Results" is misleading, as we certainly are not anywhere close to having workable results on this. The RfC was also structured from the start to essentially favor a vote between 3 limited options and not actually foster consensus building and alternative proposals. HeroofTime55 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The WP:OR issues I see are those I've commented from the very beginning of the discussion. And those do not revolve on the format of the RfC. You know, you have been involved in this RfC from day one. Both you and me have had ample time to discuss every relevant argument on this topic. You have been one of the most active users in this RfC for its whole duration. Yet it has not been until recently that you have started to report alleged "OR" issues on the RfC format itself, or on the alleged requisites that, according to you, should be of application for considering the RfC's outcome valid (Note: well, not entirely true: you DID speak at first against a new consensus emerging "so close to election", but that was refuted seeing that past consensuses were reached in 2012 and 2016 even up to election day; I'd invite you to visit those discussions and count how many people were not in agreement with the resulting consensuses and still were steamrolled by them, shall you?).

Now, the whole large-enough-minority issue seems like a brand new excuse which finds no support in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. These new complaints do not seem sincere, neither was the start of this fork discussion in the first place. You can't just pretend to override Wikipedia rules on a RfC halfway through it just because you may not like the final outcome. You supported choice C from the very beginning, you were well aware of what the choices were, there was (it's still there, btw) choice D allowing users to express themselves in support of other criteria... and you didn't complain about it. Until now. And now you want to do it... why? Because it looks like C is not getting the most support around here? In recent days you seem to be moving from C to C+something else, probably because of thinking that you could get more support that way. That's cool. But it was your call to wait so much time for voicing your alternative proposal. That's not the RfC's fault, it's yours. Choice was given for alternative proposals to be made (I did made an additional one very early on), because obviously it's nigh to impossible to structure a RfC into an endless string of choices (in fact, many RfCs throughout Wikipedia are structured around two choices only)

I've spent the past nine years in Wikipedia, and I've been both in the "winning" and "losing" sides of many discussions (Note: quotations intended, because in the end it must be seen that all discussions result in a single winner prevailing: Wikipedia itself). It's ok, it's not bad, sometimes you just can't have the pony you seek. But never, for a single time, have I attempted to intentionally cast doubts on the whole process or modify its rules halfway through it because I wasn't pleased with the likeliest outcome of it. Users should refrain from engaging in any potentially obstructive behaviour during a RfC, whatever the outcome of the discussion may be, because it's truly important that we respect the rules that we've granted ourselves so that we don't stray away from fair play. Impru20^talk 00:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet it has not been until recently that you have started to report alleged "OR" issues on the RfC format itself, or on the alleged requisites that, according to you, should be of application for considering the RfC's outcome valid Funny thing, I've changed my mind as this discussion has gone on, and you'll see I also changed my mind earlier in the discussion, while you were still ignoring my new points and accusing me of bludgeoning. In fact, my views have been slowly shifting over nearly the entire course of the discussion, which I thought was part of the point of consensus building. I am sorry that you are interpreting my change of mind as insincere. Among A, B, and C, "C" in my view remains the best, but I have since developed a new view that, in reality, none of these are great, and constitute varying degrees of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Though I'm glad you finally acknowledge that I have changed my stance, even if you are only doing so in order to accuse me of ulterior motives. HeroofTime55 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point of consensus-building. Not "hey, I've changed my mind, just amend the whole process and start it all anew". You are not the only participant in this discussion and you have no right for rules to be changed the way you seek at the time you seek just to please you. You have had ample time to change your mind and demonstrate whatever you wished to demonstrate. Just like everyone else.

I've not "accused you" of anything you have not said yourself. Understand that attempting to turn this RfC into a deadlock just because "some people oppose it" [choice B] finds no support in Wikipedia guidelines (hell, consensus-building guidelines exist because of unanimity not existing; otherwise, you won't need RfCs to exist) and is, ultimately unhelpful, because it hints at an apparent unwillingness to accept the RfC's ultimate outcome if it doesn't fit into one's view. Impru20^talk 07:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Correctly noting that the process opened in a flawed manner is not equivalent to demanding it be restarted because it "didn't go my way." While unanimity cannot be expected, we are quite, quite far from anything resembling such. I am not sure that "hard B" (5% polling with no modification or caveats) even has 50% (I have not tallied votes myself (consensus not being a vote anyway)), and there is no specification as to what polls are actually the ones to be considered in this proposed model. At any rate, I could really do without you continuing to attack me personally and your perceptions that I somehow am not following the procedure to your specific liking. Thanks in advance. HeroofTime55 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It took you almost three weeks to notice the process was "opened in a flawed manner", "flaws" that no one else seem to have noticed (and which have been already refuted). That's the insincere part of it, and it should be noted that such accusations can very well backfire upon the complainer if they're deemed as mere disruption. You didn't have any such issue for the whole duration of the process until now, when it is seemingly obvious that the RfC may lead to an outcome you may not like. There's a stronger consensus in this RfC that in many, many RfCs in the history of Wikipedia that ended up with a successful consensus. Consensus, in fact, is stronger here than the one in 2012 and 2016 when the 270-ballot access criterion was adopted. And definitely, the RfC is way better constructed than the discussions back then, which were a chaotic mess. The fact that some users seem intent on shouting out loud that there is no consensus so that the RfC is closed that way instead of leading to an outcome they don't like is not only outrageously obvious, but also only serves to waste everyone's time in something that, ultimately, does not correspond to us to decide.

I will not be commenting on the personal attack issue, coming from a person who joined this fork discussion by openly accusing those not favouring their view of "rampant WP:OR fiddling" and of "going deeper into a rabbit hole of WP:OR on steroids". Respect procedure and fair play. Impru20^talk 08:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not the only one who has noted that the structure of this RfC largely precludes any room for "D" options to be discussed. In fact, I came to agree with it after others noted it. As to my accusations of WP:OR, I am not limiting that to "people against me" but I in fact view all the options presented as varying degrees of WP:OR, though the 5% polling I believe is by far the most extreme instance of that. Any metric other than summarizing the article and following notability standards is WP:OR. Finally, kindly cease with the implicit threats. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes: the one who did before you ended up attempting to canvass the RfC. This reassures me a lot (nods). You know, I was going to enter into replying the reasoning of the 5% threshold being ORish (it's the consensus threshold for post-election infobox inclusion, so of all criteria posted above it's the least arbitrary one, not the other way around), but since it looks like every reply from me is being dubbed by you as an "attack" or a "threat" (lol?), seeing that every discussion with you only gets into never-ending circular clashings and that you seem unwilling to peacefully admit the possibility that you may lose your pony, I think I'll leave this here. My ideas have been widely exposed in the discussion above and have not been changed, so I don't see any need of keeping repeating myself nor to lose my time on worthless accusations. I'll just ask you again to respect procedure and to stay on topic. Cheers. Impru20^talk 16:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

It most certainly is an implicit threat when you threaten me that it's going to "backfire" on me if I keep making the arguments I am making. Seems like an effort to steer the discussion away from topics you don't prefer. If it's actually going to "backfire" somehow, then let it, don't try to control the discussion by lobbing a threat.

As far as polling, at the risk of re-hashing our prior lengthy debate, media polls are not the same as the actual vote tally, and are not in any way comparable. Post-election NPV is one, verifiable, exact number, not once in this entire lengthy discussion has anyone given a concrete proposal for how exactly 5% media polling would be calculated. Which polls, how many, what time frames, how do you make that determination? Who calculates it? Is it a one-time thing, or can the infobox be lost with a bad week of polling? 270 EV ballot access is at least a stable metric that can be looked up with relative ease, compared to doing some sort of calculation on media polling. Jo Jorgensen has met the 5% bar in at least one 4-way poll, should she be included on that basis? Or do we need to do massive WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to compile polls under our own system and come to a determination? My argument would be more so that, if consensus is reached on 5% media polling, it would be a Wrongful Consensus for violating broad policies such as WP:OR HeroofTime55 (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would love to continue participating in this discussion, but the original question has become so muddled that I'm not even sure how to anymore. Perhaps Darryl Kerrigan is right about the need to close this RfC. Additionally, I was just canvassed by JLMadrigal who wanted me to repeat my comments because they apparently aligned with their position. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh Lord. Looks like JLMadrigal is attempting to openly WP:CANVASS several users into supporting choice C: [24] [25] [26]. Impru20^talk 21:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. The section they started on my talk page told me I was "required" to support option C. I don't have much time on my hands at the moment, but if you need to deal with that at WP:ANI, feel free to mention their attempt to canvass me. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

For now I've followed normal procedure and posted them a warning requiring them to stop. If they keep continuing on such a disruptive behaviour of canvassing and opening discussion forks to unduly influence the outcome of a discussion they may have to be brought to ANI indeed. Impru20^talk 21:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as how this AfD has been manipulated, the correct course of action is to continue the discussion sans problematic user(s). KidAd (💬💬) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to have messaged you inadvertently, Tartan357, I misinterpreted your comment above:

“

I read what you wrote above about moving the goalposts and I think that is concerning. We should not be changing our criteria for each election solely to end up with only the Democratic and Republican nominees.

”

It won't happen again (see my response to Impru20's comment above.

JLMadrigal @

The issue was not that you "misinterpreted" Tartan357 or that you "messaged him inadvertently", but that you did so because you thought he could be influenced to support your cause in this discussion, which is what WP:CANVASSING refers to. Impru20^talk 18:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, we have had disclosure of that, nothing further happened and now we have an apology. Can we just leave this now, unless someone really believes next steps somewhere else are required? If folks want to have a specific discussion about the close (and not personal conduct) here, so be it, but it does not seem that much of what has been said over the last few days is helping us get any kind of close here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Impru20, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you should take them to ANI immediately. I agree that that would be inappropriate. JLMadrigal has been warned and has apologized, so further criticism is gratuitous at this point, even if they don't fully understand the nature of WP:CANVASSING. Like Darryl, I'd like to get back on track. What are everyone's positions on the RfC question now, and what objections are there to particular proposals? — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree (though it should be noted that they were not apologizing for the canvassing, but for misinterpreting that you didn't actually mean what they thought you meant; they still think, as of their last comment, that there was nothing wrong with their other two comments, so I was just explaining how CANVASSING works).

My suggestion would be to collapse this whole section, since it went off-track from the beginning and doesn't add any meaningful content to the RfC. Cheers. Impru20^talk 21:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with collapsing this section. HeroofTime55 (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Same. Some restatements of current opinions in the survey section would be helpful, I think. Or, perhaps, a discussion section should be started. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I have a proposal, how about we collapse all the discussions between y'all, I think that the massive walls of text might be scaring people off from commenting, there is no way they are useful additions to the discussion since everyone has already made their point, it is highly unlikely anyone will be convinced by the other's argument, they have grown ridiculously long to the point where they take up an egregious amount of space, and I do not think any potential !voters will even read them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Some threads (like my massive back and forth with Impru20 that was collapsed) are worth hiding, but there are also some key responses and some key exchanges that I think do add great value, so any effort like this should be very careful about which sections get collapsed. Ideally with the agreement of the parties involved. I'd suggest pinging people in particular massive sections that you think should be collapsed to get their consent. Anything that makes it more readable and more manageable is a good idea. And also, collapse this entire "RFC Results" section, any new or novel thoughts that have arisen within should be re-posted to the survey, as others have suggested. HeroofTime55 (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: I saw you requested a closure at WP:AN/RFC. Do you see any sort of consensus coming out of this discussion as it stands, and if so, what is it? — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not closing this, and that is probably a good thing. But FWIIW, it looks like something like 16 people voted for B (so far). This is not a perfect count as some folks voted "B and C" or "Soft B" etc, and frankly I go a bit cross-eyed when I try to do these counts (check my addition). It looks to me that both A and C had about 7-8 votes each (including the D option, which I read as more of an A vote, and have counted as such). There was also a vote for B but with a 2% threshold (more permissive). Of course, the RfC is still running and closing is more of an exercise than simply counting votes, but my sense is that the consensus is for a general criteria something like B (or perhaps slightly more permissive). Whatever general criteria is set, I don't think it means that other factors could not ALSO lead to inclusion (per the discussion about other candidates that poll below 5% but are likely to win states, or in future parties/candidates who received 5% in the last election). Despite passing comments, I don't think the RfC really touched on that so I don't think the RfC should be seen as a decision against that (or discarding these metrics where used for past US elections).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

If consensus is reached on 5%, how would that 5% figure be calculated? And how would WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns be averted in calculating that 5%? I believe the 5% option is at great risk of becoming a Wrongful Consensus for violating broader policy. HeroofTime55 (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not applicable to this issue. We are deciding what a good guideline or benchmark is for when it is WP:DUE to include a candidate in the infobox here. This isn't the first time this has been done either, 5% is the standard almost always used for infoboxes after an election has occurred. It has long been accepted that guideline is appropriate. This is a question of balance and treatment of facts in the article (not literal "content"). OR and SYNTH apply to content that may otherwise be untrue, not balancing what is appropriate treatment in an article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is an obvious clear consensus for B here. Since A is more radical, advocating for there being no option to have third party candidates in the infobox, it cannot be counted with C. Therefore B clearly has a strong consensus, since you really have to count A and B votes together, with B being a less radical option. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If consensus is the basis upon which edits are approved by the community, then it would seem there is, as yet, no consensus on this issue, but there was a prior consensus that I gather was akin to option C from the survey above. Since some kind of policy has to exist for candidate inclusion, then it seems to me the status quo should be maintained until such time as a new consensus exists. This is not a vote, so a 66/33 split on a new policy doesn't automatically win and it actually is appropriate for a relatively small minority to block a change in that policy, especially if the result of a policy shift is to REMOVE accurate information from an article. If the purpose of this site is to provide information, then defaulting to a half-changed policy that restricts information is a really bad way to operate. Citizenslave (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2020 (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.

Individual state pages

Does anyone know if the RfC consensus applies to individual state contest pages? Infobox inclusion on them is still quite contested, and we may need an RfC specifically addressing that. See the edit history at Maine, Washington, and Alaska. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 20:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the answer is that technically it doesn't apply, but practically it does. While I raised the issue of state pages (and DC) in the RfC, I don't think many turned there minds to that. That said, in my view, the RfCs concerning the democratic primaries (though not binding here) and this RfC together suggest strong community consensus to include candidates who are polling over 5% in infoboxes before an election has occurred. Of course, there is already a much stronger consensus to include anyone who actually receives >5% after an election has occurred. So I think we should operate on the assumption that candidates polling over 5% should be included. If someone really wants to start an new RfC about it there is nothing stopping them, but I hope that won't be necessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I concur that the consensus reached here would be of application likewise to state pages unless some specific circumstance advised against doing it. After all, those are mere split-offs of this article, so the criteria regulating those would in practice remain the same. Before an election, that would be the aforementioned criterion of polling above 5% or having secured at least 1 EV or 5% in the immediately-preceding election (with the latter two being already pre-existing criteria not having been disputed here). Impru20^talk 16:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the polling requirement would remove Jorgensen from all state pages, since most polls don't include her. While that implicitly makes sense with the new consensus, we'll probably see persistent arguing over it without an explicit consensus, so it'd probably be best to start an RfC. And I agree that the post-election criteria are not at issue here. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW, I think if the Libertarians or Greens received >5% of the vote in 2016 in any of the states they should be included in the infobox for that state's 2020 sub-page. If once the deadlines pass they are not on the ballot, perhaps not, but I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt when they are applying (ie the deadline hasn't passed yet) or when their signatures are being verified by elections officials etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I also think that it would be premature and possibly inappropriate to apply the consensus of this RfC to the state pages because polls in individual states may be quite different from polls conducted nationally. It's probably best to wait a bit to see if there are any objections here to maintaining the old consensus (inclusion carried forward from the previous election) before starting a new RfC. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to states, I think the 5% polling criterion is even worse for states than it is nationally; there are very few, if any, polls that don't just prompt for the Republican and Democrat candidates. I don't see how the Democratic Primary has any bearing on state elections for POTUS? In one there are many candidates, which have to be whittled down to fit, and in the other there are few, which, arguably, don't. Instead, I'd suggest a candidate should satisfy any one (or more) of the following:

Before the election, a candidate/party received at the last election 5% of the popular vote statewide/nationally, or at least one electoral vote
Before the state ballot access deadline, a candidate has state ballot access
After the state ballot access deadline but before the election, a candidate has state ballot access and (ballot access to 270 electoral votes nationally or 2% polling average statewide/nationally)
[After the election] a candidate received at the election 5% of the popular vote statewide/nationally, or at least one electoral vote

Etsnev (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think #1 (5% in the previous election) applies. It is in keeping with what has been done in the past on some US Elections articles (and international ones), and it is consistent with the spirit of the 5% threshold generally (from past RfCs across the project and more recently here). I think #2 does not apply (there is consensus against using ballot access as a measure). I think #3 does not apply. The criteria is #3A: there is polling of 5% before an election, regardless of the "ballot access deadline" and without the need for 270 ballot access. If a independent (local favourite) was polling over 5% in a state, I think we include them even if they do not have ballot access outside that state (as long as they have ballot access inside it). This is like including David Lee Rice in the West Virginia Dem primary page infobox. Finally, concerning AFTER an election, I KNOW there this ample "precedent" and consensus for No. 4 (including anyone who wins 5% of the actual vote in the infobox after election). After the election No. 4 would get you in the infobox, but so would winning a state/DC (for the main infobox) or electoral college delegates (for either). So for the state pages before the election, I think the test is No. 1 (5% in the last election) OR No. 3A (5% polling anytime before the election) AND they probably need ballot access in that state.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Darryl Kerrigan about #1 applying; RfCs have typically supported the 5% criterion in one way or another. I also agree that if someone is polling at 5% in a state, then that should be a separate means for their inclusion, in keeping with the consensus reached with respect to this page. Etsnev, I agree that polling should not be used to exclude candidates from infoboxes without further discussion due to the substantial differences between state and national polls. If we do use polling, though, I don't see why we should use 2% when 5% has been discussed and repeatedly accepted for most purposes. Ballot access to 270 electoral votes doesn't really make sense for state pages. That was the only way in which we previously used ballot access, and it was rejected in the latest RfC here. I'm skeptical that ballot access is a meaningful metric to gauge support or electability in advance of an election, so I don't think that should be used on state pages. In short, I agree with both of you that the present arrangement is adequate and in keeping with the spirit of the RfCs pertaining to the main page infobox. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

On this matter, I too concur with Darryl Kerrigan, and with the additional comments by Tartan357. I couldn't have stated my opinion better than they themselves did above. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC closure query

I hope readers of this will forgive my ignorance of Wikipedia but I am confused about why the RfC was closed on 30th July by Serial. In the one line closure message Serial states that "interest ... has declined sufficiently to warrant closurea" and that "there is a clear consensus to implement option B".

Given that there were four new top-level comments/votes in the last day, how is it that "interest ... has declined sufficiently"?

I've looked through the responses myself and arrived at the following totals:

4 A
14 B
3 B-
11 C
3 D (1 case-by-case, summarise the article (still support[s] C over B), 1 B & C, (C but consider) A or B or C, 1 not C)

Clearly, in a FPTP election B would have `won' but how is a "clear consensus" justified from these numbers? I struggle to see one. Etsnev (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, as Serial was the one that closed this, you would have to ask them. That said, it is helpful to keep in mind that consensus is not a simple vote and it is also not WP:NOTUNANIMITY. It is also worth noting, that in closing an RfC consideration can be given to the strength of the reasoning given. It is also worth noting that we must guard against canvassing, and attempts to hijack the consensus building process. Here where there was off wiki canvassing (for inclusion of Jorgensen, and an option like C, that would see her added) that may have played a role in the close. And the three C votes that came in just before the close, and from editors with few edits outside this area (yourself included), may have played a role in that decision as well. One of those editors, has been accused of puppetry and is currently subject of discussion at WP:ANI. I don't know how if at all that played into Serial's decision, but these are some factors that may have gone into the close.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Maybe I'll leave a note on Serial's talk page if that's the correct etiquette?

You are speculating, but if suspicions of foul play was a reason for closure, should this not have been mentioned in the closure commit message?

In addition to your comments about consensus, consensus doesn't exist just because it is declared to. You're not Serial so I understand that you haven't answered my two questions directly. Nontheless, in the section above, "Individual state pages", you state that this RfC (together with a Democratic Primary RfC) suggests "strong community consensus to include candidates ... polling over 5% ... before an election". Given this, how, do you think this RfC implies consensus?

I dip in and out as the whim takes me and, perhaps wrongly, refer to WP for election information. The POTUS election is of worldwide importance and I am concerned that the GIN and DISC hinder the possibility of a good outcome. The national polling page annoyed me so I rejigged it. To begin with I didn't think it worthwhile to engage in the RfC, but eventually circled back. I was surprised that it was closed so soon afterwards. Can `dippers' like me not make useful contributions? Is it not the substance of the contribution that's important?

There were good arguments from all sides. One of the nubs of the issue is notability of those who satisfy C, which I think is still unresolved. Another such point is the question of relying on media polling gate-keeping, rather than using ballot access. I'm disappointed that there wasn't more work towards a consensus because I think there was one to be had, possibly B- at 3% (though I'd prefer 1% or 2%), as far as I could go in what I think is the wrong direction.

You refer to accusations but is there no presumption of innocence on WP? I was surprised at the result. To me the complainant came across as thin-skinned, almost inviting conflict. A little magnanimity would have gone a long way, especially as the more regular contributor of the two. Finally, I think it's wrong to infer anything nefarious from the user deleting their account. They were interested in [robustly] contributing to the discussion, not playing telltale on a web-forum. Etsnev (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure how you would know that editor was interested in [robustly] contributing to the discussion, not playing telltale. If you believe that perhaps you should comment at WP:ANI (as that is the correct forum for that editor's behaviour). If you are going to comment there however, I recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG as those reporting or commenting at ANI are not immune from their own behaviour being questioned. I say this not to question your contributions, but because questions like is there no presumption of innocence on WP? suggest you may not be fully aware of some of our policies. Legal principles like the presumption of innocence do not apply on Wikipedia. In some cases we have similar policies like WP:AGF. But we do not strictly adhere to any legal principles. An editor can be blocked, sanctioned etc. despite not being "guilty" beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, WP:SOCKs and other WP:DISRUPTive editors can take advantage of that doubt, so it has its limits on the platform. If you want to discuss the state pages, I suggest you discuss that in the appropriate section. As I have already stated, I do think there is grounds for the close Serial has made. It is also worth noting that this RfC, followed other RfCs/discussions including this one and this one. Anyway, I hope you find that information helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

"I do think there is grounds for the close Serial has made." What grounds do you think there are for the closure?

In the RfC you link to (NB You link twice to the same RfC) many of the responses that are anti-inclusion are short and make subjective WP:CRYSTALBALL points that third parties "[will be seen to have] hardly made a difference" etc. Others make the assumption, which I think is unfounded, that the media/pollsters are unbiased so the only reason a candidate isn't covered by them is lack of significance/public interest [and so, by dint of their lack of coverage, the other parties shouldn't be included]. One voter refers to third parties in the infobox as a "waste of space", despite the fact that in 2016 (and 2012) six candidates were shown in the box, with four more noted at the bottom. Etsnev (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the second link should have been to this discussion. I have fixed it above also. I am not going to debate the individual comments made by some other editors (particularly those I disagree with). The point is though we have had three discussions on the inclusion of Greens/Libertarians in the infobox already, which received high participation. Together they pretty clearly suggest there is a consensus against including Greens/Libertarians based simply on ballot access.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think Darryl Kerrigan must have gipsy blood. A number of the C !votes were of the WP:LIKEIT / WP:DONTLIKEIT variety (especially the last three). This did not apply to the only other candidate for consensus, that of B. All the best, ——Serial 17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

That is a silly assertion against the C !votes. I'm not in the business of making that sort of dismissive claim, but the B !votes are no better and perhaps worse by that metric. That kind of subjectivity, of course, is why I wouldn't rely on that as a metric for determining "legitimacy" of anyone's !votes. But now I must consider whether or not certain views were unfairly dismissed in the close. HeroofTime55 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good analysis, Serial. I'd like a second opinion. Etsnev (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)