Talk:Republican Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

A bunch of people were added today, but no sources were added. If these additions have credence, add a citation; otherwise, they'll be reverted.--Appraiser (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This list truly is disgraceful for how few citations there are. It needs major cleanup. 149.160.35.196 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While not "disgraceful," it's simply "silly" to add a "fact" template to Sen. Joe Lieberman - who was an obvious potential choice - though citations would be nice. - Nhprman 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is not "silly." Redfarmer (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is when it's superfluous. To require 78 citations - a different one for each candidate - is ridiculous. Two or three articles from national news sources that mention 10-20 candidates is sufficient to cover the major ones. I must say that some of these are likely NOT major candidates, but the article doesn't speicify "major" or "serious" candidates. Until it does, "rumored" candidates certainly are acceptable. Again, one news article mentioning 5-10 of these names should be sufficent for "verification" of each name. - Nhprman 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not sufficient. If the person was only "rumored" and has not been covered in reliable third party publications (i.e. the candidate is not verifiable, the article is engaging in original research in violation of Wikipedia policies. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of any name that some amateur political analyst thinks may have been a choice. For an example of a similar article that is sourced extremely well, see Democratic Party (United States) vice presidential candidates, 2008. Redfarmer (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that if I happened to hear about a candidate down at the local bar, then I can put them into the article. I know better. I simply said that people who were actively discussed in the media are *definitely* eligible to be included here, and in that case, a single media citation noting this is acceptable to prove this was the case. What I did say, as an issue of style and format here, is that if five candidates (say, five congressmen) are mentioned in one NY Times article, then all five should share that citation. Also, I think your degradation of a "political analyist" mentioning a name is not reflective of notability guidelines, or common sense. Had Sarah Palin NOT been chosen, the fact that she was mentioned and supported by Newt Gingrich and Bill Kristol, an editor of a major conservative magazine, would DEFINITELY have been notable and newsworthy. And worthy of inclusion here as a reasonable citation. Nhprman

I didn't mean to suggest that multiple candidates couldn't share one source. However, if that is what has been done here, the identity of the sources is a mystery in some cases. 90% of the candidates do not have a citation or even have anything that can suggest where the information came from. If I did this in one of my college papers, I'd fail the paper for sure. The standard is that any information that is not considered "obvious knowledge" (e.g. "Humans exist") should be cited. There are really not that many obvious knowledge cases, therefore most everything should be cited. Redfarmer (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If you accept multiple sourcing, I suspect we're pretty much on the same page after all. And each time I come here I add a reference. If everyone did that, there would be no problem after a few days. - Nhprman 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I view the people who just added names to this list without a source as the problem, not those who add the sources. Redfarmer (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Republican presidential nominee

As I've pointed out in my 'edi summary' - McCain hasn't won the nomination -yet-. The Republican National Convention shall choose the presidential nominee in September. McCain is the presumptive nominee. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember also: Usually, the presidential nominee picks a running mate, and asks the delegates attending the national convention to vote for his choice.

But they don't have to.

The presidential nominee and the vice presidential nominee are not voted on together, and delegates are not bound to vote for the VP choice of the presidential candidate they may otherwise be bound to support. RNC rules say that the vice presidential nominee is voted on in the same manner as the presidential nominee (but in a separate vote). So, should McCain win the nomination, if a majority of delegates at the convention do not vote for his pick for VP, his pick cannot win the nomination for VP.

In fact, if a majority of the delegations from as few as five states support another vice-presidential candidate, they can force a floor vote on that alternative (see Rule No. 40b). Should that candidate then receive a majority of total delegate votes, that candidate becomes the VP nominee. --67.141.165.59 (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ric Flair

As that was obviously in jest I removed him as a candidate --71.61.169.70 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sen. Joe Lieberman

I added Senator Joe Lieberman back under the list of U.S. senators before I knew he had been previously removed, because he has been a close friend in the Senate of McCain, and has been mentioned a fair deal as a possible [though admittedly not likely] pick. Additionally, below the list, the article mentions a "Top 5" picks by TheHill.com, which includes the senator. So, i would suggest that we include Senator Lieberman, but perhaps note that he has publicly expressed disinterest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.162.222 (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Someone just created John McCain presidential campaign, VP selection process. It should be merged into here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MSNC veepstakes

I see this contest's result were placed on this article's Democratic counter-part. Should the Republican contest results be added here? GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs major cleanup

I removed Mel Martinez, since he is ineligible (born in Cuba), and I think that even I might have the same shot as Clarence Thomas for being picked as McCain's VP. We need sources and a major cleanup.--Shikata Ganai (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge into United States presidential election, 2008 proposal

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This proposal runs parallel with the one in Democratic_Party_(United_States)_vice_presidential_candidates,_2008. To restate the points made there, the US Vice Presidential selection process is performed almost entirely by the Presidential candidate, who normally does not release details on who he/she is considering. This article should be eliminated or merged with another article, such as United States presidential election, 2008. VP picks are pure speculation unless you're looking right at the presidential candidate's short list, which doesn't happen. We will know in a few days who the candidate is, making much of this speculation too trivial to deserve much of its own article in the future. This article is flirting with the guidelines in Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) OpposeThis article should remain in order to document the list of people that were considered by reliable sources to be potential candidates. If it is absorbed into a broader article as you suggest, the information will very likely be lost once a selection is made and announced. We don't want this article to be pared down to one candidate—that would be of no encyclopedic use. It should remain as-is for future researchers.--Appraiser (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC) I agree! I found this very helpful for research that I was doing today! Strawberry Island (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) I don't think it should be merged, but it needs to be sourced throughout, otherwise it's nothing but a - potentially random - list of names. I added a few references, it's not hard, it's just a lot of work. Of course, the question is if anyone will bother, now that it's mostly an issue of historical interest. Lampman (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Support merge. The information should be summarized, presenting it in a historic sense, and merged. As it is, even the lead paragraph is out of date. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose Barack Obama has a separate page so should John McCain 129.63.200.15 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Support especially because the article lead doesn't even make it clear that there are no "potential" choices anymore. McCain chose Palin. Enigma message 04:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose It is far too early to be talking about merger. This is recent history, and extremely notable. - Nhprman 16:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose - There is a lot of upheaval in the presidential election articles, and this is something that can wait for a few months to get all sorted out. Perhaps then, a merge would be in order.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Support, with a caveat - I just changed my mind. I support merging this into the main article, if it is centered around the process used to select Palin. For example, the floating of possible names in the media by the campaign (Ridge and Lieberman) to gauge the reaction. That should be the focus, rather than just listing speculation. Also, since Palin was such a surprise pick, I do think it would be kosher to list journalists who predicted her selection. For example, this article I added from Real Clear Politics.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Support This is only one minor event in the McCain presidential run, and, as such, needs to be a sub-section of his campaign article. Bonewah (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Palin's Picture

I edited out a Glamour picture of Palin in 1984 that keeps appearing to the side of the article. Its not a professional looking picture and I don't see how its relevant. Her picture is already in the gallery at the bottom.Hebephrenic (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant because she's an empty dress.217.43.168.198 (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your biased, pathetic comment, Mr./Mrs. anonymous. Keep your opinions about the subject of articles off talk pages, please. - Nhprman 00:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Prod tag

After today's announcement, this article now seems irrelevant. I decided to be bold and throw a prod tag on it. Thoughts? -Brougham96 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly Oppose deletion. This article documents the people who were considered for the vice presidential position on the GOP ticket in 2008. Surely his information will be useful to researchers and will be difficult to reproduce in the future. Who remembers whom Eisenhower considered before Nixon was nominated? This is valuable information.--Appraiser (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• And Brougham96 plans to be bold and put a delete tag on the DEMOCRATIC Party VP candidate page, too, right? ... Right? I just *love* the balance and fairness around here. BTW, KEEP the page. This was a historical event, and now enters the pages of history, and was obviously notable, significant and encyclopedically relevant. - Nhprman 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• It's not like that, believe me.. It's only a prod, anybody can remove it, I just felt the article is outdated. And I consider myself a Republican, so that had nothing to do with it, I am just more likely to be looking up Republican topics. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Prod tag removed as it has met opposition here, I removed it myself. I am certainly not here to step on anyone's toes. -Brougham96 (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. It's not a question of stepping on toes, it's a question of consensus-seeking - and I was making a point about fairness, too. I doubt there'd be a consensus reached this early after the end of the process. Perhaps in a year, or even less, someone will skilfully reduce and merge this into the main article on the McCain/Palin campaign. But I still might argue that this and the Democratic Party one is a historic record worth saving. - Nhprman 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Purging the uncited

Given how old this article is, I suggest we begin by purging all those uncited names. If it can't be verified, it doesn't belong here. Anybody disagree? (If so, please make your case.) --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some names here that I've tried to find citations for, but could not. There sre others that, when I've looked them up, I've instantly found citations and have added them. It's a tough call, but some of them clearly should be removed. Some of the former and current Governors and Congressmen are the most unlikely to have been named in serious sources. Bill Owens and J.C. Watts, for example, have no evidence online or offline. There was speculation on blogs about some of them, but that's not a great source here on WP. Fred Thompson, to my knowledge, saw no speculation about him as a VP, and none can be found. - Nhprman 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot more info out there about the selection process than there once was. That should work. --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me reiterate my view that none of the governors or former senators listed here that have no citations yet were seriously considered for VP, at least no citations can be found to that effect. The Gov's of RI, CT, HI and AL were not mentioned in any source that can be found. - Nhprman 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Candidates gallery

Does the gallery of speculative candidates serve any purpose? I'm not aware of other articles that include galleries of everybody named in the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)