Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 20 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Trump to make "major announcement" June 16

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

Sounds like Donald Trump is going to announce his candidacy on june 16, although the sources don't confirm that. We ought be keeping any eye on this, though:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243350-trump-stokes-2016-talk-schedules-major-announcement, http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-donald-trump-running-president-1942820

--Eli755 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not enough to have him moved to Announcement pending section, as it's unclear whether the forthcoming announcement is actually about his potential candidacy (although it sure seems to be the case), but thanks for the heads-up. Stay tuned, folks....--NextUSprez (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At first, I absolutely agreed. I thought it would be like his 2012 "big announcement which was pretty stupid. However, most media have agreed it is a Presidential run, he's talked openly about making the announcement in June and it's at the Trump Tower. I think it calls for inclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a third party source that outright states that they expect this to be an announcement, seems sources right now are insinuating it might be that but then hedge their bets. This does seem to be a very close call.ObieGrad (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ObieGrad. A bit too much insinuation and "hedging of bets" for me to be comfortable with including it in the "announcements pending" section. Still looking for a reliable source that plainly states the announcement is having to do with his decision on whether to run or not.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards PrarieKid's take on this. I think there's enough indications that the announcement will have something to do with his running - or not - for president. Especially the part about going to New Hampshire the next day, a major hint there. Although ObieGrad has a good point that it's "a very close call", I think including Trump on the announcement would be justified (barely, but still).--Eli755 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The new ref provided for this states this is a 2016 announcement so that settles the issue in my mind. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-sets-date-2016-announcementObieGrad (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Willie Wilson

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

Willie Wilson has received significant press coverage from reliable sources concerning his bid for president. A Google news search for "Willie Wilson" "president" yields far more results (1320 hits) than Jeff Boss and Robby Wells, at 142 hits and 61 hits respectively. While Boss and Wells may have other things that they are notable for which cause them to warrant a Misplaced Pages article, this article is about the 2016 presidential election and those things do not make them viable candidates. In fact they likely detract from these candidates viability. The fact that Wilson has received significant coverage in reliable sources does make him worthy of inclusion in the "other candidates" subsection.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Makes sense. Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait until there is a consensus before we change the previous consensus. As for coverage, Wilson has more than Wells or Boss simply because he announced today. I see two scenarios from here: (1) Wilson will fade into obscurity in the next week or so and will have the same amount of coverage as Boss or Wells; or (2) Wilson will continue to garner significant media coverage to the extent that he would deserve his own Misplaced Pages page. Either way, I say we keep the system as it is and exclude Willie Wilson. --Vrivasfl (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No. We've long had the requirement that candidates have stand-alone pages in order to be listed. I don't think we should give up that rule for a candidate like Wilson, especially since the only argument for his inclusion is that he brings up a lot of results on Google. If he continues to receive coverage, we can start an article for him. I doubt that will happen but we can't include him until then. PrairieKid (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is this "requirement"? There is no Misplaced Pages policy on the matter and the only previous discussion in the talk page was related to prospective candidates. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was a part of the initial discussions in 2008 that developed this requirement. The requirement is meant to avoid discussions like this. If "Willie Wilson" receives significant coverage then create a wikipedia page for him and add him to the list. If he doesn't get significant coverage and cannot even meet Misplaced Pages's liberal notability requirements then he should not be listed on this page. Regardless, "Willie Wilson" is a fairly common name so I'm not surprised by the number of g-hits it receives. I doubt many (or any for that matter) of those hits have anything to do with someone by that name running for president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The figures that I quoted were for a news search for "Willie Wilson" "president" and having looked through several pages all of the news articles referred to the same Willie Wilson, though a few of the later were articles related to his mayoral run.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, then create an article for him: Willie Wilson (businessman).--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start a revert war but there certainly does not seem to be consensus to add him. I am of the opinion that the Misplaced Pages article requirement is appropriate. Although I'd oppose the change, if we are going to change the policy it needs to be changed before adding Wilson. A rule including Wilson will be harder to create than I think may be apparent to everyone. Is there a number of sources that must discuss a candidate before they get in the article? Can any RS discuss them or only "major" ones? There are over 300 Form 2 filers and I bet a good number of them are mentioned in at least some sources. I think the better solution is to have a new article on Willie Wilson to make him qualify.ObieGrad (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, I do not think redirects (as someone created above) should apply.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please put Wilson back in the article. He has his own page now --- Willie Wilson (businessman). Thank you.--Saam100 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'm going to nominate it for deletion though. I don't think he is WP:NOTABLE. Sorry. I still don't think he should be included. PrairieKid (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see the deletion discussion here. PrairieKid (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bloomberg a Potential Candidate?

According to this article published today Michael Bloomberg is mulling over running for President as a Democrat.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3109598/Could-Hillary-opposition-no-hoper-Lincoln-Chafee-enters-2016-race-Michael-Bloomberg.html> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkbolsen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 June 2015‎ (UTC)

Here's more on Bloomberg as potential democrat candidate for president:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/558500/could-michael-bloomberg-challenge-hillary-clinton-president

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/michael-bloomberg-2016-president-rumors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saam100 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Here's what I added to "Potential candidates" -> * Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City 2002-2013
• Sources:

• NY Dems push Bloomberg to run for presudent The New York Post. Retrieved June 3, 2015.
• Hillary Clinton vs. Michael Bloomberg: Could we see a real fight for 2016 Democratic nomination after all? Fox News. Retrieved June 3, 2015.

Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Bloomberg previously declined. He needs to step back his decline before he can be listed as a speculated candidate.ObieGrad (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Rosanne Barr endorses Berie Sanders

Rosanne Barr has been added to the list of endorsers for Bernie Sanders. See Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Endorsements (under "Celebrities"). Should this be taken as a withdrawal of her candidacy for the Peace and Freedom Party in 2016? If so, she needs to be removed from this page. Or should we wait until more sources become available with more details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saam100 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for more sources to see if she withdraws from the race officially. She can endorse Sanders and run at the same time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich are in the section Publicly expressed interest. But the sources are old, time for remove?83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Current consensus is that there must be at least one source where the candidate states their interest in the past three months. They all meet this requirement.ObieGrad (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter king PAC? http://www.americanleadershipnow.org/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore PAC? http://growthpac.us/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Third Party Candidate Gallery

Do we have a standard for third party candidates to get listed in a gallery? Must they be listed in five major polls?ObieGrad (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IMO, yes, that standard (along with the "held a major office" rule) should apply to all candidates at this point. Another standard, that's been applied in the past, for inclusion in the gallery is that a candidate must have ballot status in enough states to have at least a mathematical possibility of receiving the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Obviously, it's too early to apply that standard. But in time, the Green and Libertarian nominees (both parties already have enough ballot access to mathematically get the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win), and likely the Constitution Party nominee, will be included in a gallery as they have been on the past several election pages.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements

Many of the endorsements for candidates seem to be of the "I like this guy" variety. For example, de Blasio states that he's "a big fan" of Bernie Sanders, but does not say "Sanders would be a great POTUS" or anything like that. I think that the more narrow, blunt "we should elect this guy" kind of endorsement is the one we should go with. What do you guys think? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree I am not sure what the policy on that is but I would certainly say that "I like this guy" should not count as an endorsement. Jadeslair (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree There should be an explicit endorsement of the person as a candidate, not just general praise for them.--2600:1003:B122:962E:0:B:74FD:EE01 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. General praise does not an endorsement make.--Earlgrey T (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with comments above. An endorsement should be a specific expression of support for one's candidacy, not merely a vague "I like this person" kind of a statement.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker announcement

Scheduled for July 13. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/scott-walker-to-announce-presidential-bid-july-13-sentinel From "sources close to Walker" so tentative right now but likely within reason. Consider adding to GOP announcements impending section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs)

I'd like to see something a little less tentative than "sources close to" before moving him to the announcements impending section. Anyone else have thoughts on this?--Jcc7292 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree w/ Jcc7292. The given source is too tentative, especially given that an official spoksperson for Walker "would neither confirm or deny a specific date" for his announcement.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ only because Walker actually has a date and not mention John Kasich has hinted after June 30th, unlike Chris Christie who shows no sign of announcing at all. Walker and Kasich should not be sharing space with Christie as they do show signs of announcing when Christie shows no signs at all.--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"three insiders said the Republican governor and his campaign staff are targeting July 13 as the date for Walker to make the big announcement. There has been some discussion of having it later in that week, but most have settled on July 13, a Monday. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for the governor, would neither confirm or deny a specific date." Sounds too tentative for me, nothing definitive from Walker himself and and an official spokesperson neither confirming or denying the date. IMO, we need need something more affirmative than "targeting" a date from an official source.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, then can the Announcement section be modified to include anyone who has indicated they are moving forward from exploring? Only because as I mentioned, both Kasich (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/05/27/kasich-may-announce-for-president-after-june-30th/) and Walker have indicate they do intend to move forward, I will concede no specific dates, but they do intend to move forward. Chris Christie again has made no definite plans as of yet. It shows a distinct difference between them and Christie that should be expressed in someway. I cant find any sources for Christie come close to anything like Kasich or Walker --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think announcement should be reserved for those who have confirmed the dates. I don't really think we need another layer between exploring and announcing.ObieGrad (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ObieGrad, and the others who say we need a confirmed date. Besides, I have a hunch we'll be hearing something more definitive from Walker fairly soon.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think Walker has a date set, and you should include him in annmouncements impeding.--Mydabo (message wall). 4:47 PM, 19 June 2015 (CTZ) — Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that is not yet confirmed that he a date set. We need to wait until there is confirmation.--JayJasper (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Trump is in83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidates

Here a list of all the candidates http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2dt.shtml83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but that is already linked in the External Links section at the bottom of the article.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Candidate pictures

Are there better pictures available than there are currently? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried with Trump, but it was reverted.!Ericl (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you give examples?, I can try to replace some of them ...they are US politicians, their images would get changed quite a lot till the elections in November 2016..--Stemoc 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Do you mind if i put this as a Rand Paul photo in this article? --Mr.Pseudo 13:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

how about this one?..--Stemoc 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In instances where a relatively recent official portrait is available, those should be given preference. This has been a long standing agreement on articles such as Hillary Clinton. I would also advise against using images that are more or less closely cropped than a majority of the other images, as it makes it look unbalanced, as was the case with the Ben Carson photo that was being used, which was a crop of only his head, rather than including his shoulders like many of the other photos. So I think it would be best to have photos that are all at about the same head level to make it more clean in appearance. Calibrador (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore, Hillary's case is different, she hasn't had an official portrait in 6 years, so we use her official portrait cause a good recent image has not yet been added to wikipedia and once it is, it will be replaced. You and I both know you do not care for our policies, all you are searching for here is "fame" and "recognition" and thus you ONLY allow pages to use your images even if the alternate is BETTER, MUCH BETTER. That is a major violation of our policies but you keep doing it and keep getting away with it but I won't allow you to violate them any further, any image which is GOOD enough would be used in these articles, if you have a problem with it, DISCUSS it like everyone else, You will be reverted everytime you violate those policies and remember one thing, Misplaced Pages is NOT here to SERVE YOU..Either follow our policies or LEAVE...Changing your name doesn't change the fact that you are trying to ENFORCE your images to wikipedia for your own PERSONAL GAIN.--Stemoc 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I tried this one:here. It's better than the one they had.Ericl (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

any image was better than the old smirky long range shot.--Stemoc 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott Walker

Walker has now a 527 organization https://www.ouramericanrevival.com/ and a testing the waters committee https://www.scottwalker.com/83.80.208.22 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• NA-importance United States Government pages
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles