Talk:2016 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:20, 15 January 2018

There is a request, submitted by Lionsdude148, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Because It Is Important".

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

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

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

Template:WikiProject Hillary Clinton

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

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 Mid‑importance

	United States portal 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 Wikipedia. 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates

Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox [pre-election]: order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election. Link to previous discussion: here

Infobox inclusion (pre-election): It has been agreed by consensus discussion in 2012 that presidential general election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox prior to the election: Candidates will be included in the infobox who can mathematically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access (appearing on the ballot) and/or write-in status (with pledged electors). Links to previous discussions:

The following images have been discussed:

Hillary Clinton (consensus link)

Consensus

Donald Trump (consensus link)

Consensus

Gary Johnson (consensus link)

Consensus

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Chris Alcantara (2016-10-27). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-11-07.

Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Three options for a future RFC

If we are going to turn this into a marathon, start stockpiling your opinions below these three.Cards84664 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Cards84664 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I think the middle choice is the best.

Middle, or bottom. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The middle one looks best to me. Good photo of Trump, and less than a year since the election is fine. Both smiling. And zooming it to the same level as Clinton is a good idea too, so it's not "official photo" vs "informal photo". Oppose the bottom one, because the pic of Clinton is very old. — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle for reasons I listed previously. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Key Controversies Overlooked?

I know that there is much already embedded in this page and so concision is necessary. However, the page does mention several of Hillary Clinton's controversial policies or even simply platform issues but does not mention an equal amount of some of Donald Trump's more controversial issues or statements which contributed to a significant amount of election-time discussion. It might be a good idea to add some for balance's sake. I have drafted up an additional few sentences to add both about his statements on Islam and Muslims during the election which caused a lot of conversation (as an example), but also have found a study put out by a think tank that makes a connection between such statements and the low percentage of Muslims that voted for Trump mentioned in the voter statistics on the page. I think including such a study will help that mentioned statistic seem less... random... so to speak.

Is there a way for me to leave those edits? I have citations and everything ready to go. Or should I simply share them here and hope that a more experienced editor can or could add them in?

Let me know what you think!

Isabelle P (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump outperformed Romney and McCain among Muslims. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bush lost the Muslims in 2004 because of his Middle East policy.[1] Incidentally, Trump also increased votes among blacks and Latinos. TFD (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2017

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page states: "Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." and sites as reference for this assertion 11: "Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking". The New York Times. January 6, 2017. p. 11. Retrieved January 8, 2017.

However this assertion is not an actual fact as proven by "Because intelligence community procedures on drafting this type of analysis were not followed and it reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies – not all 17 as the mainstream media claimed. The New York Times was forced to publish a correction on this point last June." ^[1]

In conclusion the Russian hacking was not necessarily to denigrate Clinton, nor to get Trump elected. It was merely to undermine the entire process. 2601:281:C400:7033:5E1:1206:D356:AAD3 (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Also, you have taken this out of context. It is a direct quote from the intelligence report -- not an opinion by The New York Times.

References

^ Fred Fleitz, senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Percentages Are Wrong

Dividing Indiana's votes for Clinton and Trump by the total votes from the state on the right don't equal the percentages the table says. EvanJ35 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Fixing

Between the words "Wisconsin" and "Maine's 2nd Congressional District", replace the word "and" with the words "as well as". Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2018‎ 2601:401:c400:357:ac66:5c2e:65e7:a1dd (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding sentence reads "Six states plus a portion of Maine that Obama won in 2012 switched to Trump." The list following correctly enumerates six states and a Maine Congressional district. The word "and" is appropriately used. There is no grammar correction needed. General Ization ^Talk 02:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say

For grammar fixing, what I meant to say is that between the words "Wisconsin" and Maine's 2nd congressional district" in the second INTRO paragraph at the TOP of the article's page, replace the word "and" with the words "as well as". Please.

[1] Fred Fleitz, senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank.

[1]

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 Between the words "Wisconsin" and "Maine's 2nd Congressional District", replace the word "and" with the words "as well as". Please. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/ 2018‎ 2601:401:c400:357:ac66:5c2e:65e7:a1dd| 2018‎ 2601:401:c400:357:ac66:5c2e:65e7:a1dd]] ([[User talk: 2018‎ 2601:401:c400:357:ac66:5c2e:65e7:a1dd#top|talk]]) 02:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
 :The preceding sentence reads "Six states plus a portion of Maine that Obama won in 2012 switched to Trump."  The list following correctly enumerates six states and a Maine Congressional district.  The word "and" is appropriately used. There is no grammar correction needed. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;">[[User:General Ization|<span style="color: #006633;">General <i>Ization</i></span>]]</span> <sup>[[User talk:General Ization|<i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i>]] </sup> 02:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
+== What I meant to say ==
+For grammar fixing, what I meant to say is that between the words "Wisconsin" and Maine's 2nd congressional district" in the second INTRO paragraph at the TOP of the article's page, replace the word "and" with the words "as well as".
+Please.