Talk:2016 United States presidential election

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:F4FD:ED7E:77EC:7F67 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I split it into another sentence; I think it reads better that way. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Full results

Can someone please put the full results somewhere on the page? I want to see how many votes the very minor parties got, and it only shows the full biggest currently. Alex of Canada (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

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

In External links, the Dmoz template should be updated to use

Regional/North_America/United_States/Government/Elections/President/2016

because it's a past election. The result should look like

Template:Dmoz

174.197.3.29 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) 174.197.3.29 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 00:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent voting totals?

At the top of the page in the info box, Trump and Clinton's voting totals are listed as 62,984,825 and 65,853,516, respectively. But in the candidate results table, their totals are listed as 62,985,134 and 64,853,652. Is this an error or am I missing something? PlanetDeadwing (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox numbers are the correct ones. They're sourced from the official Federal Election Commission results at [1]. The numbers in the results table come from an unofficial source, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections [2]. It looks like Leip calculated his numbers from his assessment of state-reported results. I think the table should be recast using the FEC official figures. This would result in losing things like the breakout of Colin POwell's write-in votes, for example, because the FEC just lumps them into "Write-In (Miscellaneous)", but I think that's a good trade. If someone wants to break out individual write-in candidates in text following the table maybe citing to Leip, that would be okay.

I'm not so good with tables, so this would take me a while to do, and I'm going to be offline for a week or so; and I'm reluctant to make such a sweeping change without consensus just before I take off. If no one has addressed this or objected by the end of next week, I'll try to take a stab at it. TJRC (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this comment in the intro?

"In February 2018, the former director of the CIA admits that America is also influencing elections abroad."

If you actually follow the linked source, no such thing actually happened. An ex-CIA director merely speculated on a Fox News show that America "probably" interferes with elections to stop "communists," and his phrasing implies that even this speculative event, if it occurred at all, only occurred in the past and is not ongoing. This is not a valid source that in any way backs up the claim in the article, and moreover it is irrelevant because even if the claim were true it is 100% immaterial to the subject of the article. Moreover, the poor grammar of this sentence, along with the fact that it is a textbook example of a "whataboutism" conveniently tacked on to a section about Russian interference in this election, leads me to believe it was most likely written by a Russian operative. This frankly should be removed from the article entirely, and it certainly should until a far better, non-speculative source with actual backing is cited and justification is provided for its inclusion in the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.67.208.171 (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand you, the claim is true and is very related to the all these accusations stated in the intro. In my opinion, this whole long text with the speculations should be moved below to some controversies paragraph, this do not belong to intro at all. Anyway, what more non-speculative source do you want? You can choose: 1, 2, 3, 4. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that you don't understand me, as you are clearly not a native English speaker because your grammar is also poor. "This do not belong to intro at all" and "admits in Feburary 2018" are both dead giveaways, comrade. You have failed to master basic past and present tense, as well as the definitive article. Whoever taught you English at the Russian bot factory should be fired. Moreover, none of those sources (one of which is RUSSIA TODAY - a LITERAL Russian propaganda outlet!) solve the underlying problem, which is that his comments themselves are non-definitive, only speculative and vague. I don't doubt that he said them, but what he said does not in any way actually prove the claim in the article (his speculation does not suffice for an "admission" and moreover he alone is not an authoritative source) and moreover it is not material to the article. It is merely a whataboutism -- you know, a classic RUSSIAN propaganda technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.67.208.171 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

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

Can you please add a fact about this election? The fact is that this election was the first time since 1988 that Wisconsin didn’t vote the same as Illinois. 2601:401:C400:357:4141:983E:2CF6:25B0 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I don't see how this improves the entry in any way, but someone else can reopen if they feel otherwise. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reclosing a second time. Unremarkable trivia. --Jayron 32 03:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It's mere trivia, and not informative. The fact that two states voted alike in seven consecutive elections is not particularly important. With fifty states, and 1250 ways of pairing them up, there are bound to be short strings of similar voting patterns such as this. TJRC (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]