Talk:Ben Carson 2016 presidential campaign: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016/Archive 1) (bot |
→Primary results: new section |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/dr-ben-carsons-statement-on-south-carolina-primary.html<br> |
http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/dr-ben-carsons-statement-on-south-carolina-primary.html<br> |
||
Some say his didn't win, but he may be running for VP. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
Some say his didn't win, but he may be running for VP. -- [[User:Charles Edwin Shipp|Charles Edwin Shipp]] ([[User talk:Charles Edwin Shipp|talk]]) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Primary results == |
|||
According to the Green Papers, Carson placed 5th among Republicans during the primary with 857,039 votes. |
Revision as of 03:05, 7 November 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Carson 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
United States: Presidential elections C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Elections and Referendums C‑class | |||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ben Carson 2016 presidential campaign article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Drones
This may end up being due in a few days
- http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/ben-carson-drones-border/
- http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/19/exclusive-az-sheriff-takes-dr-ben-carson-on-helicopter-tour-of-cartel-sites/
- http://www.fox10phoenix.com/arizona-news/9692987-story
-- Callinus (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
West Point controversy
That section reads like an apologetic, non-encyclopedic mess. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's not reasonable for an article at Wikipedia (WP:BLP) to say "this person said X, and was later accused of lying about X, but it was quickly confirmed that they weren't lying, and X was correct". It's even less desirable that the statement be dressed up as a "controversy". Until a source is available to allow the section to be rewritten in terms of its long-term significance, the entire section should be removed. I guess that can wait for another day or two to see if anything develops? Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Although it is a well-written section, that obviously captures the falsities that were quickly disproven (as such sections appear on other presidential candidates' articles like Hillary Clinton), I agree that it probably won't be necessary in the long-run, because of the fact that it was so quickly disproven and probably won't have much of a lasting impact. As such, it should probably only be added in again if it causes his poll numbers to drop (which, again, is probably unlikely). 169.231.23.23 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done -- Keep trivia out. "What difference, at this point, does it make!" -- AstroU (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
West Point Controversy
This material should be retained for historical background. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Did you miss the entire section above on the same subject? The consensus is already in to remove it. 169.231.23.23 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I based my revert(s) on the unsourced statement that West Point has not had an impact, especially considering the continuing news headlines today about the topic. I desist. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you can confirm that offer of a desist is genuine, I'll remove the protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done -- Agreed, not a good entry. "What difference, at this point, does it make!" -- AstroU (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
good source on staff changes
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/two-of-carsons-top-aides-resign-217261#ixzz3vw8umncI
Dr Carson did better than Jeb Bush (the Establishment candidate)
Here is what Dr Carson said after succeeding in the NH, SC, and Iowa voting:
http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/02/dr-ben-carsons-statement-on-south-carolina-primary.html
Some say his didn't win, but he may be running for VP. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Primary results
According to the Green Papers, Carson placed 5th among Republicans during the primary with 857,039 votes.
- C-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class United States presidential elections articles
- Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles