Jump to content

Talk:Ben Carson 2016 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.2.38.14 (talk) at 03:05, 7 November 2016 (→‎Primary results: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums C‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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 articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Drones

This may end up being due in a few days

-- Callinus (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

West Point controversy

That section reads like an apologetic, non-encyclopedic mess. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Done -- Keep trivia out. "What difference, at this point, does it make!" -- AstroU (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Point Controversy

This material should be retained for historical background. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you can confirm that offer of a desist is genuine, I'll remove the protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Agreed, not a good entry. "What difference, at this point, does it make!" -- AstroU (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Primary results

According to the Green Papers, Carson placed 5th among Republicans during the primary with 857,039 votes.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Carson_2016_presidential_campaign&oldid=748228914"