Talk:United States presidential election, 2016

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates

Inconsistent voting totals?[edit]

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)

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)

PlanetDeadwing seems to have messed this up further before TJRC could take a stab at it. Now the candidate results table is a mix of FEC and Dave Leip. The numbers do NOT add up! (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Trump's use of "fake news" is more aligned with the Lügenpresse article[edit]

At the end of the introduction, it's stated "Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized these intelligence claims, citing a lack of evidence and repeatedly calling the claims a "hoax" and "fake news."" Even though the wording used is "fake news", Trump's usage does not correspond to what the linked "fake news" article describes, but rather to Lügenpresse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018[edit]

Could you please fix the third paragraph at the top of the page, saying that MI, PA, WI, and ME-CO2 all haven’t voted Republican since the 1980s? Please. (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Not necessary. The link in that same sentence to the Blue wall (politics) article explains the significance and voting history better than an awkward parenthetical could. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cambridge Analytica[edit]

Recently there were two attempts to add massive information about Cambridge Analytica to this article. Both were reverted. I have posted on the user's talk page to explain about the Discretionary Sanctions. It could be argued to have a sentence or two at this article about the revelations, but that really isn't the way this article is structured and I would recommend no mention at all. --MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Probably better for the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article, if it's not already there. Dave Dial (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard nixon[edit]

anything here about the parallel to 1972? (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Problematic expressions section[edit]

I have several issues with the current "Notable expressions, phrases, and statements" sections and I believe it should be removed from this article, but I thought I'd give other editors an opportunity to voice their thoughts. In all honestly, I am disappointed that it was even necessary to take this to the talk page per the policy violations outlined below.

This is the original version:

  • Basket of deplorables – a controversial phrase coined by Hillary Clinton to describe Trump's supporters
  • Build that wall / Mexico will pay for the wall – Trump's campaign promise that if elected he will build a wall on the border between the US and Mexico, with Mexico financing the project
  • Birdie Sanders – after a campaign stop in Portland, Oregon, a white-winged two-barred crossbill landed on Sanders's podium while he was addressing a large crowd of supporters.
  • Drain the swamp – A phrase Donald Trump invoked late in the campaign to describe what needs to be done to fix problems in the federal government. Trump acknowledged that the phrase was suggested to him, and he was initially skeptical about using it
  • Fake News – stories that are untrue. Trump has used the expression to refer to stories that he does not like.
  • Feel the Bern – a phrase chanted by supporters of the Bernie Sanders campaign which was officially adopted by his campaign.
  • Grab them by the pussy – a remark made by Trump in a 2005 private conversation which was recorded by a hot mic and released during the campaign. By saying this remark, Trump intended to boast how as a celebrity he can do things (namely grab women by their genitalia) that non-celebrities cannot.
  • I like people who weren't captured - Trump mocking of John McCain's service during the Vietnam War when he was captured and became a POW
  • I'm with her – Hillary Clinton's campaign slogan
  • Make America great again – Trump's campaign slogan
  • Trump's use of derogatory nicknames to deride his opponents – These include "Crooked Hillary", "Little Marco", "Low energy Jeb", and "Lying Ted"
  • Small handsMarco Rubio saying that the size of Trump's hands is proportional to the size of his penis.
  • What is Aleppo? – Uttered by Gary Johnson during an interview when questioned about the status of Aleppo in Syria.

All of these are memorable to some degree, but the largest problem with this list is how it is a trivia section in an encyclopedia where what constitutes notability becomes subjective and sources for them would exist more as day-to-day political drama news that WP:NOTNEWS does not support. This very literally just a list of sound bites.

As-is, it's very easy to think of random phrases that I could add if I wanted to. For example:

  • Donald Trump's "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" quote became very controversial
  • Bernie Sanders spoke ad-nauseum about the "hand-full of billionaires."
  • When Donald Trump said "bomb the shit out of them!" it received attention from several outlets.
  • Hillary Clinton regularly said "Stronger Together!" and "Break down the barriers!" in her speeches.
  • Jill Stein supporters used "Jill, not Hill" as a de-facto campaign slogan.
  • The time Hillary Clinton uttered "Pokemon go to the polls" received coverage akin to Gary Johnson's "What is Aleppo?"
  • I found about a dozen articles on the time Donald Trump called Bernie Sanders a "socialist slash communist."

If you were to tell me that these are just loosely connected, unimportant, unencyclopedic, trivial sound bites that blatantly and obviously violate WP:NOTNEWS, you'd be absolutely correct.

That's essentially what this section is; even the phrases that gathered enough RS sources to pass GNG and gain their own articles shouldn't be assembled into a random list of sound bite trivia because it gives undue weight to a very minor part of the article covering the election itself. This section is highly problematic and should be removed.

TL;DR: Remove section per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

While I understand that some of these expressions may be construed as mere "sound bites", I do not support wholesale deletion of longstanding and well-sourced material. Some of these expressions have become embedded in everyday language, and are still resonating well after the campaign has ended. I will restore the contents, except for "Birdie Sanders" which is truly anecdotal and "Small hands" which is derogatory. I'm on the fence regarding "What is Aleppo?" (anecdotal yet shocking, funny and seriously appalling coming from a presidential candidate.) Feel free to seek consensus to remove others, preferably one at a time. — JFG talk 20:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess I don't quite follow why "anecdotal" and "derogatory" mean "non-encyclopedic". The only question that needs to be addressed is are the expressions notable? If the answer is yes, then they should be included. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
They pass WP:GNG as I previously mentioned; my issue is with WP:NOTNEWS (as they fell under the umbrella of routine, day-to-day coverage) and WP:UNDUE (though this doesn't carry enough weight to violate WP:COAT, it does provide undue weight to very minor anecdotes). BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Strongly agree with removal. This is quite literally a trivia section, and we don't do trivia sections here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that this section is in any way trivia. Slogans, even if they are sound bites, are part of the campaign. It is certainly encyclopedic to document what notable slogans and expressions were used. The 2016 campaign had a much higher quantity of such notable slogans because of the nature of the personalities involved in the campaign.
A section for notable expressions, and phrases exists for many articles of US presidential campaigns that occurred in the last 30 years. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
In response to both Toa Nidhiki05 and BarbadosKen - While I more often than not agree that arguing that a certain section or article has its place on Wikipedia due to well-established practices is not a violation of WP:OSE, in this case it actually does appear to be an OSE argument that I don't find to be valid; I personally believe that many of the identical sections from other presidential election articles should be reduced if not removed (such as the bullet-point on the 2012 article that simply states that at some point Joe Biden used the word "malarkey" which is a real word; this doesn't even pass GNG unlike many of the others) and due to similar problems arising in these other examples I don't think it's accurate to consider the fact that other examples exist to be a valid argument for why they should continue to. I wouldn't go as far as to say that there's no place on Wikipedia for these phrases and expressions; but I'd prefer that the expressions mentioned are significant enough to the actual topic (the presidential election itself) that we could put them into the prose rather than a list. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If there is a general agreement that the material meets WP:GNC, I'm not quite clear what's the point of this discussion.
Nonetheless, I should clarify what I previously wrote in order to make sure that it is clear that I was not making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The argument that I was trying to make is that the list for this election is longer than the lists for the other elections is "because of the nature of the personalities involved in the campaign". Counting which phrases/expressions belong to which candidate instantly shows that it was Trump who generated a lot more than the usual amount of notable expressions. I think it is the length of the list that makes it seem like trivia, not the items on the list. However, there is a legitimate reason why this list list is longer than the lists for other recent elections. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to respectfully remind you that notability is not the sole guideline for Wikipedia content. Throughout this discussion I have stated that while there is not a GNG problem for several of these items (particularly those that have their own articles), there is a NOTNEWS and UNDUE problem per the reasons I have stated. While I certainly agree that the 2016 election had quite a lot of sound bites more audacious and shocking than previous years, I still maintain the concerns that I have addressed as explaining Trump's personalities doesn't exactly address the concerns I've mentioned thus far. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have addressed the WP:UNDUE concern by explaining why this list is longer than the lists for other recent US presidential elections.
As for the WP:NOTNEWS concern, I can address it on two levels. First, WP:NOTNEWS refers to routine news coverage such as the weather, sports, traffic, etc. Second, you can see that the references are from time periods beyond when the phrase was said. For example, the reference for the "I like people who weren't captured" is from 2017, two years after the quote was said. That definitely means that your WP:NOTNEWS concern has no merit.
BarbadosKen (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)