[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Candidate photos

I'm flummoxed as to why there is insistence on putting in photos with poor lighting, coloring, and quality. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

And the attempts to keep other editors from putting in better photos continues [1], [2]. Why is that and why is the editor who continues reverting back in less flattering or inferior photos not discussing per WP:BRD? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Still trying to get editors who keep putting the shitty photos back in to discuss why they prefer lesser photographs of the GOP candidates. Pretty hypocritical to revert them all back with an edit summary that says "discuss on talk page" when I've tried - twice - and the person leaving the edit summary and blanket reverting has yet to join the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You need a consensus to change the photos to your poorly edited ones. You do not have a consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
No I don't. And they are not "poorly edited". Give a valid reason why these photos are better than the ones you keep reverting back to, please, and stop edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
First, it is consensus to use official portraits if reasonably recent. You are violating this consensus on Rubio and Paul. Second, whenever you edit images they always seem to come out too red and too small in resolution. This is unacceptable. Third, the images you want to use for Bush, Fiorina, and Scott Walker are inferior and have largely been rejected already. Last, if you want to change the images the burden is on you to explain the issue you see with the accepted images.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
(1) Please produce that consensus. (2) Not true. (3) No they haven't, but if they really have, by whom? I'm tired of you showing ownership behavior over this issue. It's taken you how to long to come here with any semblance of discussion? If you want to keep inferior photos, the burden is on you to explain why you want photos that are inferior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You want to add the photos and remove existing photos. You were reverted. It is your job to show why the current consensus should be changed. Instead, you decided to edit war. If you revert one more time you will be in violation of 3RR, but you already know that given you were blocked for edit warring last week. You have done nothing to show that your images are superior. You have done nothing to show your changes are appropriate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Repeat of the above since you ignored it: (1) Please produce that consensus. (2) Not true. (3) No they haven't, but if they really have, by whom?

And, for your information, I was wrongly blocked for edit warring last week, my block log shows this. Nice try at putting the blame for your slow edit war on me, but I'm not that new and I'm not that stupid. Please address points 1-3 above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You can search the archives yourself. The fact is that both of us are responsible for the edit war. The difference is that you made the bold change and did nothing to explain on the talk page why that change was warranted after it was reverted. You can see it at the beginning of this discussion. You are asserting an opinion on editor behavior without even discussing why your changes are beneficial.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
"You can search the archives yourself." No. You're claiming it's there, the onus is on you to produce it, so produce it. You can continue to stonewall on this all you want, but without proof, your claims are baseless, your argument obviously self-serving. Especially with more than one of the photos you keep reinserting not being better than the ones they were replaced with. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There's probably not a single discussion I could just point out to you. You have to take it all in and understand what the consensus is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And yet, you said there was consensus. I imagine that if you know there is consensus, you would know when that consensus was reached. Strange. Regardless, an RfC has been started below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump Done?

Does this article have any bearing in reality? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-donald-trump-disqualified_566720a3e4b08e945ff123cc 204.132.32.2 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That article is pointless to include here. We can NOT go by opinion- and that article is the opinion of the White House (along with others who agree to a point). Until Trump stops campaigning and/or announces the end of his campaign, he still will be listed as an official candidate.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't ever read Huffington [HuffPuff] Post. Thanks for reading it for me. The question about Trump shows how wrong they are, again. Trump doubled-down on his comment about putting a hold on Muslims coming into America, and Rupert Murdoch says he is right, we need a hold. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, everyone is piling on, including all the other Republican candidates, except Ted Cruz who says he has a different position but says he isn't going say more that is critical of Donald Trump. Trump did not say what people are ascribing to him. People project and come to false conclustions. -- AstroU (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

“I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.” he says, twice. Two Washington Post top reporters create a long and very interesting interview and cover all of his prior campaign quotes. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the article covers his comments.[3] -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Rand Paul

According to this article, Paul has stated that he will announce Tuesday whether or not he will continue in this campaign.

Paul said that they would announce it if he were denied access to the main debate due to CNN's requirements for the debate (although he is already guaranteed a spot in the secondary debate). A second source (this) stated the same.

This brings up an interesting question I think. Namely- we had an "Announcements Impending" section. Should we add a "Withdrawal Impending" one as well? Paul's potential withdrawal is very similar to Webb's and Chafee's- both of whom were talked about as potentially leaving the race in the day(s) prior to them actually leaving. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If we had an "announcements impending' section then I don't see why we wouldn't have a "withdrawal impending" section too. However, both seem to almost violate WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc27 (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I see what you're saying- however, when there are a lot of pieces saying that a candidate will officially begin or will officially drop out it tends to be at least noteworthy. However- I must admit I am not extremely caught up on the Rules of Wikipedia so I don't know as much as other's would if this is good or not.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Will Smith

Does this article constitute including Will Smith as a "Publicly Expressed Interest" candidate?

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/263041-will-smith-trump-may-force-me-to-run-for-president

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific mention of 2016 in that article, only that Smith may "eventually" may make a run for the white house. IMO, that's too broad and too vague of a statement to justify listing him as a potential candidate for 2016. If other sources can be found where he talks specifically of a possible run in 2016 (I looked and couldn't any) then we can add him to the lists of potential candidates. But based on what I've seen as of the time of this writing, I would say no.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian

This might not constitute proof that he has officially ended his own presidential bid, but Bilzerian has endorsed Trump. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

"Although Bilzerian hasn’t come out and specifically stated that Trump will be winning his vote for president, it seems pretty clear that he’s a fan of the businessman turned politician." Not quite an actual endorsement, so I think we should leave him on the candidate until we have a more definitive statement of withdrawl and/or endorsement for another candidate.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Canidates alphabetically

Hi

Candidates featured in major polls should be listed alphabetically with Bernie Sanders at start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasmidgleyasdasd (talk • contribs) 09:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The candidates are listed alphabetically by last name, not first name.--NextUSprez (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Debate participants

Listing the debate participants as DNC and GOP nominees in the debate section is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since we do not know if both nominees will meet the 15% national poll requirement and/or we don't know if a third party candidate will qualify. Prcc27 (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Though it is exceedingly unlikely we will have a Third Party candidate in the Presidential Debates given the barriers that have been raised, Perot in '96 being a strong example, I have to agree with Prcc. At the same time though there is not much purpose in having sections listing the Republican and Democratic nominees given they are the nominees; except in the case of the Vice Presidential debates it will be the same persons all throughout. --Ariostos (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Which photo of candidates for article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The results are
  • Jim Webb consensus for #3
  • Jeb Bush consensus for #3
  • Ben Carson consensus for #2
  • Carly Fiorina no consensus, strongest support for #8 then #2 is a close second
  • Mike Huckabee no consensus, strongest support for #3 then #2 is a close second
  • Rand Paul no consensus, strongest support for #4 then #1 and 2 are a close second
  • Marco Rubio consensus #1
  • Rick Perry no consensus 2 & 3 are tied.
  • Scott Walker consensus for #2 AlbinoFerret 23:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Which photos should the article contain that show the candidate at their best? An editor has been reverting back to the #1 photo in each of the choices below after the other choices were put in as replacements, claiming prior consensus (I can find none) and "poor photo editing". The photos were replaced with the intention of showing the candidate with one or more of the following: more complementary pose, better cropping, sharpened focus, lighting corrections. Official government portraits were replaced with informal photos to better parallel the other candidates who do not have official government portraits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

More choices have been added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Jim Webb choices

Jim Webb #1
Jim Webb #2
Jim Webb #3
Images to choose from


Webb image #1

*Support - the difference between the images is negligible. The second has been lightened. It's not much of an improvement if at all. My issue with the second image is that it does not properly attribute my edits. I contacted the photographer on Flickr to agree with the licensing and cropped the image to separate Webb. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Webb image #2

Webb image #3

  • Support I went ahead and added the third choice. I think the Senate picture is better than the choices given. His face looks the exact same, and the other option is a little awkward looking. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
-@Vote 4 DJH2036: @Rollins83: Here is the third option. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush #1
Jeb Bush #2
Jeb Bush #3
Jeb Bush #4
Images to choose from
Jeb Bush #5
Jeb Bush #6
Jeb Bush #7
More images to choose from

Bush image #1

Bush image #2

Bush image #3

Bush image #4

Bush image #5

Bush image #6

This pic has professional quality, excellent lighting, formal attire, directly looking at camera, neutral expression, recent enough to show what he looks like after weight loss, non-distracting background, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


Bush image #7

  • Support as first choice A variation on #6, which is good, but a little washed out. This one has slightly better coloring in the face, less shiny, and midtone was brought down some. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson

Ben Carson #1
Ben Carson #2
Images to choose from

Carson image #1

Carson image #2

Carly Fiorina

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Images to choose from
#6
#7
#8
#9
More images to choose from

Fiorina image #1

*Support - face is straight with a neutral expression. The second image has the face contorted in a very strange way that reflects poorly on the subject.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina image #2

  • Support as second choice. The first image is simply horrible and completely non-complementary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - the lighting in the first picture is horrible and it is too dark. The second photo is more natural-looking and shows the candidate in a professional setting. This one is more flattering as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support reluctantly. IMO, none of these photos are exactly flattering, but I would choose this as the best (or perhaps more accurately, least bad) of the selections given. It has a more "professional" look than any of the others.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this photo shows her smiling, looking nice, and not seeming like a woman who hates what she's doing (like some of the others seem to portray). Lighting is good, and its just a great photo all around.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support By far the best option among these, and I don't think its close. Would prefer this image to be longer in length as the other ones are though. MavsFan28 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Easily the best of the given options. May not be a great photo, but certainly not a dreadful one. I can't honestly say the same for the other choices.--Rollins83 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Not being nasty but she has an abnormal head/face so all of the images don't look right at all but out of the 7 I'd say this one is as about as normal as we're gonna get (I apologize if this comes across harsh but I've tried wording it nicely as I possibly can). –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Natural smile with good lighting. The image does not appear to be staged and she does not have a discerning look on her face like in the other photos. Meatsgains (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina image #3

Fiorina image #4

Fiorina image #5

Fiorina image #6

Fiorina image #7

Fiorina image #8

Fiorina image #9

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee #1
Mike Huckabee #2
Mike Huckabee #3
Images to choose from

Huckabee image #1

Huckabee image #2

Huckabee image #3

Rand Paul

Rand Paul #1
Rand Paul #2
Rand Paul #3
Rand Paul #4
Rand Paul #5
Rand Paul #6
Images to choose from

Paul image #1

Paul image #2

Paul image #3

Paul image #4

Paul image #5

Paul image #6

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio #1
Marco Rubio #2
Marco Rubio #3
Marco Rubio #4
Images to choose from

Rubio image #1

Rubio image #2

  • Support as second choice. More natural image than a professional portrait - other not-currently in office candidates don't have professional photos representing them in this article, I don't see why this article should stick with official government portraits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong support - I'm not big on official portraits being used. This one is by far the best non-official portrait of Rubio. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubio image #3

  • Strong oppose Funny how another editor commenting here said a few days ago that I "think everything should be redder", and here we have a photo added by that same editor that is so reddish-purple, it makes Rubio look like a character out of Willy Wonka. Terrible choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Image 4 is case-in-point of your fascination with the color red. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubio image #4

  • Support as first choice. Lighting was corrected from original, reddish hue to hair must be due to lighting in the room during the town hall event. Seems to be most accurate skin tone in comparison with official government portrait. Less "disheveled" look than #2. More natural image than a professional portrait - other not-currently in office candidates don't have professional photos representing them in this article, I don't see why this article should stick with official government portraits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Rick Perry #1
Rick Perry #2
Rick Perry #3
Images to choose from

Perry image #1

Perry image #2

Perry image #3

Scott Walker

#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Images to choose from

Walker image #1

  • Support - subject is looking forward toward the camera with a neutral expression on his face with the whole face in view. In the second image, the subject has an unnatural expression and is looking off to the side with part of his face not visible.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as he's looking at the camera thus his whole face is visible, Had #2 been looking less towards the left I would've gone with that .–Davey2010Talk 20:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Walker image #2

Walker image #3

  • Support While none of these images are ideal, IMO, this is the best of the bunch. The lighting is good, and he is looking forward and has a relatively neutral look.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Walker image #4

  • Support as choice #1. Have taken #3 and cropped it, made it less "intense" contrast-wise, brought the brightness down a bit, and increased color saturation slightly (in #3 he looks anemic). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Walker image #5

Discussion

Can better images can be found for Fiorina and Walker than the ones offered as choices above? IMO, both images (for Fiorina and Walker respectively) are poor choices.--NextUSprez (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@NextUSprez: I have added more choices. --William S. Saturn (talk) 08:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@JayJasper:, @Stabila711:, @Vote 4 DJH2036:, @Ratemonth:, @Rollins83:, @TDKR Chicago 101:, @Spartan7W:, @Calibrador:. What is everyone's opinion on this matter? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In each applicable case the official portrait is a superior image. I don't feel like quibbling about the others. For Hillary Clinton we have a candid image that is very high quality, and is more-or-less portrait quality. In this case we use it. That case can be made in non infobox-bio sections. But for Rubio, Paul, Kasich and others on the GOP side, who have an official portrait, I can see no images which rise to sufficient quality to replace them.   Spartan7W §   14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

When the consensus is agreed upon, I think we need to crop and align all the pictures in the same format. If one picture is cropped just below the neck, then the one next to it goes down to the midsection, they look awkward next to each other. MavsFan28 (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Seconded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No. Do that, and you are changing the appearance of the consensus-agreed on image. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Well surely if we're putting this much effort in deciding which picture is best, we can take it one step further. I'm fine with getting the consensus on this too, but if we want this to look as encyclopedic and professional as possible, the best format would be keeping images at a similar crop/ ratio when possible. MavsFan28 (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
MavsFan28, look at the photos on the page. Other than withdrawn candidates, the photos are already essentially the same size. If you are talking about cropping them further, (1) I say no because of the reasons I stated above, and (2) It's unnecessary because of the reasons I stated here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lindsey Graham endorses Jeb Bush

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/15/463180823/jeb-bush-picks-up-endorsement-from-lindsey-graham I think the page needs to be updated to include who the withdrawn candidates support, to follow the format of other us prez election articles. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It's three weeks until the actual voting begins!

There are drafts for the results pages for both party's primaries. The GOP's is here and he Dem's is here. Currently dead links to what are going to be articles on each of the primaries (as per last time, both primaries are in the same article) A good example is North Carolina's, which I personally did no work on. Let's get cracking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.133.97 (talk) 21:06, January 10, 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NORUSH. The pages will get made when they get made. No need to rush and no need to have them right this very second. --Majora (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Countdown. Less than a week. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This article is the top banner alert on the Drudge Report today.[1] 

Headline-1: Sources: Bloomberg Willing To Spend $1B On Possible Presidential Bid

QUOTE: "Sources close to Bloomberg told Kramer the former mayor is ramping up a possible presidential run regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, eyeing an Independent third-party bid." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

References

  1. ^ "Sources: Bloomberg Willing To Spend $1B On Possible Presidential Bid". CBS New York. January 25, 2016.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2016

Add Mike Huckabee to Withdrawn Republican Candidates

Brendanpeters (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes (Talk) 05:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually this request was Already done by another editor. Huckabee did indeed withdraw. --Majora (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we add pictures for the Libertarian candidates. There's one for all candidates. Libertarians and Green Party should be under Third major parties while the other unknown parties can be under Other parties and Independents. This is how the Libertarians would be arranged. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe we should. --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
So...there's a different standard that applies to third party candidates than what applies to the major party candidates? A consensus was reached in an earlier discussion that the only candidates who were to have gallery pictures were those that met the five-poll standard, and I don't recall there being an exception for the the 3rd party/independents. My understanding was, and still is, that the standard applied to all candidates. If there has been some kind of consensus formed for a different set of rules for the 3rd/independent candidates, I missed it. If there hasn't been, then IMO we should revert back to the "only five-polled candidates get a picture" rule until we formulate a clear consensus for having a separate standard for the 3rd party/independents. Otherwise, we open ourselves to some minor controversies (and possibly edit wars) along the lines of "if that Austin Petersen guy (just to use a random example) gets to have a picture, then why not Vermin Supreme (or some other minor major-party candidate)".--NextUSprez (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
It was only until fairly recently that we had candidates who even had pictures we could use on Wikipedia for the Third Party nomination beyond Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, so it was a moot point till now. I am not against using pictures for all the applicable candidates in all the sections, but I can understand why there would be opposition from some to such a move, hence the need for limitations. The problem with using the polling standard on Third Parties however is, well, when has any major polling outfit polled for a Third Party? Sure there are internet polls occasionally commissioned, but they are generally done by individuals and not applicable here. We can't even use primary ballot access as a proper barometer as few of the states even hold primaries for these parties, and usually they are nothing more than 'beauty contests' with no bearing on the race itself. As a compromise I would argue we should include galleries for those candidates in the major parties who are on the ballot in at least one state, and for all candidates who are running for the nomination of a major Third Party. I think that is about as fair as we can get. --Ariostos (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Proposed standard for major third parties: a) notable (has individual WP article); b) verified candidacy for party's nomination; c) officially recognized by the party as a candidate.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Title card

Can someone explain why the title card is necessary for this article?Lookunder (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have opened a deletion discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:USPE16.svg. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, this title card logo for the subject of this article is user-generated and thus original research, and not an official logo provided by any reliable sources. If an article that does not have a logo, a homemade one really should not be created as a substitute. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not just this article, but every presidential election article (or at least those I checked since the 1990s). —ADavidB 03:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
From a non-editor here, just someone who uses Wikipedia - the title card looks incredibly hokey to me.73.39.52.191 (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been added to all presidential elections between 1980 and 2016. I am far from certain how these differ from their predecessors. Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The title card also is distracting from the actual data... on any screen size less than 1000 pixels tall, viewers don't get to see the electoral map (the actual data for the election) and instead just see a title card that has no place in an encyclopedia and that for some reason contains three different fonts in three lines. 2601:600:8500:1F90:74B7:CA71:2611:3EF (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that last comment was me. Also, looking at the user's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Spartan7W#US_presidential_election_title_cards_added_1_Feb_2016) he seems to believe that it's his crusade to make WP less "ugly" (and more Americentric) Techgeekxp (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
So there is a problem with having an article about an American election with an American look? You can do better than that. My arguement:
"Essentially, my interest in remodeling and updating the election pages is to make them more effective in relaying information, more visually appealing for a general viewer accustomed to logos, themes, style, etc. throughout the modern world of websites, and giving a general uniformity among the pages by doing so. I understand that this is another of my highly WP:BOLD iterations for the election pages, but I believe it is a good and harmless move. Many millions of people are going to be flooding to Wikipedia over the course of the next hours, and the year ahead. These people have grown used to websites with some color, which a great array of aesthetic features, regardless of that site's purpose. Here, we are in some ways outdated; some of it is overlooked because of Wikipedia' encyclopedic nature, and that must stay, and people will understand. But in this case, it is a good balance by providing our reader with the same content in a more contemporary and aesthetically pleasing manner. By including no features which are subjective in any way, I believe these titlecards do have that aesthetic appeal while remaining strictly neutral, and minimal. If the reader sees these, and how the uniform theme follows throughout other pages, they will only see them for a few seconds, but it will subliminally link the general arc of information through this stylistic element. The reader comes here to find out information and learn. If this were an article on the economic theory of the consumption function, and I were to insert an image of a beautiful female nude it would be very distracting for men, and of a male nude, for women. That is a distraction. People aren't going to forget about what they came to look for because of a simple titlecard."   Spartan7W §   20:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The titlecard *is* distracting from the data, though. Just because people have gotten used to excessive animated gifs on other websites, should Wikipedia? They're colorful and flashy! They also distract from the information. In regards to your reasoning when reverting, portrait images and maps add something to the article - they're a visualization of the data. A logo for no reason is not.
A quote from WP:CYCLE that applies, since you like quoting WP:BOLD: "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante), but don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring." (emphasis mine)Techgeekxp (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of the title card. I see no reason for it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget about WP:IUP: "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." While this is a matter of opinion, I don't see how a title card image increases a reader's "understanding of the article's subject matter", especially above and beyond the text that it replaces. From a technical perspective, this also means that serving this title card image is wasted bandwidth. I personally agree with the other users that the title card image is aesthetically undesirable, but I don't think that matters given the image's (lack of) utility. --Nick2253 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Every other page on all of Wikipedia gets along just fine without a title card. We should no more disrupt the format for the Presidential Election format by adding title cards than we should should disrupt the format by having the infoboxes appear on the left side of the page. Strongly against having so-called title cards added back to any page. Thunderstone99 (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

New pictures for Chris Christie, Jim Gilmore, and Lawrence Lessig

Everyone has gotten a new picture accept Gov. Chris Christie, Fmr Gov. Jim Gilmore, and Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig. Doesn't it seem fair for them to get new pictures as well?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Golly58 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

De La Fuente Is a Candidate Too

Why is Rocky De La Fuente not in a candidate box like Clinton and Sanders? He is running for the Democratic nomination too. Da La Fuente is on the Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. If he's important enough to be there, why isn't he featured on here too? They also have Martin O'Malley showing his primary results. Can someone please update this page to show the current candidates, not just the ones you like. 50.153.107.36 (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

He has not been featured in any major polls. It is not a matter of "who we like." Frankly, I could care less either way. It is what has been set up on this page by previous consensus. Changes to that would have to be discussed and agreed upon. --Majora (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
So why is he featured there? Along with other candidates and O'Malley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.107.36 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Consensus is per page. Or someone just hasn't seen it yet. Either way, he won't be featured on this page unless consensus changes. --Majora (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Strangely enough, for someone who seems pro-Rocky, his previous edits have been vandalizing his image with that of an orangutan. I have a feeling we're looking at a troll. 166.176.185.51 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mark Everson

Hello, Mark Everson was not invited to debates or anything, BUT he was recognized as a candidate by the Republican National Committee when he was running. So, I feel like he should be listed with the candidates that dropped out (it was that way before and it got changed). Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:504:3341:B01A:F081:6DBF:D973 (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

International chess player

apparently is the description of Sam Sloan. It is unclear to me, however, what that means. He himself isn't "international", but a US citizen (otherwise he wouldn't be eligible), chess is not referred to as "international chess" (while some games similar to chess are sometimes called "Chinese Chess", "Korean Chess", "Japanese Chess" and so on, they do have names - Shogi, Xiangqi, ..., so there is no need for disambiguation), so only the player could be "international", whatever that means. Unless this should refer to his comparative mastery of multiple variants, but then it should be reduced to Xiangqi, since in all other variants he appears to be no more important than any other player as well. So qualifying him via this is somewhat strange, since chess is a hobby of his, even if it invades his professional career as a writer. Or am I overlooking something here? --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears to mean that he has competed in and/or won international chess competitions, such as the World Chess Championship. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Someone left a request for semiprotection of this article at WP:RFPP, saying basically "nobody's made any productive edits since the beginning of February". Obviously that ignores vandalism reversion, but the point was that without vandalism, there would have been essentially no edits to the article in two weeks. I declined the request because almost immediately after this request was made, someone made two productive edits. However, I note a large deal of vandalism in recent weeks, with almost nothing other than vandalism and reversion. Would semiprotection for a short while be ideal here? Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Vandalism on this page is just a fact of life. Protection isn't going to stop it, just delay it. As the election actually gets closer it is only going to get worse. If you protect now you might as well protect it until November 9th. Personally, I feel like there are enough eyes on the page and the vandalism is not that bad (yet) to warrant protection. --Majora (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Suggest semiprotection. Noise-to-signal ratio is already far too high. All semi does is slightly raise the amount of effort required for initial edits. It's not that hard to get 10 edits anyway.CometEncke (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente joining Sanders and Clinton?

According to the article- Rocky De La Fuente has ballot access to 84% of all delegates. That amount is high enough that he could be considered a major candidate.

So- my proposal: if a candidate achieves enough ballot access to get at least half of the delegates, they are moved up to the major candidates section alongside those who qualify with previous credentials. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders front-runner?

According to Reuters Source and other sources Sanders is the front-runner with 41.7% to Clinton's 35.5% in the national poll. Would the make him the front-runner? I mean we called Clinton a front-runner based on her national poll numbers so should Sanders be credited as a front-runner now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders is far behind in the delegate race thanks to the use of superdelegates on the Democratic side. And while he has a small lead in one or two polls, polling averages still pretty clearly favor Clinton. Mizike (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party yellow

Could someone make the template for the Libertarian Party candidates' names yellow in the same style as the main party templates? JJARichardson (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I made it gold. JJARichardson (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton photo

There seems to be some disagreement about which photo to use for Hillary Clinton. Please go here to discuss. Thanks! Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ben Carson hasn't dropped out yet.

A lot of new sites are claiming he is withdrawing, but based on his brief statement today[4], these new sites are only predicting that he will. Until he makes an official statement that he is suspending his campaign, I think he should stay in the Candidates featured in major polls. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. [5] Barkflaw (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Money Free Party got removed, i needed to add it back again

Money Free Party has a 3rd-party candidate named Steve Saylor (just search "Steve Saylor for president" at Youtube - that candidature is really serious, i really wonder why an entry about his candidature got removed ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:ECAB:9E01:D4FA:4F80:F87C:478F (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In order for this party/candidate to warrant inclusion, you must provide a reliable source for the candidacy AND demonstrate that the party or candidate fulfill Wikipedia's notability criteria. So far, you haven't done either. Jah77 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Issues section?

Thanks to William S. Saturn's incessant reverting of my various edits to election articles, he re-added false information to this article while also making a false personal attack. There is currently only one ballot initiative on marijuana legalization in Nevada, and one in Florida for medical use, not 16 states. The rest are just proposals that may or may not happen and have no place being mentioned here. Regardless, this content is more general and not relevant to a section called "Potential battleground states"; there are lots of topics important to swing states, so this would be undue weight. Perhaps there should be a section about major issues during this election season where this would better belong. Reywas92Talk 03:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the content back out. As it should be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What is the distinction between "Major" candidates and the "other" ones?

I see that the "candidates featured in major polls" categorization has been replaced by "Major candidates". I'm okay with that personally, but currently there is no stated definition of what constitutes a "major" candidate and what makes such candidates distinct from "other" candidates. Is the polling standard still used, or there is now a new set of benchmarks? I couldn't find anything in the talk archives that could help me find an answer to that. Whatever the case, there should be a clear definition stated on the page. Otherwise there's likely to be confusion, particularly among newcomers to this page, that potentially could lead to edit-warring and other types of disruptive editing.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It says it right under the section title: Candidates below have received delegates in various primaries and caucuses. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so it does. But what criteia applies to the listed withdrawn candidates who dropped out before the primaries or exited the race with no delegates?--Rollins83 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Image change for Donald Trump

Hi, can I suggest that we change the picture of Trump to this File:Donald Trump January 2016.jpg? I think the current picture in this page, and that on his page makes him look a bit too fierce. I'm not trying to give him a more positive or negative portrayal, but I think it would make the page look more decent if we can use an image of him at least smiling. I don't think this request is unreasonable, as pictures of other candidates smiled too. 155.69.153.77 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a related discussion taking place on the talk page of Trump's article: Talk:Donald Trump#Image.--Rollins83 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

Under the "Withdrawn candidates" section for the Democratic and Republican primaries, I would suggest putting the pictures directly underneath "withdrawn candidates" as opposed to at the end of the section, after all of the other writing. I suggest this because currently it appears that the pictures suggest that all of the candidates had withdrawn prior to any ballot deadline, which is factually inaccurate. This is a minor change and rather nitpicky I know, but I believe it will erase any confusion readers might have with the way it is currently formatted. Spiffyeditor (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Your idea makes sense, but I think it would be even more sensible to put all the withdrawn candidates under just one header as proposed in the above thread ("Why are all the Withdrawn candidates split between...."). There appears to be consensus for that idea, so that's likely what will be done.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

.

I took the liberty of doing this because it was confusing the way it was being presented. It looked like all the candidates pictured "withdrew prior to any ballot deadline". Hope nobody minds the move. Gorba (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are withdrawn candidates split between "During the primaries", "On State Ballots" and "Before State Ballots"?

Wouldn't it be easier if we put all the withdrawn candidates together in one section?

user:mnw2000 02:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I don't really see the point of doing this to be honest. Prcc27💋 (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I also agree. I can see point of this on the sub-pages that are more specifically targeted to the candidates and primaries themselves, but it seems excessive and unnecessary for this article. Keep it simple, all withdrawn candidates in one section under one title.--Cojovo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree w/ Prcc27 & Cojovo. The sub-categorizations for the withdrawn candidates is fine for the sub-pages, but excessive for this article. The purpose of this article is to provide a general overview of the key events of the election, not to cherry-pick every small detail to the nth degree. One category for "withdrawn candidates" is sufficient.--JayJasper (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I am in total agreement with all of the above.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with everyone here as well. Per the clear consensus that's been reached in this discussion, I have consolidated the withdrawn sections.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Update Democratic Party

The page needs to be updated with the primaries after super tuesday. Leldy22 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Green Party candidates

I don't really want to make this a formal edit request, because I'm not a fan of how the section of Green candidates is currently formatted at all - however, the article should list those candidates according to the version of names they are using to campaign for President. Specifically, William Kreml goes by "Bill Kreml" [6] and Ms. Curry goes by "Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry" (entire name, with hyphen) or "Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza Curry" (entire name, no hyphen) or "SKCM Curry" [7] [8] - she doesn't seem to ever go by just "Sedinam Curry". It's easy to see why the latter name has been presented in a short form here, but her preferred short form really ought to be used instead of the one currently in the article. That will make it easier for readers to search for either candidate outside of Wikipedia, since neither has an article here. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Order, clean up third parties by electoral vote ballot access?

Those are 2 suggestions to clear up the article

1. should the parties be ordered by number of electoral votes (subject to repeated change) to make the more significant information earlier accessible for people reading the entire article, or up to a point?

2. should parties with access to 0 electoral votes be removed until they get access? they are clearly not relevant to the election results in any way without access to electoral votes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFIST (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of these suggestions. It makes perfect sense to have the parties listed by order of accessible electoral votes. I might be mistaken, but I think we did do it that way at some point the last time around. I like the second idea also, it seems practical at this point to list only the candidates that have ballot access in at least one state. The others can remain listed on the sub-pages.--Cojovo (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with both ideas. It's perfectly sensible to have 3rd party candidates in order of ballot access ranking, and per WP:WEIGHT to include only parties and and candidates that have confirmed ballot access of some kind. Especially at this stage in the election cycle.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In regards to #1 I think alphabetical order (what is currently being used) is fine. People are naturally going to search for a party by alphabetical order, not by which party has access to more electoral college votes. We already make the relevant distinctions between the major parties, the third parties with 270+ electoral college votes, and the third parties with less than that. As for suggestion #2 I think that parties with access to 0 electoral votes do not need to be covered on this article and should just be covered on the sub-article. Any party with access to at least 1 electoral vote should remain on the page though. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I've reconsidered suggestion #1, I now agree, per the above reasoning, that alphabetical order works just fine.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
What exactly do we do with the Independents? Which ones have ballot access in at least one electoral vote and which ones don't? Prcc27 💋 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the thinking of Prcc27 on this. Alphabetical order suffices. List only Third party and Independent candidates that have ballot access to 1 electoral vote.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeing that have consensus at least on point #2, I have removed parties/candidates that currently have no ballot access. Looks like we're fine with the present alphabetical listing order as well.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I restored the Socialist Party USA ticket, as the SPUSA is one of only eight parties recognized by the FEC and has run candidates for president for decades. The ticket has been covered extensively in the media.--TM 18:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both of these proposals, namely that 1. parties be listed by number of electoral vote access and 2. Parties with no ballot access be relegated to the third parties page, having no relevance in American politics or discourse. The user above me, 'TM' (or is it Namiba?), is completely lying when they claim that the SP-USA 'ticket' has been covered extensively in the media. The SP-USA and it's candidate, Mimi, have either no media coverage at all or almost none at all. Everyday I am monitoring the so called 'mainstream media' and it's unruly counterpart, the 'alternative media'. Not only is the SP-USA absent from all discourse, it has as much relevance as my own non-existent campaign for the presidency. The SP-USA, and Mimi Soltysik specifically, are not even talked about in the articles of the alternative media, such as TruthDig and AlterNet. It's fair to say the SP-USA has sunken into oblivion and will not be fondly remembered for all of it's non-existence accomplishments, the chief of which was to be trojan horsed by the FBI in previous decades. DarkApollo (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)DarkApollo
Digging into it, the Socialist Party is officially qualified in Ohio, giving them access to 18 electoral votes.--TM 14:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
A) Ballotpedia is not WP:RS, as it is a user-generated wiki B)"As of October 2013...." dosen't confirm that SP-USA has ballot access in 2016, especially in Ohio with the recent efforts to restrict ballot access for minor parties that have taken place there since that time.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Party Debate

There is a nationally televised libertarian party presidential candidate debate tonight, given that it is televised on Fox Business I assume that would make it have the same notability as the democratic and republican debates which are mentioned on this page.XavierGreen (talk)

I'm not sure it does. The LP as a Rump Party doesn't have the same notability as the main parties. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The LP has also had a lot more debates than just the Stossel debate. They're already mentioned on Wikipedia at "Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016" in the "Debate schedule" section. Professorstampede (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2016

George Pataki has endorsed Governor John Kasich now instead of the article saying Marco Rubio.. Random Person 2015 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Majora (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
A source: [9] General Ization Talk 01:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably should have looked myself. My mistake and apologies. This request is Done --Majora (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

James Mattis

James Mattis is getting a lot of chatter as an alternative to Drumpf. 1 2 You should include Mattis as a possible Republican candidate. Mhoppmann (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Does GEN Mattis satisfy the requirements for inclusion? Is it still 'must have filed and been included in a major poll/debate'? JMcGowan2 (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

He hasn't announced. My understanding is that he would be a candidate put forward at a contested convention. My point is, shouldn't he be mentioned somewhere in the article? There is enough speculation to warrant inclusion, i.e. in a "possible candidates" section. Or would this info be better served to be included in the wiki article about the contested convention (in the event that it happens)?

Mhoppmann (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

George Clooney gearing up for 3rd party run?

http://www.netonenews.com/2016/04/20/report-george-clooney-organizing-3rd-party-run-for-president/

"... Hollywood icon George Clooney appears to be gearing up his own run at the presidency" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.221.119.245 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That citation dosen't seem to be a WP:RS, and I couldn't find any other recent sources discussing a potential Clooney candidacy. So for the time being at least, I see no reason to add this to the article.--Rollins83 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

SCOTUS appointment

Does this really deserve its own section in the article? There's no section for other major issues, and there's no evidence that this is the critical issue that will determine the election. It's quite speculative too, since the Senate may still fill the vacancy before the election anyway. 174.2.222.208 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

All good points. I am favor of removing the SCOTUS section, for the reasons stated above. Are there any objections to doing so?--NextUSprez (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I think the OP's assessment is spot-on. That section dosen't belong in the article.--Odin'16 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that the section has been deleted per this discussion, but FWIW just wanted to add that I agree with the removal based on the well-reasoned rationale of the OP.--Rollins83 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Major announcement from Cruz expected today

Ted Cruz will reportedly make a "major announcement" later today (4/27/16): [10], [11], [12]. The general speculation is that he will name a running mate, which would be a highly unusual (unprecendented?) move for someone who is not the front-runner in his party's primary race. Anyway, the announcement, whatever it turns out to be will likely be pertinent to this article in one way or another. So I thought I'd give a "heads up", for the benefit of those who weren't aware of it.--Ewers1 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

DONE - Article has been updated to include Cruz' announcement of Carly Fiorina as his running mate.--Jcc7292 (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Party

Recently the section for the Democratic Party suffered a rework. I would like to know your thoughts on that. I find it a bit biased towards Hillary Clinton, by stressing big victories for her as "decisive", by stating the percentage of her big wins, but not stating the same about Sanders' big wins or when stating that Sanders has only received 41 [superdelegates' endorsements] are some examples. The use adjectives like "extremely [close contest]", "stunning [upset]" also seem to show a lack of objectivity, although not necessarily bias. On the other hand, I'm myself a Bernie supporter, so I might be lacking objectivity in interpreting the text. I don't wish to start a political battle here in Wikipedia, so I would like to someone with a higher sense of impartiality than myself to look it up and, hopefully, to prove me wrong or fix the issue. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenient. - Sarilho1 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to be transparent as you are, but really you have every right to make the edits that you think are beneficial as long as you keep a neutral point of view. If your edits lack objectivity someone else will surely notice. If we waited for others to do the job nothing would get done here, so be WP:BOLD. There are never too many contributors ;) Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

As per a request at ANRFC, I'm closing this early. Consensus has been very clear and a large response has already been received. In the absence of extraordinary reliable sourcing to the contrary, there is consensus for designating current and recent candidates for president as politicians. There is a clear numerical majority for including the term, but moreover, reliable sources have been provided to show that the media is designating current and recent candidates as politicians. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 23:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? (This is intended to be a structured RfC. For a recent unstructured, and unresolved, discussion of this question as it pertains to Donald Trump, see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive_11#Is Trump a politician?) General Ization Talk 12:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Yes. Despite the efforts of some to make it so, politician is by definition neither a compliment nor an insult; it's simply an occupation (possibly one of several or many). That some may think it connotes either status or a particular moral alignment is immaterial to how the term is or should be used here. General Ization Talk 12:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes – This is a definitional issue more than anything. An individual can carry more than one profession; for example, there are singers who are also actors. A businessman who is also a celebrity, may be elected to the office of President of the United States – therefore, they are a politician too. —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes – There is one definition that is meant as an insult. But, other definitions include people engaged in politics. I think it is clear that an encyclopedia is not using the insult definition. If you are running a serious campaign for the highest political office in the land, you’re a politician. Objective3000 (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course -- someone who engages in a primary form of politics (running for a significant public office) is rather obviously a politician. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Absolutely and beyond question. Someone who is or has formally (as in "officially") engaged in the political process is, by definition, a politician. And yes, this applies to the likes of Donald Trump who have yet to hold office. If you are in the process of writing your first (but as yet unpublished) novel, are you not an author? Of course you are. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I see it as if is someone trying, training, doing whatever they can do to get into a professional sports league for the first time, they are not yet a professional athlete. Wickypedoia (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - per Nomoskedasticity. Brianga (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Political candidates are by definition politicians: "active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No By definition, any person running for office may be described as a politician. However the term may also mean someone who earns a living from political office or someone who pursues office for personal gain. Saying that someone running for office is a politician conveys no meaningful information, yet the ambiguity of the definition creates confusion. TFD (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes From our article on Politician: "A politician (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government." That's every single one of the candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - per all the above comments supporting this position. "Politician" is an objective and encyclopedic term that applies to anyone who holds or actively seeks a government office. As long as the term is used neutrally and in a formal context, there's no compelling reason not to apply it to current and recent (or even not-so-recent, for that matter) candidates.--Cojovo (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course - what else should we call somebody running for political office? "Candidate" might be misleading before the conventions. Let's try not to destroy the English language for political purposes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: Per Cojovo's points. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Someone is not a politician until they have held political office. Ross Perot, though most famous for his presidential run, is not considered a politician, but a businessman. Trump would fall into that same category if he fails. If he succeeds I'd imagine the perception would change. Ayzmo (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No - Does a single campaign for office make someone a politician? Reasonable people can disagree on the answer. The thing is, we don't need to answer that question. Something like "Ben Carson is a retired neurosurgeon and former candidate for President of the United States" conveys all the necessary information while avoiding taking a needless stand on this question. Toohool (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: Per Muboshgu (and others). "Politician" as defined and described by the Wikipedia article on the very subject ("active in party politics", "holding or seeking office in government") is applicable to all the current/recent candidates.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Not unless the individual has held elected public office. A job applicant isn't an employee. A candidate's own relation to the term is irrelevant. The body of the article obviously gives the full picture about the 'bid'. Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I believe the term is most commonly used as someone engaged in civil administration, or has experience in the science of government. Someone had mentioned Ross Perot, who was not a politician. There are always exceptions but those rare exceptions should have to be rigorously proven. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes as a rule, but subject to possible exceptions of which Trump may or may not be one. Descriptors in headings like that refer to a person's primary occupation or role at different times in their life. Slippery terms like "educator", "activist", "philanthropist", or "author", used as biographic definitions for people who might have done it once as a sideline, are unhelpful and seem more like resume pieces than encyclopedia content. Is it a defining aspect of Trump's life that he has participated in politics? I'm inclined to think so, particularly assuming he gains the GOP nomination. If he were to become President, and presumably step back from most of his other jobs, that's the height of being a politician. For now I'm not sure, so leave that to those who edit the Trump article. FWIW, if that term is inappropriate he could be called a "political candidate" instead of a "politician". That is accurate as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Words have meanings, and the meaning of the word describes the candidates. Sure the bar is low, but that is not for us to change. HighInBC 15:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Politician isn't really a job. The key activity is seeking votes, which isn't usually paid. The distinction between a job applicant and an employee isn't sound. In politics, office-holders have to continually apply for their jobs. That's what makes them politicians.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The key activity is seeking votes, I thought the key activity was trying to represent their constituents! Actors spend more of their time auditioning, networking, discussing possible parts, rehearsing, that doesn't alter the fact that the defining activity is actually performing. Pincrete (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No. Nobody calls Wendell Willkie, the last businessman who ran for president, a politician -- and he was the de-facto leader of the Republican party, which Trump will never be. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Of course we call them politicians. They are running for political office, they are discussing politics continually while running for office, they are stating their political positions. Reliable sources refer to them as such, the very definition of a politician qualifies them to be called by that label. No question in my mind, regardless of how I feel about their candidacy, because Wikipedia editors are to remain neutral. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No, not unless they have previously held political office. Running for something, anything, does not a politician make. See Ralph Nader. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • No.Trump has never done anything new political in his career. He's running for president-that's it. If any one of us decides to run for president that's not going to make a politician like that [snap]. Sally Book (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
See WP:AADP#Personal taste. --Proud User (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. As others have previously pointed out, the term "politician" encompasses individuals who seek - as well as hold - an office. Others have referred to it, but in case you missed it, please see the Politician article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes If you are running for any office, you are a politician. Trump is running for an office, so therefore he is a politician. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Depends on individual case: Yes for people who have already held political office. No for new entrants such as Donald Trump, Ben Carson and Lawrence Lessig. — JFG talk 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. At the point at which you choose to run for office you are a politician. You may be new to politics but you are nevertheless a politician. You wouldn't be called a seasoned politician. But you've chosen to enter politics; you have become a politician. Bus stop (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes A politician is, according to many dictionaries, someone who holds or seeks to hold an office. So, as long as they are officially (as opposed to WP:SPECULATION) running for an office, they should be considered a politician. However, assuming they have never held an office before, they should only be considered a politician if they are actively running for office (if not, the article should read "former [office in question] candidate"). --Proud User (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No. I disagree this RfC is useful, and think it is even misguided. Here's why ... It was opened by user General Ization on the basis that the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump wasn't producing a "clear consensus". Assume for a second that *this* discussion produces a clear consensus, and, that consensus is that the label "politician" is appropriately applied to presidential candidates who never held any elective office. So what will be the result of the RfC then? The only result that I believe will occur, is that those editors favoring label "politician" in the lede at Donald Trump will get their way. And I believe *that* is the limit of their interest. (When I questioned user General Ization on the inconsistency of not applying the same label to article ledes for Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, I got this reply: "Yes, I absolutely think that "politician" should appear as a descriptor in the lead of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. But I'm not editing those articles. If you are, please do. General Ization Talk 13:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)" And when I posed the same question to user Purplebackpack89 in that discussion, s/he added the label to the lede of the Fiorina article [s/he skipped the Ben Carson article for some unexplained reason, even though I asked why], was reverted 2+ hours later, s/he didn't protest the reversion, and never returned to the article.)

    So where is all the energetic conviction channelled that insists on using label "politician" on presidential candidates that have never held any elected office? Answer: it's been reserved solely for the Donald Trump article. The only energy about this topic is that of applying "politician" label to Donald Trump, in his BLP lede, and no other candidates who w/ also qualify, under the arguments given. (So then, this RfC really amounts to venue shopping, after discussion at Talk:Donald Trump did not provide the desired consensus and justification to keep label "politician" on Donald Trump. [Gee, do I really have to speculate why!?])

    Here are four other articles, their ledes are fine. And I believe the reason label "politician" does not appear in any of them, is that it isn't appropriate. Ditto the Trump article. (And even if it were deemed appropriate to apply to Trump at this time, it would still be a redundant qualifier, since the same lede sentence where it's used goes on to describe Trump as a presidential candidate in the 2016 election. So that is another reason to speculate why there is such energy in editors to apply and maintain the label there.)

    Here are the current descriptions in some other similar BLP ledes:

  • Ben Carson isn't labelled "politician" in his BLP, instead the lede says he ... "is a retired American neurosurgeon and former candidate for President of the United States."
  • Carly Fiorina isn't labelled "politician" in her BLP, instead the lede says she ... "is an American businessperson and political candidate, known primarily for her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP)."
  • Ross Perot isn't labelled "politician" in his BLP, instead the lede says he ... "is an American businessman best known for being an independent presidential candidate in 1992 and the Reform party presidential candidate in 1996."
  • Ralph Nader isn't labelled "politician" in his BLP, instead the lede says he ... "is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney."

All those descriptions are fine/appropriate. (So why all the energy dedicated to botching the Trump article lede, by saddling only him with that label?) IHTS (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Case by case. You aren't going to be able to come up with a general "yes" or "no" answer here that will satisfy all cases. Whether we call Trump, Fiorina, Nader, etc., "politicians" in their respective ledes should be a matter of editorial judgement at the article level. If this RfC had asked "Can current and recent candidates...be called 'politicians'" I'd answer, "Yes, of course." But should they all be called politicians, and in the lede? I think this RfC was well-intentioned but misplaced: this conversation should have a more narrow focus at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 11#Is Trump a politician?. ~Awilley (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, Generally - while there might be specific exceptions (mostly the joke/vanity candidates who never poll above "my mommy voted for me" level), once someone has officially gotten on the ballot for nomination, they're a politician, e.g. "one who seeks political office." Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes: If you seek the highest political office in the land, you are a politician. pbp 18:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • No, and speedy close. There are probably tens of thousands of notable people who have ran for public office and lost. US presidential candidates are just a fraction of them and I'm assuming that this proposal will be applied to all of them. Should we now just add "politician" to every current (and unsuccessful?) candidate's article? Let's just wait til they are actually in office. It seems that if this gains "consensus" someone like Adam Kokesh (ran unsuccessfully for New Mexican congressman) will be considered a politician on Wikipedia? Or it may be that if they lose, "politician" can be removed from their article's lead? Wickypedoia (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

RfC makes no sense Like all WP content, this depends, case by case, on what RS say. An RfC about general application of Original Research to a class of articles doesn't reflect WP practice or policy. SPECIFICO talk 13:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of sources describe Trump as a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: I would normally agree with you, but a faction that opposes the use of this term to describe Trump insists that his contentious relationship with the media makes the usual reliable sources unreliable for this question. General Ization Talk 13:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand, but that view violates every WP principle as to sourcing of references and should be rejected for that reason rather than as a special case. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
So may/should we interpret your comment as Yes (on a case-by-case basis) if and when reliable sources support it? General Ization Talk 13:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. Incidentally, I checked Eisenhower and US Grant and was a bit surprised to see each of them described as politicians. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why are you surprised? They are primarily known for their political careers and activities as office-holders.Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Please read about each of those two great Generals in their articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
A better comparison to Trump would be Ross Perot. Prior to his presidential campaigns he had not been a politician and, obviously, was not one after. His page does not refer to him as a politician despite his influential time as a presidential candidate. Ayzmo (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
A politician is someone who engages in politicking (seeking political office, etc.) much the same way a doctor is someone who practices medicine. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And yet we don't call a med student a doctor. They aren't a doctor until they have achieved the role/degree. I graduate with my degree in psychology in two months, yet I am not a psychologist, though I practice psychology full-time. I will not be until I fulfill all of the criteria (graduation and eventual licensure.) A businessman who is running for office, and will likely never seek political office again after failing (assuming), would not be a politician. He would be a businessman. Ayzmo (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
A politician does not require a degree or license. Objective3000 (talk) 16:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And as someone pointed out above, we don't call the author of an unpublished book something other than an author, or a competitive runner who has never won a race anything other than a runner. This is not about credentials, but about aspirations and undertakings. General Ization Talk 19:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually they do. When med students are doing their first rotations in hospitals, it's routine to call them "doctor" even though they haven't obtained their MD yet. Not that this is the point, but there you go. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, Ralph Nader, Curtis LeMay, Pat Paulsen, et al. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
All of whom were at one time politicians and, if still alive, are former politicians. This status does not preclude the inclusion of the word politician, however qualified or dated, in the lead, which is at the heart of the question being asked in this RfC. General Ization Talk 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Citations for that? SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
With little time to search, yes: Ralph Nader, Pat Paulsen. LeMay is a special case, as he was legitimately an anti-politician asked (not volunteering) to engage in the work of a politician, who arguably never should have accepted the invitation. General Ization Talk 19:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Nader, sure. Paulsen I would say was a parodist. Agree on LeMay -- he was way out of his element and made a mistake. Objective3000 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Why "obviously, was not one after [his failed campaign]"? Perot's biography here shows that he remained very actively involved in politics after the failure of his first (1992) candidacy, even founding a new political party, and though, after the second in 1996, he was silent on certain issues Reform Party members thought he should weigh on and has remained mostly silent in the media, we should not assume he ceased (or has even now ceased) to be actively involved in politics. General Ization Talk 17:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
But WP doesn't do obviously. We do the weight of RS citations. I'm confused as to the obviously approach here. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I was quoting (and questioning) Ayzmo's obviously. General Ization Talk 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I know. I don't fully understand the context of this RfC so I think I have nothing more of value to add. Looks as if this did need to be raised. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@DoctorJoeE: Quote: Nobody calls Wendell Willkie, the last businessman who ran for president, a politician. Just looked at article Wendell Willkie. The form "politic" appears 28 times. Objective3000 (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I, for one, don't use that argument. But if you believe running more than once is justification for applying "politician" label, then let me see you go apply that label to the Ross Perot BLP lede, and make it stick. IHTS (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

For the record, it should be pointed out that Trump himself has said repeatedly that he is not a politician -- and, in fact, that that is what sets him apart, because "politicians are all talk and no action. I'm the opposite." Not that we necessarily care what he says, of course. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 21:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the "No" arguments are based or influenced by a negative attitude to Trump. This should be totally irrelevant. The question whether a political figure is good or bad, competent or incompetent, desirable or deplorable, should be irrelevant to the question whether he or she is a politician. Equally irrelevant is the question of the future. We don't know what the future is. At the moment Trump is one of the most famous politicians in the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting assumption; I don't really see the evidence for it, though. At least some of the "yes" votes appear to be driven by dislike for one particular editor; but I think most are doing what most people do, which is to state their personal opinion and then try to find justification for it, rather than looking at evidence and then drawing an objective conclusion. The actual definition of the word is relevant; Webster's defines it as "a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government". American Heritage's definition is "one who is actively involved or skilled in politics, especially one who holds a political office". (Their secondary definition -- "one who deceives or outmaneuvers others for personal gain" -- might be the best argument of all for "yes"!) Random House says, "a person who is active in politics, esp. as a career." So objectively, one would have to say that he doesn't fit the formal definition; but as always, no one will change his/her opinion based on actual evidence, so this whole exercise is basically a waste of time. And it doesn't really matter what we call him anyway, does it? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
OED: "active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government". Well, he is extremely active in party politics and seeking the highest office. He fits the definition. Objective3000 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but if you start listing those types of things it can go the opposite also. WBSTRS: "1. One versed or experienced in the science of government; one devoted to politics; a statesman." So there's a no. WNET: "1. a leader engaged in civil administration." another no. But my favorite: Devils Dictionary of 1906: "POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive." Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Actually, one of WordNet's definitions for politician is "a person active in party politics." So tell the whole story, not just what benefits your side! --Proud User (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@Proud User:You'll notice I wrote it as the first choice. There's a big #1 right in the front of the sentence if you look closely enough. So I told the whole story, the point being that if we start listing every definition it's going to be all over the map. Wikipedia is trying to find it's own definition, and that's fine. There are other defs too you know... Websters Full Definition of Politician: 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government. 2a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession; b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons. There is also MacMillan's Dictionary... 1. someone who has a job in politics, especially a member of the government. Oh wait I better tell the whole story...2. someone who is good at using people or situations to their own advantage. So once someone starts bringing in definitions it pours out a whole lot of garbage. There is no doubt that outside sources tell us two different stories on what a politician is. That's why we are arguing here... conflicting sources. We just have to find our own way on this issue without getting snippy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
For self-convenience purposes I see you are purposely leaving out dictionaries that disagree with your viewpoint, such as Oxford English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary, among other ones. --Proud User (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point entirely. My original dictionary quotes were there to show that using dictionaries were a waste of time since they are all over the map. An editor added one and I showed that it would be easy to add the converse. Anyone in the survey section whose argument is dictionaries say if you run for office you're a politician... is WRONG. Anyone in the survey section whose argument is dictionaries say you have to have been in office to be a politician...is WRONG. Dictionaries are all over the map on this issue whether you agree or not. They are pretty much useless in deciding this. Because they are useless in this case, we must use other means in coming to a decision. Sure, I personally feel that common American usage is you have to have been in office (with exceptions). Others feel that you only have to run for office (with exceptions). Dictionaries can't help us so how do we move on. This might simply be a case-by-case, article-by-article type of thing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but it doesn't sound like you know how dictionaries work. The OED has scores of definitions for some words. Nothing fits all of them. Definitions are not mutually exclusive. Words have many meanings. You just have to fit one to be RIGHT. To claim that dictionaries are useless is to go against a major pillar of WP. WP is based on reliable sources. Is there a more reliable source than the OED? Reference books are specifically designed to be used in settling such debates. As are encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
You see? No one will change his/her mind. (My OED says, "a person who is "professionally involved" in politics.) Despite the other 3 definitions I listed above, and 2 more by Fyunck, I suppose he does fit the definition, sort of. Just as Velveeta fits the definition of cheese, sort of. But we're all wasting our time. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"At the moment Trump is one of the most famous politicians in the world." Wrong. He's one of the most famous political candidates in the world. You seem to miss the point here (it is about label "politician" - your response presupposes the two are the same; that is what this discussion is about, duh). IHTS (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Rather a lot of politicians say they aren't politicians. This hardly sets him apart. Objective3000 (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"Calling Trump a politician is like calling an Elvis impersonator Elvis." I think that's pretty anti-Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, fair point. Let me rephrase that: Trump is not a politician, but he plays one on TV. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 17:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Once again, a statement from a user presuming his/her opinion is the answer/it/indisputable/fact. (Jesus! What do you think is being discussed? Everyone knows your bias already. Try and support it with a reasoned argument.) IHTS (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What is my bias??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 08:21, 3 May 2016‎ (UTC)
Wasn't addressing you; check the indentation again. IHTS (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: and @Proud User:, this is a structured RfC, as stated in the original question. This means that you don't respond to the responses of others, or compose essays, within the structured section above; discussion is to be contained within this Comments section. Every other respondent thus far has respected the format of the RfC, and I'd request that you do so also. General Ization Talk 12:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you know what you're talking about. 1) my !vote was not an "essay", it was explanation of my rationale, longer than others, but so what? 2) my !vote contained no "response to the responses of others" posted here. 3) WP:RfC offers multiple different "structures", and doesn't preclude threaded structures, even if I'd been guilty of that, which I wasn't. p.s. I thought you said you would "ignore" my posts. If you're not going to do that, at least ensure what you say is valid. IHTS (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Man, now that Trump is the presumptive nominee, I guess he might be a politician after all. Also, can we all just take a second from debating about this and think about this—Trump is now the nominee. Who would have thought since he announced he was running in June of last year. Just saying, this is getting kind of scary. Sally Book (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved from survey section
@Proud User: How is IHTS's comment an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument? Carson, Fiorina, and company are clearly included in the scope of this RfC. True, Trump is foremost on people's minds, and that might be why IHTS called this RfC "misguided". ~Awilley (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And I agree, the RfC original question is messed up. ("Should candidates be called politicians" has no applicability, when there's demonstrable non-interest in saddling BLPs other than Trump's w/ that label [even when they meet so-called "requirements" including a "dictionary definition"].) IHTS (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Would we consider Waka Flocka Flame a politician? If not, why should Donald Trump be considered one? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_7&oldid=1136474354"