Talk:2016 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:28, 16 March 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 3 months

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

2016 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2006	Articles for deletion	Deleted
January 14, 2009	Articles for deletion	No consensus
February 3, 2009	Articles for deletion	Deleted
September 15, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 9, 2016.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics: American / Libertarianism High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Presidential elections / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Presidents of the United States: Donald Trump Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Presidents of the United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Presidents of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Presidents of the United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesTemplate:WikiProject Presidents of the United StatesUnited States Presidents
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

2010s High‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Chris Alcantara (2016-10-27). "The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates' Wikipedia pages". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2016-11-07.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2016, 2020, and 2024.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 18 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates

Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox [pre-election]: order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election. Link to previous discussion: here

Infobox inclusion (pre-election): It has been agreed by consensus discussion in 2012 that presidential general election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox prior to the election: Candidates will be included in the infobox who can mathematically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access (appearing on the ballot) and/or write-in status (with pledged electors). Links to previous discussions:

The following images have been discussed:

Hillary Clinton (consensus link)

Consensus

Donald Trump (consensus link)

Consensus

Gary Johnson (consensus link)

Consensus

" because of seven faithless electors"

This statement is evidence that people who post articles on Wiki (and possibly Wiki itself) is not true journalism nor simple facts. "Faithless" is an opinion of the writer. A true journalist does not display his/her biases. They present the facts as they are. Obvious bias does not belong in a page or article comprised of what should be simple facts. It should be removed. 2603:9001:8F00:982:8C40:4671:A7EF:205D (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the actual term. See our article on it: Faithless elector. You see how those words "faithless electors" is in blue? That's called a wikilink. Please educate yourself on the matter before going off half-cocked. (That's an actual term too.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless elector is the commonly used term for an elector who casts a vote for candidate other than the one they are pledged to. See Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other positions at the time

Other positions at the time. Trump hammered away at the Clintons on NAFTA and their role while Bill was in office at the time. And Hillary hammered away on Trump on wanting to destroy or break up NATO and being influenced by Vladimir Putin. CaribDigita (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont

The percentages for Vermont are different on this page compared to the Vermont 2016 page. For example, Clinton is listed with 56.68% on here, but 55.72% on the other page. That page also shows two more votes for Evan McMullin compared to this one. 65.130.225.100 (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maine

There is a 144 vote discrepancy between the combination of ME-1 and ME-2 compared to the total for the state. 65.130.225.100 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Build that wall" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Build that wall has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 18 § Build that wall until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Trump-Sanders voter article

I believe we should merge the 2016 section of Sanders–Trump voters into this article.

It seems to be singling out Sanders->Trump defectors because mainstream democrats particularly dislike Trump, but it’s not important enough to warrant its own article and should be merged with the general articles about the elections.

Points:

There’s nothing fundamentally unique about disenfranchised voters switching to opposing candidates.

The number of votes isn’t remarkable. Even the much maligned Ralph Nader got almost three percent of the general election votes, as opposed to the 6-12 percent _of sanders supporters_ that defected.

People switch their votes. People get mad. People make both rational and irrational decisions when deciding who to vote for. That’s just how elections work. Andythechef (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 [[File:Information.svg|30px]]
 The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Build_that_wall&redirect=no Build that wall]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 18#Build that wall}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Segoe Script">[[User:Jay| Jay]]</span><span style="font-size:115%">[[User talk:Jay| 💬]]</span> 14:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
+== Merge Trump-Sanders voter article ==
+I believe we should merge the 2016 section of [[ Sanders–Trump voters ]] into this article.
+It seems to be singling out  Sanders->Trump defectors because mainstream democrats particularly dislike Trump, but it’s not important enough to warrant its own article and should be merged with the general articles about the elections.
+Points:
+* There’s nothing fundamentally unique about disenfranchised voters switching to opposing candidates.
+* The number of votes isn’t remarkable. Even the much maligned Ralph Nader got almost three percent of the general election votes, as opposed to the 6-12 percent _of sanders supporters_ that defected.
+People switch their votes. People get mad. People make both rational and irrational decisions when deciding who to vote for. That’s just how elections work. [[User:Andythechef|Andythechef]] ([[User talk:Andythechef|talk]]) 02:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:28, 16 March 2025

" because of seven faithless electors"

Other positions at the time

Vermont

Maine

"Build that wall" listed at Redirects for discussion

Merge Trump-Sanders voter article

zproxy.org