Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ordering

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.

---

This is absurd and blatant political bias! Viable candidates with large number of endorsements such as Paul and John Kasich are left at the bottom, whereas Graham, who have hardly a handful of endorsements and are at the bottom of the polls are given elevated status right above in the page. This had got to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.194.242.6 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Also, kick Walker out. 14.194.242.6 (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Candidates are kept in alphabetical order by last name to maintain a neutral point of view. We can't start deciding who goes on top of others. We can't bring our own feelings into this. Alphabetical order is done on all political pages for a reason. It is the most neutral and it is going to stay that way unless a clear consensus otherwise is reached. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• NPOV my foot, you are far-right wingers taking unfair advantage of WP's popularity to spread conservative propaganda. Anyway, why allow Walker and Perry on this page and cause confusion?

14.194.242.98 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Alphabetical order is not propaganda against your candidate. And the reason Perry and Walker are still on the list is that this is an encyclopedia, and information about the past does get included in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No, alphabetical order is propaganda.

49.200.244.24 (talk) 12:05, 2 October 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.

Transclusion of endorsements to individual pages

I originally put this in on the Democratic endorsement page and I thought it was time I did it here too. I have set up anchors so each endorsement section will automatically transclude to the candidate's individual campaign page. You no longer have to make two separate edits. I still have to go through and change all the comments and iron out a few referencing errors but everything seems to be working. If you have any questions please let me know. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I fixed all cite errors I was able to spot with "Error check tool" (by hand). However now some named references aren't recognized on transclude destination pages, e.g. Ted_Cruz_presidential_campaign,_2016 or Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016, but nothing like that on this article. Could it be that named references can't be used, when page is only partly transcluded, i.e. reference is defined in another section? I'm wondering what would be the cleanest solution to resolve this.

As a side note, there are still some cite errors (which were present even before my edits) on this page, and I didn't want to go through all these Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc. primary sources right now. Politrukki (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Politrukki: Name references defined in another section is what causes that. When the information is transcluded over it looks for the cite information to pull over too but since it is only copying one section, if the information is not included in that section it results in a "name not defined" citation error. As for the errors on this page the transclusion has nothing to do with that. At this point it is about weighing the pros and cons of the transclusion solution. By doing it this way I felt that it would make the candidates' pages more accurate. Eliminating the possibility of people forgetting to add endorsements to two separate pages. The citation errors are annoying but easy fixes and I can keep an eye on the individual pages and patch up any that pop up. On the other hand, the transclusion can be easily undone if it is becoming more of a burden then it is worth. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Bar chart?

Wondering if a bar chart (like this) might be a useful addition to the page. Would have to be double-checked and updated every time a name is added, of course. (I could help with that, for a while.) Thoughts? Jonathan Lane Studeman (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

August Kreis

Should August Kreis III be listed here as a Trump endorsement? He has clearly endorsed Trump and it's been covered by multiple news sources (he caused a scene at his own sentencing by urging people to vote for Trump). I initially added him, but another user subsequently removed him without giving a reason why. So I think it might be a good idea to discuss this here and arrive at a consensus. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Besides the abhorrently negative value it adds (the counter-purpose of any endorsement), because its a fringe figure with no relevant notability whatsoever. User2534 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy of Palin for Rand

I believe Sarah Palin did not endorse Rand Paul, but cautioned people against taking his supporters too lightly .Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

James Woods

Woods tweeted this out after meeting with Senator Cruz. Is it safe to move him to the Cruz side?

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/668931729885933568

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Praise ≠ Endorsement

I just removed Vladimir Putin from Trump's endorsements. Putin hailed Trump as bright, talented, and the "leader" of the U.S. presidential race. He also said he appreciates that Trump has suggested that the U.S. and Russia have closer relations. THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT. Another example on the Democratic side is Obama saying Bernie Sanders is hardworking, admirable, and fighting for the issues that matter to real people. Just because you compliment someone doesn't mean you endorse them. You have to outright say you support them and would like for them, and them only, to win. I don't have time to review every endorsement on this page but I just want to make that clear for people who would want to add Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.52.89 (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this and have removed Putin once already. However, it seems a different IP disagrees. Perhaps more people can give their input on this matter so we can actually get a more solid consensus on this? --Stabila711 (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

IMO, endorsements should be formal. If you say all of the candidates of a party would make good presidents, you are not endorsing all of them. Objective3000 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What constitutes a 'formal' endorsement? A hand-written letter, delivered by carrier pigeon to you personally? If he hasn't praised anyone else, then yes, praise does equal endorsement. CrouchS (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Praising someone is not an endorsement. The IP user above stated it correctly. "You have to outright say you support them and would like for them, and them only, to win." Also, you must include this from a reliable source. NOT Twitter. Light-jet pilot (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Chingy

Chingy initially endorsed Trump but subsequently took it back, saying he wasn't familiar with Trump's more controversial comments at the time. Should this be mentioned in the article in some way? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Maps are visually deceiving

These endorsement maps are extremely misleading, especially the one showing the House endorsements. You have districts in urban areas that are literaly 1/1000th the size of statewide districts. What is the point of it? It provides no proper visual representation at all. No offense to anyone that made these, but they are not appropriate.

The Senate map follows similar reasoning. Not every state has Republican senators, some have only one. Also, a candidate cannot endorse themselves and be counted as an endorsement as this map is showing.

I ask for input about them and if they should be removed. 75.74.129.241 (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree that the House map has no real value. Maybe just the numbers underneath should be displayed. You didn't really give a good reason for getting rid of the Senate map though. It's not misleading. I don't really think it should be removed, but I can change it to exclude self-endorsement. For transparency, I am the one who created them... Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The house map is completely visually misleading for the reasons I state above. The size of districts vary so much that it makes no sense to show it. Even if you label the numbers below.

I think the Senate map needs to go as well. Since most states do not have 2 Republican Senators the map does not serve a solid purpose. Also, the sizes vary again. Texas versus New Hampshire for example. Will Cornyn's endorsement be more important than Ayotte's? And keep in mind you have sitting senators running as well and they can't self-endorse. What visual purpose does the map serve? Have you ever seen any other page have something like that? It's just that many of these pages people get carried away. Please consider removal. 2601:589:4705:B92B:4CE4:C4:AB59:1211 (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The entire purpose of the map is to tell where the endorsements are geographically, not who is leading. If you want to know who is leading, look at the numbers. Its actually very simple.... I also fixed the self-endorse problem.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Light-jet pilot (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove I think it's good that the House map was removed, but the Senate map is also without much value. The last comment (I will assume is Light-jet pilot again) said the purpose of the map is to tell where endorsements are geographically. Since when has that ever been important? Geographical location of endorsements has never been unit of analysis or a focus in political endorsements. Please show anywhere that has considered that important. Wikipedia is not a place to just make maps with information. Like the first comment said, most states are not represented by 2 Republican senators, so using a state map doesn't make any sense. Geographical representation is not of value here. I agree that it should be removed. Manful0103 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Remove Having a Senate map without a House or Gubernatorial map is just weird - and imputes an out-sized influence to senators. Many of the most important endorsements, after all, are made by thought leaders who do not currently hold office. Even if the map were ultimately kept, however, it would need to be upgraded to reflect both senators who have announced their neutrality - as both senators from Iowa have done - and senators who are not members of the Republican party or who are Republican candidates. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• And it seems to have been removed, so I suppose we can mark this thread as  Resolved. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixing runon in the lede

The first paragraph, and included this runon clause that has nothing to do with endorsements. Removing it here to the talk page; it may fit into the general article about primaries (or one on invisible primaries in the United States). – SJ + 16:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

besides endorsements (from politicians/commentators/activists/staffers/celebrities), other key aspects of the invisible primaries include early polling especially in swing states), fundraising (including super PACs), messaging (books, interviews, etc. as well as debates which as of 2015 are often linked to national polling averages), and a demonstrated record of helping other Republican candidates succeed in the past.

Switched Endorsements

Should something be done about those who supported a candidate who dropped out and has switched to a different candidate? EX. Rep. Crawford switched from Huckabee to Rubio and is listed under both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.13.251 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Using Template:Endorsements box

The endorsements box template creates a "hide/show" links for each candidate, and optional transclusion of endorsements from the individual candidate pages. How about using that here? You can see it in use here.

The transclusion looks a bit complicated, but the basic template is not. – SJ + 20:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did it for Trump because the list for him is getting really big especially regarding the non-politicians.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have a separate page for endorsements and have a transclusion here with the same exact thing. That defeats the purpose of creating another page. I'm all for using the template, but there's certainly no need for separate article too. —Musdan77 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@ShadowDragon343, Sj, and Musdan77: I just fixed the transclusion so there wasn't just an empty space. The problem with keeping all the endorsements on the same page is the page size. Prior to the move of Trump the page was pushing 400,000 bytes. That is far too much. On the other hand, just moving one person's endorsements gives the impression of bias which is a problem. The Democratic article has run into further problems as they have hit their template transclusion limit. That will happen to this page as well eventually. I am neither for or against the transclusion from one page to another, I was the one that originally set it up so the endorsements would copy to the individual candidate pages. There needs to be some plan drawn up and put into place, I just don't know what that plan should be. --Majora (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I un-hid Trump's endorsements because he doesn't appear to have the most endorsements; both Rubio's and Bush's endorsements actually take up more room on the page. Transcluding Trump's endorsements from another page doesn't mean that they have to be shown in hidden form. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• | what about removing candidates who have dropped out to their separate pages and leave this article only for active candidates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjack1071 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Norris endorsement

Chuck Norris announced, after he apparently endorsed Ted Cruz, that he would instead endorse whomever the Republican nominee is ([1]. Thus, I will remove him from Cruz's endorsement list. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)