Talk:Ben Carson 2016 presidential campaign

West Point controversy
That section reads like an apologetic, non-encyclopedic mess. Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's not reasonable for an article at Wikipedia (WP:BLP) to say "this person said X, and was later accused of lying about X, but it was quickly confirmed that they weren't lying, and X was correct". It's even less desirable that the statement be dressed up as a "controversy". Until a source is available to allow the section to be rewritten in terms of its long-term significance, the entire section should be removed. I guess that can wait for another day or two to see if anything develops? Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it is a well-written section, that obviously captures the falsities that were quickly disproven (as such sections appear on other presidential candidates' articles like Hillary Clinton), I agree that it probably won't be necessary in the long-run, because of the fact that it was so quickly disproven and probably won't have much of a lasting impact. As such, it should probably only be added in again if it causes his poll numbers to drop (which, again, is probably unlikely). 169.231.23.23 (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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

West Point Controversy
This material should be retained for historical background. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the entire section above on the same subject? The consensus is already in to remove it. 169.231.23.23 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I based my revert(s) on the unsourced statement that West Point has not had an impact, especially considering the continuing news headlines today about the topic. I desist. 50.174.200.16 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can confirm that offer of a desist is genuine, I'll remove the protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Agreed, not a good entry. "What difference, at this point, does it make!" -- AstroU (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

good source on staff changes
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/two-of-carsons-top-aides-resign-217261#ixzz3vw8umncI

Primary results
According to the Green Papers, Carson placed 5th among Republicans during the primary with 857,039 votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.38.14 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202225618/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150212180024/https://secure.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-statement-on-dr-ben-carson to https://secure.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-statement-on-dr-ben-carson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)