Talk:Gary Johnson/Archive 2

Sources for infobox religion?
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
 * Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
 * Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
 * Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
 * Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1
 * Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)


 * Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Gary Johnson. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121023033339/http://reason.com/quiz/GOP2011/profile/gary-johnson to http://reason.com/quiz/GOP2011/profile/gary-johnson

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Up to the minute?
Is this page more up to the minute than lp.org or is someone jumping the gun? 2016.05.29.19.58.utc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Picture
The current picture used is from 2009. His official Flickr page has professional portraits from as recent as April, 2016. Maybe we should replace the seven year old picture with one of these: https://www.flickr.com/photos/govgaryjohnson/Computermichael (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * possibly, but the picture you chose has been horribly distorted. His skin is almost paper-white. 174.19.179.9 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Article Appears To Be Missing Criticisms Of Gary Johnson
Has this article been scrubbed of the New Mexico road widening scandal that bankrupted the state while making the Koch brothers a ton of money? It seems to be the most relevant topic anyone would need to know about him as a politician. The word "scandal" doesn't even appear in the table of contents. There is only praise from someone else who claims he balanced the budget. These claims cannot both be true at the same time. Either he made the state go bankrupt during his term or he didn't. The idea that on just some of the days he spent in office, the budget had balanced once, would not be relevant. All voters expect their state budgets to be balanced on every single day of their governor's term of office, not just sometimes.

There is a also no criticism of the private prisons, or the corrupting money flows, and how this creates such a strong incentive to criminalize the innocent that it harms a whole society very badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Frahm (talk • contribs) 02:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources on any of these claims? Tarl N. (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Partnership
The article states that he "supports the TPP, and is based on a single line in an article primarily about Jill Stein. He was recently interviewed by the Chicago Tribune, and stated that he is skeptical, however from what he has gathered on it suggests that it is a positive for Free Trade; I think it might be better to ammend the article to reflect this more recent source. I am not very familiar with the customs of Wikipedia editing, so I do not feel comfortable doing so myself, however here is a link to the excerpt of the interview so that someone else can make a judgement on whether his statement warrants editing the page. The statement can be found in the fourth video pane, entitled "Bill Weld and Gary Johnson on eliminating excess Government", shortly after the two minute mark; http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-libertarian-gary-johnson-bill-weld-edit-0720-md-20160719-story.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.190.78 (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely add it and edit in the precise language that he uses. Don't delete older interviews if they contradict him: say instead "In Month X 2016, Johnson said this about a topic. In Month X 2016, Johnson said that about a topic. " Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Same guy as before): I would like to, but...well, I am not really familiar enough with the editing process, and I might make some formatting errors. I would feel more comfortable if someone who contributes more regularly did it, but I can make an attempt if needed. Just please format it properly if I do this incorrectly, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.190.78 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you linked to the wrong site in your attempt to edit in Johnson's position on the TPP. The quote you put up wasn't in the link at least. If you're having trouble editing, you can copy-paste the links you want to add here in the talk and I'll add the relevant bits. If he's clarified his position on TPP, that's definitely something that this wikipedia page should have, so don't hesitate to ask for more help or feel discouraged. I know where you're coming from. When I started editing, it was confusing and a pain in the ass. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(Same person): The video pane has four separate videos in it (you can scroll to the right), and the quote in question is in the fourth video, shortly after the two minute mark and a comment about the Department of Commerce (I wish there were a text transcript of the interview, but there doesn't seem to be). I will look for another source with a transcript, however it may be difficult to do so, as this was a recent interview and Gary Johnson is still somewhat obscure as far as media coverage goes. I will re-edit this if I find something, however if that video is sufficient (thoughthe website layout makes it difficult to source easily, I understand) then that should be a reasonable (and very recent) source. Thank you - I'm still at the point where Wikipedia edit-pages are a mixture of arcane symbols, so I am only really able to copy-paste segments and edit the details. I'll let you know what I come up with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.190.78 (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect info with regards to selection of Vice President candidate Bill Weld in 2016
This line:

On January 6, 2016, Johnson announced his candidacy for the Libertarian nomination once again in 2016,[5] and in May he selected former Republican Governor of Massachusetts William Weld as his running mate.

Libertarian candidates don't select their vice president, the vice president is chosen at the Libertarian Party convention.

I'd edit it but somebody always reverses my edits so maybe someone with some wikipedia rep can fix it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.157.18 (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Johnson formally picked Weld before the convention. Wide publicity about his announcement. The convention had ultimate authority, but ended up following his wishes. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 21:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Third parties
Some hostile editors at the Jill Stein page put up a section that said third parties can never win. People asked whether the Johnson site had anything like that, and it didn't. So I copied it here to see what responses I'd get. But since then they changed it to something that's more Stein specific, and I don't see any value in bothering you guys about it. So I'll remove the paragraph entirely here. It hasn't been there long. Jethomas5 (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Lead too long?
I don't know why the lead is five paragraphs long. Also, his political views may not be sihello my name is somone gnificant enough to be in the lead. Plus, the 2016 presidential election was overemphasized and a little too recent. Maybe when or before the November results comes, the lead needs to change fast. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct that the lead is too long. Mostly, the detailed events of his tenure as governor and the odd inclusion of references to his early life could be moved to their respective sections. I will make such an edit. Please respond here if you think other wise Isaac rowe1 (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think listing some of his accomplishments as governor and basic political views is useful given his status as a minor party candidate-- some of the minutiae of the 2012 race might make more sense to remove if length is a concern. Onyxqk (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know the changes that have been made since these comments, but the lead could use work. Its way too weighed onto his 2012 campaign where he only received less than 1% of the vote. His record/accomplishments as Governor as well as other relevant information should be given equal weight, rather than focusing just on that election.MavsFan28 (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not an active Wikipedian nowadays (having substantively written the article, including the introduction to which you refer, back in 2011-12), but I found this decision to be contrary to Wikipedia policy. As noted by MavsFan28, the introduction as formulated seems to have a strange obsession with details about the 2012 presidential election, and had no treatment whatsoever of his life pre-2012 (despite having been a two-term governor, which remains his main claim to notability, per Wikipedia's weight towards people that hold office, rather than losing candidates).
 * See Hillary Clinton (5 lines out of 26), Mitt Romney (4 lines out of 23), John McCain (2 lines out of 19), or John Kerry (2 lines out of 19) for an indication of how much prominence an election campaign should receive in the introduction of an article about a figure that's also held major office. Five paragraphs would make it about the same length as Romney, McCain, or Kerry's intros (far shorter than Clinton's), and an NPOV treatment would likely include something like two on his gubernatorial term, and then one on each of his presidential campaigns.
 * As such, I have re-inserted the two short paragraphs (seven lines in total) about his gubernatorial career and taken out some extraneous details about 2012. My opinion is that 2012 is still way way over-treated in the introduction and 2016 under-treated, given there has been far more coverage in reliable sources about the latter.  But this is now a better balance between the different things that make him notable. Bastin 14:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEDE As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate. It's a rule of thumb, but one that should get more than passing attention. If the Lede takes more than four paragraphs, you're probably trying to stuff too much into the lede. The key information about Johnson is he's running for president as a libertarian, he's done it before, he's an ex-Republican governor, and was a businessman before entering politics. Probably in that order. Not everything has to go in the lede. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the fourth paragraph is poorly-composed and needs to be shortened at the expense of the fifth paragraph. Currently, this introduction is 398 words; Hillary Clinton's is 593, Donald Trump's is 422, Barack Obama's is 580, Mitt Romney's is 515, George W. Bush's is 498, and John Kerry's is 419.   So even with a pretty bloated paragraph about the 2012 election campaign, it's shorter than the article of any major party candidate since Al Gore (which is justified, but it shows it's hardly gargantuan).  Some prudent editing of the fourth and fifth paragraphs - and cutting small parts out of his tenure as governor, but substantively retaining the detail of his terms as Governor - would make it more balanced and readable, while reducing its length.  I think 350 words would be a decent ambition. Bastin 15:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Between Governorship and Presidential runs
His biography doesn't appear to cover what he was doing between the end of his second term and the beginning of his Presidential runs. Can someone give us some detail about that? 71.246.229.97 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Electoral History
What do the +/- columns represent in the Electoral History tables? Cxbrx (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Immigration
I tried to put his recent views on immigration into the article (specifically about his views on undocumented immigrants), but they were reverted. Most specifically I was referring to his refusal to call illegal immigrants illegal immigrants in view of the more politically correct term undocumented immigrants source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.164.49.243 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Infobox picture
There has been some churn in the infobox picture, which I got caught up in yesterday - I saw what was labeled as a campaign picture replaced by one which only said "uploaded from flickr", and took exception. It appears that churn is continuing. Stemoc asserts his is OFFICIAL, but I was unable to obtain any useful confirmation from him on his talk page (beyond being accused of begin ignorant, a troll and not worth his time). Stemoc uploaded his portrait from the "garyjohnson" flickr photostream (here), which contains several dozen pictures of the candidate. Looking around, I see that albums seems to be the parent (I'm not all that familiar with flickr, so my terminology may be wrong), and there are dozens more pictures under various albums. The picture Stemoc uploaded is the most recently added to the photostream.

Note, I'm not saying this site isn't official. It sure looks like it. But I'm not willing to just take someone's word for it, the principle in Wikipedia is that we source our information.

Issues I think need to be addressed:
 * How do we establish Stemoc's picture is the official campaign picture? Contrary to Stemoc's assertion, I don't see any obvious link from the campaign website (johnsonweld.com nowadays). At the bottom of the campaign page, I see Facebook, twitter, youtube, instagram, google+, linkedin, and pinterest links. But no flickr. Presumably there is a link somewhere, but it's not obvious to me.
 * Once we find this link, we need to add a comment in the Wikimedia page so that other editors can see something more than "I uploaded it from flickr".
 * Having determined that the flickr website is official, we need to determine which of the several dozen portraits to use. Is the policy that the most recent upload is THE OFFICIAL PORTRAIT, and thus must be used? Does this mean that as soon as another picture appears in the photostream, the infobox image must change?

Regards, Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, irrelevant, since you know nothing about how social media works, let me explain, The one major site which can host High Quality image is Flickr so even if a site adds images to their website, they might link to flickr so that followers can acquire high quality (HQ) images of them, they are doing the same, again look at the masthead for both his official twitter and official facebook page, they are the same image i added (in HQ and cropped for infobox quality) and yet you refuse, again, its not our problem,. Its YOURS..someone removed that good image i added with the one with a black background making him look like some 'villain' (well done)..I won't change it because i'm getting really tired of telling n00bs what to or not to do on wikipedia...-- Stemoc 01:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the events that provoked this discussion, we've had five further edits of that infobox picture by four different editors. I think more clarity is needed to limit the churn. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

These pictures appear much more aesthetically appealing than the one currently in the infobox. It also matches the style we are using as his running mate's picture is at an event rather than a portrait. https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/29946716622/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/27912107335/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/27299875294/ Computermichael (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reception - Citation 37 directly refers to anonymous sources
Being new to offering edits, I find it somewhat insincere to offer a citation that refers to anonymous feedback. I'm not doubting the validity of the statement, but feel it should have a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muppet1856 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommended updates to article
The article needs to expand on the following areas:

JLMadrigal  @  13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The request for security briefings that was denied
 * The struggle for debate access (62% - and 82% of millennials - want him in debates, CPD conflict of interest, Perot admitted at 8%)
 * Media mentions contrasted with poll numbers
 * Social media contrasted with traditional media coverage
 * Much more detail regarding poll numbers (Leading among Independents, millennials, military, States inaccuracy of traditional polling methods used for debate criteria)
 * Media attacks (i.e. regarding Aleppo - despite Johnson's informed answer) as "Criticisms" section
 * Johnson's witty tweet regarding foreign leaders "It's been almost 24 hours...and I still can't come up with a foreign leader I look up to."


 * I agree with adding all of these! LuckyLag360 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Childhood
The section says he was born in ND in 1953, then skips to his graduating high school in 71. When did he move to NM and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.49.152.225 (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)