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)

 Done -- 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)

 Done -- 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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