Jump to content

Talk:Doug Burgum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doug Burgum. 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:

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) 08:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Utterly confusing table

The table at the end of the article, mentioning several politicians including Kamala Harris and Kristi Noem, and mentioning some things about precedence, is utterly confusing.

I stared at it for five minutes and have no idea what it is there for, or what information is actually contained in it.

I am sure that it is possible to design a table that is even more worthless than this one.

(I just can't think of how at the moment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:4c85:97e8:e26a:8609 (talk)

I agree that the "order of precedence" table is unnecessary, and have removed it. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reuters, May 28th, says he is running for President

His hat is in the ring Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

my error! It says he is set to run, on May 27th@ Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Several news stories say he will announce on June 7. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just updated it to say that, not sure why it wasn't lol Los Pobre (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"large" software company

In the introduction the adjective "large" is used to describe Great Plains Software, a company that only employed 2,200 and was sold for just over $1 billion. By tech industry standards this is hardly "large". The word comes off as self-serving and is unnecessary. Watari19 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

I don't know the governor from Adam so I really have no opinion of him. Even so, this small article clearly demonstrates the political biases of WP and its editors. Using semi-subliminal phrases like passed a series of anti-trans laws, then linking it (anti-trans) to "transphobia" shows that it was written by one person, from one person's point-of-view. That is not encyclopedia-like. Knowledgebases are discussed and edited before publishing, not after. That is what makes them useful. Could it have been "laws considered trans-phobic by some" - or something to that effect? No. Are we so afraid that someone might actually soften a stance or make a truly neutral statement? Is that a reason to prohibit editing? We don't know that the governor himself is actually anti-trans. Anti-trans, as used in this article is political speech and should be - re-phrased. 71.215.98.163 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

No consensus. There is a clear numerical majority in opposition, however I do not see a consensus because a lot of the opposers opposed because it might be notable (WP:CRYSTAL). However, with sources identified and the fact this has been going for 2 months (which would be unacceptable at any other XfD - God bless PAM!), I do not see a consensus to merge either. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 08:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

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.


I propose merging Doug Burgum 2024 presidential campaign into Doug Burgum and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles.SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Unknown-Tree (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
A debate is months away. A number of candidates who made the DNC debates in 2020 do not have articles. That he “probably” will make a debate stage in the future is not really an argument for him needing a separate article to describe the campaign he is running SecretName101 (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

support because its the same person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.151.210 (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose He is major and notable enough to warrant this, there is also enough major news sources talking about his campaign for this article to exist. Scu ba (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    1) His notability is not necessarily inherited by his campaign
    2) this discussion is not about the notability of the campaign: it is about the need for a separate article covering it SecretName101 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    1) Most if not all the articles I've seen of him recently are about his campaign.
    2) because of that the campaign itself has media notability to be a standalone article.
    Scu ba (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Scu ba Notability alone is not the criteria for a standalone article about a sub-topic. The second criterium is whether the content is best separated from the main topic, and what necessity there is for a separate article. Asofar as this moment, there is insufficient information of note about his candidacy to necessitate separating his campaign from his main biography. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I was unconvinced by arguments above that, in my interpretation, stated that we should keep the article because it might be notable in the future. It is either notable now, and we should keep, or the article should be merged and recreated if/when the article is notable. With that in mind, I looked at the campaign article to determine if it passes WP:GNG, which in my estimation it does: three sources talk specifically about the campaign: [1], [2], [3]. Therefore, I think the article passes GNG and is notable enough to remain as its own article. Z1720 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Burgum/Archive_1&oldid=1239189628"