Talk:Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Demberkeley. Peer reviewers: Jross35.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2019 and 20 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmablizzard.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lydiakahn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Order

Help. I started with Sanders, then Trump... because social media is such a big part of their campaigns. But, what is the right order for organizing by candidate?E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Notable topic

I created this (to date) short article on a huge topic being widely and intensely covered in the media, as well as in an array of new articles Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, Bernie or Hillary?. I did not create these articles, nor the attendant AFDs. I stumbled into Bernie Bros at AFD, read it, was persuaded, and gave it a complete rewrite. But also was able to see that this is a topic that is so uniquely central to this election cycle that it merits a page. I started this one live (not in a sandbox) because I hope that other editors will agree and help me build a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I ask fellow editors to voice their objections to the article here, where I can address them.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing templates

I boldly removed a notability template because such templates discourage editors from building articles. I will now remove the construction template for the same reason. I am far from finished here, although it will be a few days until I can devote substantive time to this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Comedy Page?

This group does not require their own page. They've done nothing of note. It was created by children and at this point is overrun by establishment goons. If we give them a page we need to give all "dank meme stashes" a page. I vote merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memenonymous (talk • contribs) 13:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Direct links

In this article, there are mentions about certain social media actions of the candidates (or of their supporters) (Trump's instagram clip, Clinton's tweet etc). May I ask why don't we have a direct reference linking to the precise thing we are talking about? This is an article about social media in elections, we name significant social media acts, but we don't link to them. Strange, if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.182.122 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you possibly add more detail about the other candidates. Cameron Rumley (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

"Predominant role" in first sentence

I understand "predominant" to mean "the main factor" or "the single greatest factor". That's quite a strong claim. I haven't checked the body, but if it's supported, I'd want to see a citation for it included in the lead. Otherwise, we could use "important role" instead. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Changed predominant to 'important'. Also changed a sentence in the first paragraph. Giraffer ^munch 08:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Using tweets as visuals

This article could probably make some use of {{Tweet}}, similar to how Donald Trump on social media has done so. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kncny11 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Five months seems long enough to wait, doesn't it? Any section I mark with a  Working tag means that I haven't finished combing through it yet, but feel free to start making changes as soon as they appear! Kncny11 ^(shoot) 23:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Working on it now! Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lede

• Very little in the first paragraph is cited in the body
• WL fake news
• The new policies in question (end of 3rd para) should be mentioned in the body

   Done - one citation added to the paragraph and another to a relevant section of the body. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Background

• Combine the first two paragraphs
• Comma after "He added that"
• I think something is messed up with the quotation marks in the third paragraph
• "Candidates would use social media to make short statements"
• Pipe 2012 election cycle to 2012 United States presidential election
• End of the third paragraph needs a citation
• The last paragraph belongs more in "Impact", because it discusses the aftermath

 Done - the text you have said needs citations is technically original research, so I've removed it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Impact

• This section should go just above "Post-election investigations"
• WL Pew Research Center
• "was seen to" → "were seen to"
• "forced people" → "forced others"
• Strike "as opposed to their own individual one"
• "meant that an additional 97 million people were shown them." → "helped the information reach an additional 97 million people."

   Done Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald Trump

• "to focus more on media-based appearance" → "part of his strategy to emphasize media appearance over volunteers and donations"
• "involved the general public" → "were from the general public, as opposed to news outlets and government officials"
• "Trump has become well-documented in his frequent Twitter posts." → "Trump's unique use of social media compared to other candidates garnered critical attention."
• "With social media acting as free media and publicity," cut this clause and tie it to the sentence before.
• "Before the Republican National Convention where Trump was named the Republican candidate," → "Before being named as the official party candidate at the 2016 Republican National Convention"
• "he would relentlessly target" → "many of his tweets directly attacked"
• Delink Trump in the middle of the paragraph
• "utilized Twitter frequently" → "frequently utilized Twitter"
• Comma after "win the primary and general elections"
• Italicize Slate and pipe to Slate (magazine)
• WL WaPo
• "until his personal Twitter account"
• After "January 9, 2021", just say "in light of the storming of the United States Capitol."
• "an act of love." → "an act of love". per MOS:LQ
• ""an act of love", to which Bush replied that he did. Almost immediately thereafter, the Trump campagin posted..."
• "it's not a felony [...] it's an act of love"
• Comma after "During this time period"
• "The Great Meme War" needs a citation
• "On Reddit, r/The Donald was a pro-Trump subforum (termed a subreddit on Reddit)" → "On Reddit, the subreddit r/The Donald was a pro-Trump forum" and nix the parentheses
• Specify that r/The Donald got shut down, not r/HillaryClinton
• Is there an underscore in r/The Donald? It's used interchangeably here

   Partly done, I'm not too keen on the wording of "Trump's unique use of social media compared to other candidates garnered critical attention and with social media acting as free media and publicity, Trump harnessed Twitter as a platform to respond quickly to his opponents and tweet about his stance on various issues." (my change made per point 4) or whether the clause "alternating with footage of Bush saying the phrase." is relevant in its sentence ("Almost immediately thereafter, the Trump campaign...}}. I've implemented all the changes but would appreciate feedback on those two points. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

• WL fake news
• The last sentence in the first paragraph doesn't match up with what the citation says
• Don't use curly quotes
• Combine first two sentences of the second paragraph
• Stray quotation mark after "criticize the growing tax rate"
• The last sentence says they used popular social media trends, but doesn't explain how
• post "exclusively positive content" of what?
• WL Democratic National Convention
• "..." → "[...]"
• When did Clinton start using Snapchat?
• Expand on the Cedar Rapids Vine

   Done. I removed the "began" part for Clinton's Snapchat because I couldn't find a source for when she created her account. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

• Add Guardian citation at the end of the sentence with the direct quote
• "viral video of a unusually awkward failed attempt"
• "which was edited to emphasize his awkwardness in reality." → "edited to draw attention towards Cruz's awkwardness"
• The article about the Zodiac meme should probably be linked as a "See also"
• That way, "Zodiac Killer" can be linked separately
• Swap out parentheses for a comma in the last sentence

   Done Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

• "Sander's" → "Sanders'"
• "ads had attracted"
• Merge first two sentences ("young voters and bolstered his")
• Dollar sign before 230 million
• "more emotional and plain" than who or what?
• That statement also needs a source
• "In one of his posts"
• Would prefer a secondary source on number of retweets compared to Clinton
• "widely acknowledged" by who?
• "Sanders supporters who succeeded in closing down a planned Trump rally in Chicago in March 2016 organized their efforts via Facebook." → "Sanders supporters succeeded in closing down a planned Trump rally in Chicago in March 2016 did so through Facebook organizing efforts."
• "one of the several online groups supporting the candidate" (limit repetition)
• Memes were used as the primary means of starting conversational topics in groups such as "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" and "Bernie Sanders is my HERO", which were primarily devoted to debating & educating, and praising Bernie whilst pointing out flaws in rival candidates Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton in comical ways. This sentence needs a citation and a rewrite for clarity and neutrality
• Delink Internet meme
• The refbomb around the name of the "Bernie or Hillary?" and "Bernie vs. Hillary" meme names is a little extreme. I think all you need is the NPR source that's used for both
• The Buzzfeed source says nothing about one candidate being "lively" and the other "offbeat"
• Many of the sources you pulled about the meme mention a debate around gender stereotypes, which are never mentioned in the Wiki article

   Done, although I removed most of the first paragraph and merged some of it into the second. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Other candidates

• "The humorous Balanced Rebellion video in which "Dead Abe Lincoln endorses Johnson has been"" → "The humorous "Balanced Rebellion" video, in which "Dead Abe Lincoln" endorses Johnson, was"
• Mention that it received over 18 million views and 420k shares within 2 weeks
• Reference [58] is dead with no archive
• Introduce Johnson as the former governor of New Mexico right away, rather than in the third sentence
• WL New Mexico
• Add another sentence describing why the heart attack video made headlines
• Pipe heart attack to Myocardial infarction
• Pipe "third party candidate" to Third party (United States)
• Mention that his Google searches increased after Cruz dropped out after the sentence saying he tried to appeal to dissatisfied Ds and Rs
• Comma after "proved to be somewhat effective"
• Introduce who Jill Stein is
• WL Hofstra University
• "weren't only faced with" → "were faced with more than" per MOS:N'T
• Comma before "and gained 27,000 new followers"
• "followed Gary Johnson in attempting to sway"
• The Stein section is very choppy as is, with a lot of word repetition between sentences

 Done, with Stein's section reworded. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-election investigations

• WL Cambridge Analytica in the body
• Comma after "In both instances"
• WL whistleblower
• "information collected was subsequently used to build data profiles"
• "Though" → "Although"
• Reference [70] is incomplete (lacks publisher/work and publication date)
• WL Mark Zuckerburg
• Medium is not a reliable source, as anyone can publish there
• Remove comma after "Internet Research Agency"
• "Repost" is used both with and without a hyphen. No preference for either, just maintain consistency
• Capitalize Special Counsel
• Remove comma after "integrity of the election"

 Done Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• Please normalize the date format across the references.
• [1] is missing a publication date
• In [6] and [8], Wall Street Journal should be the work and not the publisher
• Same with The Hill in [7] and The Guardian in [9]
• In [14], [39], and [55], replace "work=NPR.org" with "publisher=NPR"
• [23] (Boston Globe) should be marked with "|url-access=subscription"
• "Daily" should be capitalized in [28]'s The Daily Pakistan
• NYT citations [32], [42], [76], and [77] should be marked with "|url-access=limited"
• Remove Motherboard from [33], as everything is now just under the Vice domain
• USA Today should be the work and not the publisher in [40]
• Mark [57] with "|url-access=subscription"
• [69], [72], and [74] should all be The Washington Post

 Partly done. Because of the other work I did, the numbers for the refs have changed. I think I got all of it but I'm not sure if I missed something. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

General comments

• Frankly, I'm impressed with the stability given the topic.
• Images are relevant and available for use.
• Copyvio score looks good, highest results are from direct quotes

Final comments and verdict

Some prose to work on and areas to expand on. Most worried about the neutrality, which was an inevitability considering the... volatility of this particular election cycle. I did the best I could to suggest alternatives. Don't be afraid to reach out if you need anything. In the meantime, I'm putting this article  On hold. Kncny11 ^(shoot) 00:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, thanks for the speedy review! I've done maybe about a third of the total changes, and I'm hoping to finish them all by the end of the week. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, it's been a week and I've made the vast majority of the changes, I've just got to work on the lead and background and do a final check to make sure I haven't missed anything. I'm aiming to do this today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm done. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my own delay this time! Right around springtime, I get these intense pressure headaches right in the center of my head due to allergies and pressure/temp changes, but I appear to have fought them off. Excellent work on this article! I'm going to give it a pass. :) Kncny11 ^(shoot) 14:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Kncny11, sorry to hear about the headaches. Thank you very much for the pass! Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Facebook has estimated that during the 2016 United States presidential election, fake news reached 126 million voters on social media? Source: "The testimony says that 29 million people were directly served 80,000 posts linked to Russian actors between January 2015 and August 2017. Likes, shares, and comments on those posts delivered them to the additional 97 million people." [1]
  • ALT1:... that according to Pew Research Center, 35% of 18–29 year olds got their news from social media in the 2016 United States presidential election? Source: (uses data so there is no quote) [2]

• Reviewed: Since this is my first time at DYK, so I'm not going to review someone else's nomination, because I don't think I am experienced enough to. (Because this is my first time I am exempt from the QPQ review requirement).

Improved to Good Article status by Giraffer (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC).

• Date and length fine. @Giraffer: for the first hook, it needs an inline citation next to the end of the sentence. QPQ is not needed as this is his first nomination. No close paraphrasing but I'd like you to ping me once the above mentioned is fixed and I'll proceed with passing it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The C of E, done. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: You haven't edited the article since the 10th, how can you have done it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The C of E, sorry, I thought you were referring to the hook (I was a bit confused...). I've re-used the ref at the end of the sentence the hook comes from (it was originally placed at the end of the sentence after). Thanks, NotGiraffer ^{not munch} 23:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Much better. Good to go then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)