Talk:Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign

Addition of an Opposition Section

Hey all,

Muboshgu undid an edit of mine that added an "opposition" section to the mentioned article. I do not think its the right call because the opposition (and the relationships between the candidates) in the '24 primaries is a key element in understanding Haley's campaign. I believe this undo should be reverted and the opposition section added to the page.

The '24 GOP primaries, and each individual campaign, is inherently motivated by the relationships between the key players. Additionally, In an election where each candidate (declared or anticipated) has adopted such similar policy stances, the true motivating factor for voters and campaigns alike are the personality, relationships, and messaging of and between the candidates. This is reflected in the reporting on Nikki's campaign, how her campaign may impact the overall candidate field, and the primary election itself (see: cpac v. club for growth situation). Haley's campaign announcement itself was controversial for her prior promise to not run if Trump did. So from its inception, this campaign has been morphed by Haley's relation to other candidates. This is true for the other candidates, too; the most recent example would be Trump's recent preemptory attack on Desantis. The opposition section's inclusion provides brief, fundamental background knowledge towards helping readers understand the context surrounding and directly impacting her campaign.

He argued that 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries covers this opposition topic. However, it is nothing more than a mere list of people who have declared or are suspected to declare, with some polling and debate information. It lacks any relation to the substantial role oppositional relationships play in the development of the primary campaigns and, eventually, the primaries themselves.

My proposed section does exactly that, with a specific focus on Haley. Again, a huge motivating factor in the development of both Haley's campaign and the primary race is the relation and interaction between the candidates. So you are right when you say "This is Nikki Haley's campaign." and this is her article. My section belongs here as an informative segment of a catalog of her campaign. A key undercurrent of that campaign are things like attacks on other candidates, polling, and methods Haley uses to distinguish herself from other candidates; all of which my section covered. These are key undercurrents to her race because they matter to the campaign, are highly calculated, and speak to the strength, intention, description of Haley, her message, her reception, media coverage, and–ultimately–her campaign itself.

The key takeaway here is that Nikki Haley's campaign and its actions have been and will continue to be directly impacted by the opposition in the race. Therefore, my proposed section–highlighting a limited number of key statements from Haley and from others about Haley–provides educational, objective, and necessary information to readers.

I understand his concern about including content that may be tangental to Haley's campaign. I'm sure there is room for tailoring the section to ensure that each line is directly referencing all of the elements I've mentioned. But scrapping the whole section does not serve the Wikimedia mission statement to collect and develop education content.

For all these reasons, I think it is clear that the opposition section is relevant and deserving of inclusion on this article. Moonlightlenook (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no precedent that I've seen for including an "Opposition" section in a campaign article for an American presidential candidate; it is out of place and is better suited to the articles for other candidates (if they do announce their own candidacies). David O. Johnson (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

David O. Johnson removed that content before you reinserted it and I removed it the second time. Please take a look at all of the other presidential campaign pages (in Category:Republican Party (United States) presidential campaigns and Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential campaigns). How many devote massive space to opposing campaigns? They shouldn't, because each campaign page should be focused on the campaign that is the subject of the page. We have pages like 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries for head-to-head details. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

These are arguments you've raised before and I explain why they're incorrect in my post. Please re-read since you clearly missed my arguments and failed to address them.

1. The 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries DOES NOT contain "head-to-head" details at all.
2. My section was not "massive" and had limited quotes and remarks that all DIRECTLY centered on Haley's Campaign.
3. This section IS focused on the campaign that is the subject of the page. 100%.

These aren't true characterizations of my proposed section nor valid reasons for its removal.

Are you going to address my arguments or just repeat the same two lines over and over? Moonlightlenook (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) The 2024 campaign has only just begun. It will be added to, and you're free to add to it. (2) Disagree, I see seven paragraphs, some fairly large, and involving some non-candidates (at this time). (3) Those paragraphs seem focused on other candidates, not the one who is the subject of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

the 2024 campaign article also contains "non-candidates" that is not a valid point, literally at all.

The paragraphs are not focused on other candidates. To the extent they are, they focus on what those candidates think/have said about Haley and her campaign. Again, the subject of each line in this section IS Haley or her Campaign. The object may be another candidate. Moonlightlenook (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This info could easily fit among the other campaign-related events in the Campaign section. It does not need its own section. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Further, its clear you lack the critical thinking skills to understand that my proposed section is not "devote[d] to opposing campaigns" at all. It's covering relevant comments from Haley herself or others ABOUT Haley or her campaign.

Did you even read the section before you rolled it back? Moonlightlenook (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there should be content on opposition in this article, though I think the content that was removed was excessive. It is worth noting in this article that Trump and Pence made clearly negative comments directed at Haley's candidacy or positions taken in the course of her candidacy. Tim Scott generally praising Haley is of no moment here. I would be more interested in seeing if there are statements of opposition to Haley's candidacy by non-candidates who just don't think she should run. BD2412 T 18:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there could be a balance issue in having such a dedicated section rather than mentioning where appropriate critiques and counter arguments.

kinda akin to why we avoid dedicated “controversies” sections in biographies and instead prefer when possible to include controversies within the bodies of other sections SecretName101 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordansheer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jordansheer (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)