Misplaced Pages

Talk:Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:31, 17 May 2019 editGuarapiranga (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,889 edits →Endorsement Maps: Shouldn't have been deleted.Tag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:00, 22 August 2024 edit undoRoundSquare (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,020 editsNo edit summary 
(72 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=list}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=list|importance=low}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WPUS|USPE=y|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Non-noteworthy tweets again ==
== When a candidate does/does not have an endorsements article ==


I'm reaffirming my previous objection to including tweets as endorsements. I specifically object to tweet from ] that says {{tq|"So proud of you @TulsiGabbard !!!
When a candidate already has a main article for endorsements (i.e., ]), I propose that we leave a "main article" link in that candidate's section as per ]. In doing so, we avoid having to maintain two separate lists. -] (]) 01:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
But mostly, I’m so grateful to have a candidate like you."}}. This is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. 02:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
:Yep. This was the issue that led to the RfC via the section above. The RfC closes next week and there seems a pretty solid consensus for ditching endorsements based just on a tweet... &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 02:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


That’s an explicit endorsement. How is that objectionable? That’s ridiculous that it’s objectionable. Tulsi isn’t my candidate but there appears no other reason to object to explicit endorsements like that ] (]) 20:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
When a candidate does not have a main article for endorsements, should we transclude the endorsements as per ] in order to avoid maintaining two separate lists with discrepancies between pages? Thanks, ] (]) 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
: What I did for Beto's article, for instance, was add over the newer endorsements from his campaign article to the ] article, then left a link to Beto's specific section. ] (]) 04:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
:] Hi, I added links to the main endorsements article for each campaign, except for Sanders. That one has a link on the endorsements page with various endorsements: ], as well as a separate article here: ]. I think I'll just add the endorsements from the Endorsements article to the Bernie endorsements article and leave a main article link here: ]. ] (]) 04:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
::]: Agreed, using the 'main article' link for candidates with stand-alone endorsement articles will help with consistency across the pages and will avoid having to maintain two separate lists and thank you for your edits. <sup><del>However, we are still maintaining separate lists for candidates without stand-alone endorsement articles (with separate, sometimes inconsistent boxes on the individual campaign pages and on this "Endorsements" page). Should we transclude the boxes from the campaign pages to this article? In ], endorsements for Clinton and Sanders were transcluded until stand-alone articles were created, while endorsements from minor candidates are still transcluded.</sup></del> --] (]) 05:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Which separate lists do you mean? I just went through all the candidates endorsement pages. Almost all of them link back to the endorsement article; Bernie has his own article for endorsements and a few candidates don't have an endorsement section yet (Messam, Ryan and Gravel). ] (]) 23:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
::::Thanks ], seeing your edits now. Edited my comment. --] (]) 05:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


==Employed for Harris' campaign vs. endorsing campaign==
== Why show any disavowed "endorsements"? Why (now) show only Andrew Yang's rejected "endorsements"? ==
Current DNC members Laphonza Butler and Emmy Ruiz are listed under the "DNC members" section as having endorsed Kamala Harris. Both sources state Butler and Ruiz have been hired by the Harris team and are working for Harris' 2020 bid. I don't see anything in either source suggesting Butler and Ruiz have formally endorsed Harris. I don't believe being hired for a campaign and endorsing it are one in the same. Is there a policy or discussion an editor can point to that will clarify if I've misunderstood? What are others' thoughts? --] (]) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


== RfC results implemented ==
This is a great page! (I just found it).


After the closure of , I've gone back in to remove endorsements by non-notable individuals and endorsements without citations to reliable independent sources. Endorsements by notable organizations do not need to be covered by independent reliable sources, but there was one which did not make an explicit endorsement, so I removed that one, too. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 20:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
But I was wondering: Why is denounced support for Yang listed at all?


:{{ping|Capriaf}} Regarding Joe Rogan, the source originally included said "Gabbard’s fiery anti-establishment stances have earned her support from Joe Rogan...". That doesn't seem like an explicit endorsement. You can "support" lots of candidates and in lots of ways. One of those ways is an endorsement. The source you then added says "Joe Rogan, the popular podcast host, said he planned to vote for her." To me, that is not an endorsement either. You can plan to vote for someone without formally endorsing. This is what #3 of the RfC linked above is all about. Leaving it now because I acknowledge it could be an edge case and worth discussing. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Tulsi Gabbard has also received and rejected white supremacists:
::I agree. The NYT source merely said that he planned to vote for her.
https://nypost.com/2019/02/05/rep-tulsi-gabbard-gets-2020-endorsement-from-david-duke/
::Here are the three criteria, all of which must be met:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-rejects-david-duke-presidential-endorsement/ar-BBTdwcM
::# The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
But none of that (which I think is right) appears under her "endorsements."
::# This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
::# Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym. - ]] 🖋 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
::::Since these criteria are now established, someone should go through all of the 2016 and earlier endorsement pages. ] (]) 00:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. I figured I'd start with 2020, since it's kind of time consuming, but if nobody else does I may come back to the earlier ones later. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


:::], I'm not not capriaf and voting for someone is unequivocal support. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
In short, I'd simply remove this comment:
"Andrew Yang has received attention due to having gathered support from
several white supremacists. However, he has denounced them."


::::Indeed, but is "support" synonymous with "endorsement". Lots of people know say who they like, who they'll vote for, etc., but most of those people don't go as far as giving an "endorsement". That's generally seen as a bigger step, and as we get closer to the primaries we'll see lots of stories about such-and-such person expressing support for but not endorsing such-and-such candidate, etc. &mdash; <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
"Attention" is not an endorsement, and Yang has denounced it.
In fact, this was reported in the referenced article (The Verge):

"Yang unequivocally rejected it. “I denounce and disavow hatred, bigotry, racism,
white nationalism, anti-Semitism and the alt-right in all its many forms. Full stop,”
Yang said in a statement. “For anyone with this agenda, we do not want your support.
We do not want your votes. You are not welcome in this campaign.”

Thanks! ] (]) 00:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:'''Agreed.''' --] (]) 05:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
:'''Disagree''': The reason Duke is not included is because he has , not because she rejected or denounced him. The same is not true of Spencer and Yang. This is a (sourced) list of (notable) people who have endorsed the candidates, and there is no reason to exclude one of those people. --] (]) 19:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
*'''Disagree''' - A candidate's reaction to an endorsement is not a factor for this list. However, any such endorsement must be impeccably sourced per ] and not based on a social media post, per ]. The New York Post is not a good source to use for any BLP content.- ]] 🖋 12:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

== A tweet of support is not an endorsement ==

Do we need to change the article title to "Famous people who tweeted anything about a 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries candidate? No endorsement should be included on this page on the basis of a single tweet. In fact, it technically violates ]. The inclusion criteria should require at least one reliable third party source and wording that is clearly interpreted to mean "endorsement".- ]] 🖋 12:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:: I favor the reliable third-party source rule. And yes, we should get rid of anything cited to a mere supportive tweet. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

:Just copying what I wrote on the talk page of the main article here:
{{tq|I agree with the general view that the endorsements sections are excessive, but<br>
individual endorsements are often not reported in media reports given how numerous they are,<br>
I think any expression of support specifically for their candidacy (over that of others) should be considered acceptable (e.g. expressions of support such as speaking on their behalf at a rally or saying that they are backing them, but excluding actions which are not an expression of support, such as hosting events/fundraisers, donating, introducing them at campaign events, saying that it's who they'll be voting for, or otherwise anything that doesn't explicitly reference their support for a candidate).}}
:Given the sheer volume of potential endorsements, not every single expression of support is going to be reported on, so it's inevitable that tweets will sometimes be the only place they will be mentioned (in U.S. election articles, I frequently use {{tl|cite tweet}} with reference to journalists at national/local newspapers in the absence/before the publication of complete stories). However, I mostly agree that almost all the tweets under the "individuals" sections cited here (whether currently or in the past) are not endorsements – simply agreeing with a candidate or indicating that one likes them is not an endorsement. ] (]) 22:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
::Obviously there will be exceptions as you mention, but we shouldn't try to exhaustively record every tweet that remotely resembles support. We should be documenting the noteworthy ones that have been noticed by the press, or that have been made by people who endorsements actual have weight.- ]] 🖋 17:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

], a celebrity's personal account tweeting in support has been used frequently as a source for endorsement and it is often without another citation. When they specifically say they support the candidate, it's an endorsement. If not, then remove most of ]' endorsements. The criteria in 2016 was explicit support and/or the campaign hashtag. So keep Tulsi Gabbard's endorsements up. ]
:{{re|Capriaf}} As you may now see, I have tried to apply the same standard for all candidates, although Mélencron did find some obvious errors I made. Tweets are cheap and don't rise to the level of sourcing that we use for writing encyclopedic content. Most of the tweets I removed were not endorsements anyway. Secondary sources help us separate the trivial and mundane from the noteworthy and important. If secondary sources haven't reported about a celebrity tweet, one can assume that it is not important. Again, rare exceptions may apply, but probably not for celebrity tweets.- ]] 🖋 14:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
**], you removed tweets that have been consistent with Bernie 2016 endorsements and the endorsements for several candidates, including Andrew Yang, John Delaney, have been improperly removed. The sources and some tweets, made explicit endorsements. Explicit support for a candidate is an endorsement, and I encourage you to reinstate several endorsements, including Senator Mike Gravel endorsing Tulsi because it was a secondary source who interviewed him and he explicitly said he supports Tulsi Gabbard. ]
:::Tulsi is not a reliable source, so she is unusable as a secondary source about someone else. Consistency with past campaigns is far less important that making our content meaningful for our readers, and compliant with our sourcing policies. Can you give a specific example or two of my removals that you disagree with and the policy-based reason for why?- ]] 🖋 15:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
::::'''The inclusion criteria should require at least one reliable third party source and wording that is clearly interpreted to mean "endorsement".''' and '''Secondary sources help us separate the trivial and mundane from the noteworthy and important.''' (]) Twitter endorsements (), but also tweets in general (see for more info), are widely reported as primary sources across reliable media platforms. Proper secondary sources and tertiary sources (the latter which Misplaced Pages is) both utilize verifiable primary sources as vehicles for gathering data. If there is an explicit endorsement made on twitter, equivalent weight must be given to data that's explicit in its material and standalone from any interpretation. If the use of primary sources are not allowed in the context of data retrieval for tertiary sources, which you are claiming as it pertains to ], then any such secondary source that is reliant an social media primary sources must also not be allowed, as this degree of separation is equivalent to that of the tertiary source in relation to the same primary source. In other words, secondary sources do very little to substantiate the importance of any political endorsement. In fact, media sources are widely subject to political bias in what they choose to report or not, which is contrary to what is encyclopedic in nature. Please review ]/] (below) -- Misplaced Pages is continuously evolving their encyclopedic methods to address changes in how information is gathered.

::::It states, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as '''sources of information about themselves''', usually in articles about themselves or '''their activities''', without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

::::1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2) it does not involve claims about third parties; 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as '''Twitter''', Tumblr, Reddit, and Facebook."

::::Secondly, a definition of political endorsement must be reached through consensus (]). You are free to propose guidelines and definitions, although are not allowed to drastically change the nature of an article before consensus has been reached. What "wording" are you suggesting to be required for an endorsement? There appears to be an ongoing discussion about said matters. --] (]) 03:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::{{re|MrVenaCava}} I don't think your argument is entirely grounded in policy. For example, we would not avoid sources that themselves use primary sources. The reason is that our source have journalists, fact checkers, and editors to sort out what's important and factual. While there is an argument that social media could be used, it generally shouldn't because it's unfiltered. Obviously there are exceptions. Unfortunately, we have enthusiastic editors/(campaign workers?) adding all manner of tweet, most of which are not explicit endorsements. I have removed tweets about the weather that some editor were trying to pass off as an endorsement! If we allow an "anything goes" approach to what is included in this article, I think it diminishes the seriousness of the entire article and reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages as a tertiary source. It makes us look like an information junk yard.

:::::Maybe we need an RfC to get broader input from other editors, but until it is decided, it up to the editors wishing to include these tweets to obtain consensus per ]. All of this material has been added recently, so its removal is the 'R' in ]. Please let me know if you disagree, and why. I'm happy to justify any specific removals I've made.- ]] 🖋 16:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::{{re|MrX}} I very much agree with you in regards with the necessity to remove tweets that are indeed not explicit endorsements (for which many have been added/have accumulated here); due to Misplaced Pages's primary source policies, it would be a violation to suggest anything other than an explicit endorsement as an endorsement. I'm only questioning the use of ] as it relates to your justification for removing primary source content in general. My point is Misplaced Pages has understood that people and organizations widely use twitter as a vehicle for declaring information about themselves or their organization. In the context of political endorsements, so long as the statement does not contain an "exceptional claim", unverified claims about the campaign or candidate, and has been verified to be an authentic post, primary source material involving statements made about oneself is allowed. As a note, MSM and virtually every other secondary source generator utilize such ideal primary sources for their own reporting daily. Therefore, requiring secondary sources to publish already verified information ''in order to use said primary source material in tertiary sources'' is redundant, onerous and introduces another level of political bias due to the freedom of selection by journalists and editing boards. What this page is missing is set of guidelines in agreement with what Misplaced Pages has outlined as required for the use of primary sources generated on social media. Otherwise, perfectly sourced material and information becomes lost in the process of cleaning up. What if we adopt a rule that requires:

::::::1) Social media account must be verified in order to ensure tweet is reliable and genuine.
::::::2) Statement must be making a claim that user is 'endorsing'/'providing endorsement' for campaign/candidate.
::::::3) Statement must not make unverifiable/exceptional claims about third parties.
::::::] (]) 01:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
:::::::I can't support that other than in exceptional cases. If it's important enough to include in an encyclopedia it should already be covered by an independent source. Anyone can tweet. It doesn't matter that secondary sources use tweets themselves since their job is to report what's newsworthy by applying their editorial guidelines. We have no such mechanism for filtering self-published sources ourselves.- ]] 🖋 02:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

== Fowlers ==

For the record, the Fowlers have been opening up their home to host events/meet-and-greets for Democratic candidates, as described by , so while they might be mentioned in many past/future references in association with various candidates, they're not endorsing (yet). ] (]) 17:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

== Does donation equal endorsement? ==

I would like to get everyone else's thoughts about whether a campaign donation from a notable person should be construed as an endorsement, for purposes of this article.- ]] 🖋 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
:No, a donation is never an endorsement (usual conditions apply: if they publicly state they support a candidate or use the word "endorse", then it is, but as individuals can donate to multiple candidates, including amounts under $200, they generally should not be construed as one without further evidence). ] (]) 20:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

== Campaign employment ==

We seem to be agreeing that notable family members of candidates, such as Mike Gabbard who is Tulsi Gabbard's father, should have a parenthetical note stating the family relationship next to the endorsement. I think it would make sense to also do this for folks taking up campaign positions, such as Ruben Gallego who is the campaign manager of the Eric Swalwell campaign, or Ro Khanna who is a co-chair of the Bernie Sanders campaign (separate page, I know, but same principle.) What do y'all think?
] (]) 03:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
:I don't think we should list campaign workers as endorsements. Of course they endorse their candidates. An endorsement, for purposes of this article, should be from someone unconnected to the candidate, otherwise it's pretty meaningless.
::{{yo|MrX}} I agree with the principle, but there's more to it. As I mentioned above, people like ] and ] are ] and therefore have good reason to appear in endorsement lists. My question was whether being the candidate's dad is sufficiently like being the candidate's campaign co-chair in that we should note these things as qualifiers for an endorsement. ] (]) 05:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Airbornemihir}} OK, we disagree about campaign staff. I don't think a candidate's father should be listed because the default assumption should be that the father would endorse their own child. The occasional exception to that could be noted in the campaign article, provided that sources have covered it.- ]] 🖋 11:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
::As an aside, media organizations including and consider campaign staff who happen to hold an elected office or are DNC members (e.g. Gallego and Khanna) to be endorsements. (]) 13:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks ]. Based on this discussion, I've added parenthetical notes to a few notable campaign employees' endorsements on the relevant pages. ] (]) 07:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

== Endorsers that fall under different categories (eg Don Beyer) ==

] has endorsed Buttigieg and although he is a current US Representative, he is also a former ambassador and Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. As executive branch officials rank above members of the House, I am more inclined to place him there instead, but since he is a current congressman I am not too certain. Feel free to leave differing opinions

] (]) 13:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
:Yes, I think placing them under their highest office category makes sense, while also noting other major offices held.- ]] 🖋 19:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
:No, precedence is given to their current position; reports refer to him as a U.S. Representative, not as a former ambassador or Lt. Gov. ] (]) 00:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

== Why are candidates ordered the way they are? ==

The ordering of candidates appears to be arbitrary and follows neither sensible ordering of alphabetical nor date of entry into the race. Why are they ordered this way? Should they be reordered into one of these formats? ] (]) 17:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
:They are alphabetical by last name, which is the most logical and neutral method of ordering.- ]] 🖋 16:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
:Got it, thanks! - ] (]) 00:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

== 23 Biden endorsements ==

I don't feel like spending the time to add these myself, so I'll drop these here: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2019/05/02/biden-wins-endorsement-of-florida-democrats-in-early-show-of-force-1005334 ] (]) 15:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

:Endorsements have now been added ] (]) 17:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

== Deleted endorsements to ] ==

]: you deleted ], ] and ]'s endorsements to ], saying "see talk". Where is it? Also, you say the sources are not reliable. ] is not reliable?? Are you crazy?? I'll return you the same amount of time you gave my contribution to respond before undoing this vandalism (]). ] (]) 03:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
: No answer. Reinstated. ] (]) 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
::See ]. Gravel's comments are not an endorsement. Tweets and YouTube videos are not suitable sources for endorsements. Kim Iversen is not a notable person.- ]] 🖋 03:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
:::#'''You mention tweets.''' I didn't cite any tweets.
:::#'''You say YouTube videos are not suitable sources for endorsement.''' Says who?? Is VHS video suitable? What does it matter the distribution channel the video is in, if it's LIVE recorded evidence of the endorsement??
:::#'''You say Kim Iversen is not a notable person.''' The heading said "celebrities, commentators, miscellaneous", not "notable persons". Her channel has 74,000 subscribers and 3.4 million views. Is that not notable? What is the cutoff exactly?
:::#'''You say self-published endorsements are not acceptable.''' I didn't cite any self-published sources. I cited ], and recorded video of the endorsers themselves making the endorsement.
:::#'''You say Mike Gravel's comments are not an endorsement.''' He literally said Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders would be the "ideal Democratic ticket for 2020". If that's not an endorsement, what is?!
:::And now I see you also erased ]'s endorsement too! You're clearly grasping at straws here along with Mélencron on your negative activism effort against ]. If you have a horse in this race, refrain from negatively campaigning against other candidates from the SAME party. ] (]) 02:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
::::#I know, someone else did.
::::#YouTube videos are self-published. The applicable policy is ]. YouTube is a generally unreliable source. See ]. The format of a video has nothing to do with reliability. The publisher's reputation is what established notability.
:::::::] '''clearly''' states it's not applicable when the self-published source is '''''"written or published by the subject of the article"'''''. In this case, it's a '''video record''' of the person herself endorsing the candidate! And ] '''clearly''' says that '''''"content uploaded from a verified official account,"''''' which they are, '''''"may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability."''''' ] (]) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
::::#Notable in this context means that there is a Misplaced Pages article for the person. See ].
:::::::That's not the criterion defined in ]. Furthermore, it '''clearly''' says that '''''"articles may still not be created for such people"''''' , thus the non-existence of an article for someone doesn't mean that person doesn't meet the ] criteria. ] (]) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
::::#.
::::#An endorsement is something like... "I endorse ______ for president." There are notable people who have expressed confidence in multiple candidates. Those are not endorsements either.
:::::Please show me a diff where I erased Joe Rogan's endorsement. FWIW, I don't have a horse in this race, at least not yet, and I consistently edit according to our policies regardless.- ]] 🖋 18:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
::::::: . Not only you erased ] but also ], which were there before I added ], ] and ]. And you say you don't have a horse in this race?! I find that very hard to believe. ] (]) 05:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

== Bernie Sanders Endorsement ==

Sorry if I missed an old discussion, is there a reason Bernie Sanders does not have any endorsements listed on this page? Every other canidate has endorsements listed as well as links to other pages. Bernie Sanders only has links to other pages. ] (]) 16:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

== Endorsement Maps ==

I created two maps for this page that were taken off. I do understand that they are hard to understand, but what can I do to make them better?


]
]
:I find them useful and not at all difficult to understand. Some may object to including Trump on the maps since he's not a Democratic Party presidential primary candidate. - ]] 🖋 19:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
:ETA: I think the colors should be more distinct to avoid confusion. They don't have to be shades of blue. It might also be a good idea to omit the gray dots, which serve no real purpose..- ]] 🖋 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
:I thought they were great. A clear case of rampant deletionism at WP. ] (]) 05:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:00, 22 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Section sizes
Section size for Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (32 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 679 679
Joe Biden 198 198
Withdrawn candidates 26 120,828
Michael Bennet 10,115 10,115
Michael Bloomberg 158 158
Cory Booker 140 140
Steve Bullock 8,283 8,283
Pete Buttigieg 148 148
Julian Castro 29,841 29,841
Bill de Blasio 3,211 3,211
John Delaney 3,618 3,618
Tulsi Gabbard 12,750 12,750
Kirsten Gillibrand 3,797 3,797
Mike Gravel 603 603
Kamala Harris 148 148
John Hickenlooper 1,642 1,642
Jay Inslee 4,121 4,121
Amy Klobuchar 145 145
Seth Moulton 1,860 1,860
Richard Ojeda 987 987
Beto O'Rourke 17,864 17,864
Deval Patrick 2,338 2,338
Tim Ryan 1,523 1,523
Bernie Sanders 148 148
Tom Steyer 6,971 6,971
Eric Swalwell 2,696 2,696
Elizabeth Warren 154 154
Marianne Williamson 7,399 7,399
Andrew Yang 142 142
See also 149 149
Notes 24 24
References 487 487
Total 122,365 122,365

Non-noteworthy tweets again

I'm reaffirming my previous objection to including tweets as endorsements. I specifically object to this tweet from Natalia Cordova-Buckley that says "So proud of you @TulsiGabbard !!! But mostly, I’m so grateful to have a candidate like you.". This is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. 02:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep. This was the issue that led to the RfC via the section above. The RfC closes next week and there seems a pretty solid consensus for ditching endorsements based just on a tweet... — Rhododendrites \\ 02:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s an explicit endorsement. How is that objectionable? That’s ridiculous that it’s objectionable. Tulsi isn’t my candidate but there appears no other reason to object to explicit endorsements like that Capriaf (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Employed for Harris' campaign vs. endorsing campaign

Current DNC members Laphonza Butler and Emmy Ruiz are listed under the "DNC members" section as having endorsed Kamala Harris. Both sources state Butler and Ruiz have been hired by the Harris team and are working for Harris' 2020 bid. I don't see anything in either source suggesting Butler and Ruiz have formally endorsed Harris. I don't believe being hired for a campaign and endorsing it are one in the same. Is there a policy or discussion an editor can point to that will clarify if I've misunderstood? What are others' thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC results implemented

After the closure of this RfC, I've gone back in to remove endorsements by non-notable individuals and endorsements without citations to reliable independent sources. Endorsements by notable organizations do not need to be covered by independent reliable sources, but there was one which did not make an explicit endorsement, so I removed that one, too. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Capriaf: Regarding Joe Rogan, the source originally included said "Gabbard’s fiery anti-establishment stances have earned her support from Joe Rogan...". That doesn't seem like an explicit endorsement. You can "support" lots of candidates and in lots of ways. One of those ways is an endorsement. The source you then added says "Joe Rogan, the popular podcast host, said he planned to vote for her." To me, that is not an endorsement either. You can plan to vote for someone without formally endorsing. This is what #3 of the RfC linked above is all about. Leaving it now because I acknowledge it could be an edge case and worth discussing. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. The NYT source merely said that he planned to vote for her.
Here are the three criteria, all of which must be met:
  1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
  2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
  3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym. - MrX 🖋 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Since these criteria are now established, someone should go through all of the 2016 and earlier endorsement pages. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. I figured I'd start with 2020, since it's kind of time consuming, but if nobody else does I may come back to the earlier ones later. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
talk, I'm not not capriaf and voting for someone is unequivocal support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.0.106.121 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, but is "support" synonymous with "endorsement". Lots of people know say who they like, who they'll vote for, etc., but most of those people don't go as far as giving an "endorsement". That's generally seen as a bigger step, and as we get closer to the primaries we'll see lots of stories about such-and-such person expressing support for but not endorsing such-and-such candidate, etc. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Categories: