Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Women urging Clinton to run

Can this really be considered an endorsement? Supporting a candidate is not the same as asking them to run, and there is proof that not all these women are so enthusiastic about endorsing her directly. "When Stephanopoulos pushed a second time, asking if Warren would endorse a Clinton 2016 run, Warren responded, "Hillary is terrific." Close, but not an endorsement yet." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/0428/Elizabeth-Warren-Almost-an-endorsement-of-Hillary-Clinton-2016-video) & "Boxer told ABC News she is an enthusiastic champion for Clinton 2016, but added, “I can only speak for myself. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to describe their views.”" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/women-dems-senate-endorse-hillary-clinton-president-article-1.1501771) 201.196.246.146 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have had this same concern too and agree with the opinion above. There seems to be a clear difference and not until an endorsement is completely clear should we put them on here. Nitroxium (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that letter was a.) not meant to be public and b.) not an endorsement, but rather asking her to run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.40.254 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

These so-called "endorsements" for Hillary Clinton don't seem to resemble that when you look into the sources. For example, you've got every female Congressperson on this list because the women's caucus signed a letter encouraging her to run. That's nonsense as these are hardly formal endorsements.2601:1C2:4600:34D:348B:66DB:350F:BC54 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - someone is jumping the gun here... Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also agree. Some bad faith editing, at first glance. Jusdafax 12:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Templates to avoid duplication and unsynced lists

What do you guys think about changing this page to transclude content from templates, which can then be used both in this page and in the candidates' articles without the need for duplication and synchronization of the lists? --Waldir ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

I created a talk page discussion on the Republican article about inclusion of endorsements in the article. I see no reason for have different rules for each party so if you have feedback on this question, please share any views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Endorsement_RulesObieGrad (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the rules you have set there and would propose we use them for this article. I would also add the use of direct sources, either be it social media of a person or group, their website or an article covering the endorsement of a single person/group. Nitroxium (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Impartial and premature article

A majority of these endorsements occurred before Sen. Sanders and other Democratic candidates entered the race. Much of these endorsements were predicated on the now incorrect belief that Secretary Clinton wouldn't face any meaningful primary competition.

Many of these endorsements cite this CNN article. Those are hardly formal endorsements and I'm not sure CNN's criteria for an endorsement was particularly stringent. If the CNN article had been titled "Democrats Who Have Signaled Support for Hillary", a more fitting headline, would that be worthy of a Wikipedia citation? I think not. The headline is deceptive; these are not formal endorsements. A politician or public figure backing a Hillary run doesn't mean they are endorsing her as the nominee. There can be a range of motivations from truly liking the candidate, encouraging a woman to run for the office, or the desire to see as many candidates as possible in the primaries.

I could also point to the Bill Maher endorsement being extremely suspect. The context of that endorsement sounds more like an attack on the Republican candidates rather than support for Sec. Clinton. As Bill Maher is one of the most strident Progressives in the United States, it seems doubtful that he would be endorsing Clinton when Bernie Sanders, his ideological equal, is in the race.

Both campaigns just launched in recent weeks. It is much too premature to be stating any of this as fact. Without looking through each and every name, at least half of these so-called "endorsements" seem to be tacit approval, at best.

I believe this article does our democratic processes a terrible disservice by playing into a narrative that there is no primary fight in the Democratic Party. The polling does not reflect this.

At the very least, this article needs some refinement. JaskaPDX (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaskaPDX (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AFL-CIO stated SC cannot endorse separate from Nationa. SC had to walk-back suggestion to endorse Bernie Sanders.

Over the weekend the South Carolina AFL-CIO executive board passed a resolution supporting Sanders’ candidacy and urging the national organization to endorse him. Podhorzer, though, said the state federation lacked authority to recommend an endorsement. “That was walked back,” he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/afl-cio-2016-endorsement-doesnt-hinge-on-fast-track-119077.html#ixzz3dKJ2pk8Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The article you keep removing is titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" It's literally just your original research that those people aren't "really" endorsing her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That article is NOT a direct source for the endorsements and should therefore not be used as a source. If they truly have endorsed Clinton, then find the direct source of them doing so. I believe the CNN article has some links to the direct sources. Nitroxium (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois - Headlined a June 2014 fundraiser organized by Ready for Hillary" is endorsing her but that's been removed. I hate campaign season. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I removed him incorrectly. It is my understanding that Durbin does support Hillary. The rest, not so much. As Nitroxium suggests below, sourcing each one is much more reliable. These politicians are not going to endorse any presidential candidate without fanfare, press releases, and social media postings. Any real endorsement won't be hard to find. But it can't be an encouragement to run; it needs to be a clear endorsement of the candidate otherwise what is the point in placing it here? If someone wants to start a page "List of People that have encouraged Hilalry Clinton to run for president" then feel free to use the CNN article as gospel. Hell, I don't support Hillary and I want her to run if only for the contrast.JaskaPDX (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, I'll add it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/20/sen-dick-durbin-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/ I think we should limit our sources to direct ones that refer specifically to each endorsement. That article just mashes up endorsements with not-so-endorsements. Nitroxium (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Building off of this I'm going to crawl through the last few endorsements whose only source is the hill list (just the list for now, not going to mess with sources that do more than just give a name) and remove them if I can't find anything else backing it up. As public figures there should really be multiple sources confirming 2016 endorsement before we add them. As a example, I removed Colleen Hanabusa from the list. Hanabusa backed Hillary for the 2008 campaign when she became the Hawaiian chair for Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders for Hillary. She mentioned Hillary slightly in an interview with Honolulu Civil beat in 2014 but there's been no indication anywhere that she's actively endorsing her this time around. --Flounder19 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the direct sourcing of actual endorsements is that less notable House members do not always seek or get headlines for having endorsed someone. More typically, they are referred to in passing as an "ally" or "supporter" in an article, or are mentioned as attending a fundraiser. Incidentally, the original Hill list from last January of about thirty Hillary endorsements is not quite a mash-up because they did not rely on public statements - they literally called around the House offices, which I think qualifies as reporting rather than aggregation. But all this aside, virtually all of the endorsements from the best mash-up lists [e.g. fivethirtyeight's] are verifiable and vehement, give or take an odd Congressperson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotvinSux (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lady Gaga "endorsement" source is just an outfit she wore. They don't even quote her saying anything remotely related to Clinton. They compare clothing. That's completely shoddy sourcing. Elsewhere there's a better source, which says she performed at a Clinton fundraiser, since that indicates some kind of support, but that's not an official endorsement either. What's the standard for these things?

South Carolina AFL-CIO

I removed the South Carolina AFL-CIO here. The actual resolution (which is from Sanders' website and his own press release) are an encouragement by the executive board to endorse Sanders not an actual endorsement of Sanders. As the anonymous editor added, here, it looks like the full AFL-CIO (who was the entity encouraged to be endorsing someone) refused to endorse anyone, Clinton or Sanders. As stated, "Over the weekend the South Carolina AFL-CIO executive board passed a resolution supporting Sanders’ candidacy and urging the national organization to endorse him. Podhorzer, though, said the state federation lacked authority to recommend an endorsement. “That was walked back,” he said." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

These two union chapters letter of recommendation to endorse from a while back keep reappearing. It is linked to Trumka saying chapters cannot endorse. There will be one national AFL-CIO endorsement as always. Why is it back up there? Dishonest or clueless Bernie supporter grasping at fake endorsements that sound important? The citation used is the link to show it isn't a permitted endorsement! WALKED BACK as per that link and the Politico link the other time it was removed above.

STILL NOT PERMITTED but STILL on the wikipage anyway.

"In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or “introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’ statements” of candidate preference are VERBOTEN, Trumka said."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/afl-cio-endorsement-2016-democratic-primary-119701.html#ixzz3htWhYlQN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

I removed Roseanne Barr from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements because she is listed at United States presidential election, 2016#Declared_3 as running for president herself. (By the same token, I have also removed Dan Bilzerian as an endorsement for Rand Paul because Bilzerian is also listed as running for president.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Endorsements wrongly removed

I see most of Hillary's endorsements have disappeared. Back on April 15th The Hill compiled 104 endorsements from officials and they link to exact quotes from letters to constituents and to tweets of clear support to show their research. While some of these are perhaps not full endorsements many of them are clearly that and you have removed them, including actual clear cut publicly stated ones. If you run a list that purports to show actual research and remove real endorsements for no reason - all your credibility is lost. There must be someone actually working on an accurate list. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed people who endorsed her and are on TV doing so all the time, like Claire McCaskill who has endorsed her steadily for two years! WHY? Hmmm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-thanks-2016-endorsements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements that were placed with the list compiled by CNN were removed, due to its inconsistent nature. You're absolutely right in saying that some actual endorsements for Clinton were removed in the process, and we encourage you to add specific articles referring to each endorsement in order to add them back. We are avoiding list-articles that serve as indirect sources and rather are using articles reporting on each individual endorsement. I will be adding some of her endorsements back in the coming days, such as Barbara Boxer and Claire McCaskill. Please be sure to follow our rules for adding new endorsements, they can be found on this very talk page. Nitroxium (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is because a Bernie Sanders campaigner guy (JaskaPDX, whom is paid), deletd it all. I don't have the mental power in order to undo his currption to the entry every time. Archway (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Archie. A presidential endorsement isn't something that is done in secret. If the only place you can find a name is in an unsourced article without details then it's not an endorsement. They've been added again, so I'm now going to mediation. The campaign that is using fake Twitter followers and outsourcing FB friends is not going to continue to manipulate Wikipedia.JaskaPDX (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

State Reps and State Senators for Clinton

Announced on 6/26 in Iowa at offices of the Hillary for America campaign. "at least one committed supporter in each of Iowa’s 1,682 precincts"

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clinton062615pr.html

Supporters(announced June 26, 2015) Former Iowa Democratic Party Chair and Lt. Governor Sally Pederson former President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Jill June State Rep. Phyllis Thede (Davenport) State Rep. Timi Brown-Powers (Waterloo) State Senator Bill Dotzler (Waterloo) State Senator Jeff Danielson (Waterloo) former State Rep. Wes Whitead State Rep. Abby Finkenauer (Dubuque) former State Senator Staci Appel Cedar Rapids City Council Member Justin Shields former Cedar Rapids Mayor Lee Clancey former Iowa Democratic Party Chair and State Rep. Tyler Olson State Rep. Mary Mascher (Iowa City) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering sending this to AfD

Along with its Republican counterpart, I'm failing to see an encyclopedic value in listing every notable person who has liked a candidate's facebook page or sent a favorable tweet. I mean Ja Rule? Ariana Grande? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at Category:United States presidential election endorsements, I see that newspaper endorsements, presidential endorsements but not necessarily primary ones. Perhaps they should be split off into List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements and the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: split the article into ones for each candidate

I think we should consider splitting the articles into List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, List of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, List of Martin O'Malley 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, etc. We already have List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements out there from the last campaign and once the primary is finished, I'm doubtful that people will suddenly change to endorsing the Republican candidate or rescind their endorsement or whatever so the non-nominee's endorsements will either be shuffled away or the page will be archived and a new one with the same information will be needed anyways. Each of the campaign pages have shortened versions but I think we'd be better served if we could separate these discussions by candidate and then leave this page as either a summary (US senators with just last names and states, US representatives similarly and no more celebrities). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lessig

Shouldn't there be an entry for Lawrence Lessig? Samuel Webster (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not until he officially launches his presidential campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Conan for Chafee

would Conan O'Brien be considered a endorsement for Chafee since in his show wanted Chafee to poll at a 1%. Is that an endorsement? - TDKR TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably comes down to what you consider an endorsement. Conan went so far as to say "I'm not saying we should get him elected. I'm personally not going to vote for him." so he's not really endorsing him to become president. On the other hand he is publicly declaring his support for Chafee up to 1%. The line for endorsements is just so blurry and this is an extreme example of someone 'endorsing' and candidate without actually wanting them to become president. --Flounder19 (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Former Gov. Dukakis for Hillary Clinton 2016

It seems that former Massachusetts Governor and 1988 Democratic U.S. Presidential Nominee Michael Dukakis endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, according to this article link I provided: http://www.capecod.com/newscenter/dukakis-backs-hillary-clinton-in-upcoming-election/ Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute regarding formatting of Bernie Sanders endorsements

Why are Bernie Sanders endorsements listed differently than everyone elses: In a *separate* Wikipedia page, in a "hidden box," of a formatting type almost never used anywhere else in Wikipedia? Where the user must click a little "show" icon to even see the list?

Fairness would dictate the endorsements are placed on this page easily accessible just like everyone else's:

(1) The endorsements are zipped up in a hidden box accessible on via an innocuous "show" link to the right on Sanders' 2016 Wikipedia campaign page. (2) Other lists in Wikipedia *rarely* use such "hidden" boxes. (3) That hidden box is listed directly *after* a circular reference that points users to *another* list of endorsements for other candidates on this page, a circular reference ultimately pointing straight back to this page...while listing *none* of Sanders' endorsements along side the endorsements of his competitors. In other words, the links go out of their way to show endorsements for all candidates *other* than Sanders...Even on his own page!!! (4) The hidden box is buried underneath that circular reference. The impact is readers looking for endorsements for Sanders are encouraged to go look at other candidates' endorsements, then pointed straight back to the original page where the endorsements are hidden and all users may not think to look for the link to the far right to unzip the unorthodox hidden box. KyleSager (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If any other experienced users are reading this, we have a classic case of WP:NPOV rabble rousing which we're discussing at Talk:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. This accusation is and was completely inconsistent with reality. Only chiming in here late as passive support in case the user drums it up again. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky for Bernie Sanders?

If Chomsky calls Sanders' campaign "good for the democratic party" [1] and even sent an email stating his endorsement for Sanders [2]. Should we add Chomsky? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Chomsky doesn't or won't endorse Sanders, but that is in no way an endorsement. As Chomsky is not a Democrat, the nomination of Sanders would bring the party to the actual left, which is where Dr. Chomsky's political views lay, and would thus be "good" in his worldview. Similarly I, not being in the GOP, could say that someone who is a moderate (or at least comparatively) would be "good for the Republican party" but I would not endorse them for the actual office. JesseRafe (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Craig (007) for Bernie Sanders

Craig is known as an English Actor and is now married to an American, Rachel Weisz. What exactly permits him to make a substantial political contribution to a PAC in support of Bernie Sanders if he is British? Is it that he has American citizenship or other status now, or was the contribution made through his American wife, or does the limitation on contributions from foreign citizens "not apply" if the contribution is to a PAC? A legal eagle could help on this, Please!96.224.65.24 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lawful permanent residents may make campaign contributions. Mr. Craig apparently is a lawful permanent resident (i.e., he has a Green Card). Neutrality^talk 01:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbered officeholders

I notice that many of the endorsers listed have the numeric order of the offices they have held given. "19th White House Chief of Staff" ... "29th Director of the Office of Management and Budget" ... "28th Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico" ... "53rd Mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut" ... and so on. Do the ordinal numbers really provide any interesting or useful information, or do they just take up space? My thinking would be the latter, but if anyone has a good argument in favor of these ordinal numbers, I would like to read it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone first added them back in July or August, and my first reaction was also to gut them, but I ended up keeping them because 1) they are part of the ceremonial title (most of these individuals' pages use the ordinal) and 2) They actually take up less space than the word "former" where it is a formerly held position, which is a majority of the cases. 3) I actually do think they provide some unique information because they help differentiate how established and historically significant a post is - for example if you're the 1st New York City Public Advocate or 8th Energy Secretary, that signals that the post is less prestigious - cf. the 111th governor of South Carolina, etc... . All in all, I think it could go either way, but given that it actually saves space in more cases than not, I think it makes sense to use the ceremonial. PotvinSux (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Walter Mondale

The problem with the Mondale cites are that they are original research ... and false.

Despite Pajamas Media (not a reliable source - a blog network) titling the interview an "endorsement," the content itself is not unequivocal (I watched the whole clip, and unless I'm missing something Mondale said "I think she's a very strong candidate," "has strong support all over the place," he's a fan, he encouraged her to run, etc., none of which are endorsements.

If an endorsement is real, it's public and unequivocal reported on publicly. An example of a real endorsement is this one from Mondale in 2007 (reported by the AP) - clear, unequivocal, and in a mainstream source. This is not so. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tbh, I think there are several candidates listed even though it isn't clear that they endorsed the candidate e.g. Ellie Goulding and Josh Peck maybe even Cole Sprouse (because hoping someone will run for president doesn't mean they endorse them). Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, To your point, I think this case is A LOT less ambiguous than those, though I do think, in general, a fixation on the magic words "I endorse x" is not tenable because "endorsement" can really be any public statement or action of ostensibly exclusive support. Even something like saying you hope someone will run can be an endorsement in some contexts and not others, and we leave it to reporters to judge. PotvinSux (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked into this and I'm putting it back. Reasoning: PJ Media may be a D-list news site, but they are a news site. It says so on their wikipedia page [[3]], which describes their model as "citizen-journalism." This does, in fact, appear to be what they are doing here. Their reporter - and I have no reason to call him anything else - wrote a story based on comments by Walter Mondale at a press-availability that he attended.

On the video in question, the reporter asks Mondale "What made you decide to support her for president?" Mondale clearly hears the question and responds with various praise. I don't think he somehow got tricked into endorsing her, neither does the reporter, nor would I think the average person based on everything presented here. Moreover, In the original story link (not the one that I had posted, to be fair), the reporter includes the video with his piece meaning that one does not then have to go do his own research to confirm the credibility of this source. Finally, I don't know that something being "widely" reported is a fair standard because it is perfectly reasonable to expect that no major media outlet is going to write a story about Walter Mondale's endorsement - even current U.S. House members can endorse someone with a gap of months before anyone notices. So this falls to minor media like this guy, who I think has done a good enough job to be considered credible.

I'm putting Mondale back for now - if you still think I'm wrong, feel free to remove him (and I won't replace him), but in that case I would appreciate a little more explanation because I might be out of my depths in terms of judging what constitutes credibility. PotvinSux (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy in yielding to me and will exercise it. I'll be happy to add a few more words of explanation.

First: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources emphasizes the necessity, in most cases, for editorial control (i.e., there is some established editor/publisher apparatus through which content is meaningfully vetted). "Citizen journalism" and blog networks don't really have this, in most cases.

Second: An additional principle here is that when dealing with content affecting living people, a heightened standard of reliability is needed. (I have no doubt that Mondale is a Hillary supporter, as he endorsed her in '07, but it's the principle of the matter I'm concerned with).

Finally: We can't "read between the lines" to make an endorsement where there isn't a clear one. "Endorsements" are unequivocal. They may not necessarily use the word "endorsement," but they will be unmistakably clear ("I will vote for"; "I am a supporter of"; etc.). Trying to tease out an endorsement based on a reporter's question and an interviewee's non-unequivocal answer is not enough. We really shouldn't need to be "judging what constitutes credibility" )(if it's a real endorsement, it'll be facially obvious). This is doubly true when we are dealing with personalities.

(I think ultimately Mondale will make a clearer statement, and we can include it then). Neutrality^talk 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That was informative!PotvinSux (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please add these endorsements under Bernie Sanders, and to his main campaign article's endorsement section?

https://berniesanders.com/artists/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln Chafee

I moved Lincoln Chafee's section to its proper alphabetical place. I also removed the reference to the Robert Byrd endorsement because the testimonial from Robert Byrd says nothing about endorsing him for President. It's general praise of Chafee's record, but the fact that someone praised Chafee's Senate record eight years ago doesn't imply an endorsement for president. Nor should we say that Chafee has "no" endorsements; it's possible he may have some endorsements from not-particularly-famous people which we don't know about or are too obscure to be listed here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I still feel there no point revived Lincoln Chafee for main reason, There no Endorsements for him at all even there several people still endorsed him according to Democratic National polling are still said his appeal is very low on him by (usually) 0 to (very rare) 2% along with Jim Webb that unlike him got least two individals that endorsed him. 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:255C:1E63:AECF:E18E (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• In that case, I think we should just leave Chafee off the Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 page unless and until he receives a notable endorsement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates?

Could we have it so Presidential endorsements were in a template so that there aren't discrepancies between what's on the candidate's campaign page, and this page? Just a thought. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• You wouldn't need templates. You would just have to put in anchors in the text marking off sections and do a selective transclusion of this page as it is. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well I went ahead and boldly made the changes. Now the individual campaign pages will automatically update when this page updates. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Amy Schumer

She's supporting Hillary according to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpSk6dLbkGM 121.99.35.210 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Rep. Grijalva Endorsement of Senator Sanders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=346&v=8pR9tXUMO-Q http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/07/bernie-sanders-gets-first-congressional-endorsement-from-ral-grijalva/?_r=0 Would someone go ahead and add Congressman Grijalva's endorsement, unless anyone has reason to object? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.52.89 (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to trim this article

As of right now this article stands at 248,161 bytes. That is far too large and is causing network slowdowns as the sheer amount of information here tries to load. I am proposing that we trim this article by removing people who are not notable regardless of their political office. For example, we have a slew of state and local level politicians who do not have their own wiki page. I propose that all of them be deleted. In fact, I propose a "pre-page" requirement for this article. If the individual does not already have their own wiki page they are not notable and will be removed. Comments/thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest just linking to the endorsement section of each individuals' presidential campaign page. This way we don't need to update both pages with each new endorsement — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It currently works the other way around. This page is automatically copied to the campaign pages so everything is centralized. I am not overtly opposed to flipping it but since I am not the one that routinely adds endorsements I would like the opinion of the one that does (pinging PotvinSux). The problem with keeping all those extra people is that it is verging on promotion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of facts. We shouldn't have an exhaustive list of every single person who endorses a specific candidate, that would be madness. Flipping the transclusions and having it copied from the campaign pages is not going to fix that problem. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I get what you mean. I'm newer to Wikipedia editing so I apologize. How much would the pre-page requirement trim things down? I do think it handles the notability requirement because those with a Wikipedia page are notable for some form of reason. I like the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 01:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of the local officials (mayors, councilors, clerks, etc.) are really not that notable. Most of the party leadership are not notable either. There are dozens of these people listed on this page right now. That amounts to tens of thousands of bytes for people that would not even warrant their own page as they aren't notable. I wouldn't really know how much it would trim it down until those people were removed. I wanted to get other people's input before I went ahead and just removed these people but if nobody else comments in a day or two I am going to go ahead and make the change. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Where would Ralph Nader's endorsement go? From this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWwegTpTR7o and previous statements by him, it's apparent he has endorsed Bernie. However, putting him under celebrities feels like a disservice. I'm going to change the "former state governors" section to say "former political leaders." Please change that if you have a more appropriate idea.74.107.74.186 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. If they don't have a Wikipedia page, I think that they should be removed from the lists. Hopefully that will cut down the size; eliminating the references for those people should help as well. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in principle that the page should be trimmed (this is indeed madness). The question, of course, is criteria. I think State Legislators are, as a rule, noteworthy. I think it is relevant that the clear majority of them DO have pages. Moreover, state party chairs and vice-chairs along with about two hundred other elected DNC members are Superdelegates and vote at the convention - their endorsement seems significant at a number of levels though few of them have pages. Anyone beyond that, I think a page-requirement is entirely reasonable. This would get rid of dem. party county chairs, just about all local legislators, and about 2/3 of mayors, as well as a number of "individuals." Thoughts?--PotvinSux (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@PotvinSux: I was originally going to include state legislators in the cleanup but after looking at the notability guidelines for politicians I get your point. Also, the superdelegate issue I hadn't thought of. I agree that everyone else that doesn't have a page should be removed and going forward a pre-page requirement for all local level legislators and individuals should be in place. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: All in agreement here. Thank you for taking this on.PotvinSux (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. I am working on other projects right now but I will start to trim the article tonight. I have to double check to make sure the people I am removing don't have a page already since most of them aren't even redlinked so it will take a little bit. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are state assemblypeople notable enough for inclusion without their own page? People like Nelson Araujo and Michael Blake? --Stabila711 (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of culling the article, we could break it into sub-articles, either by type of endorsement or by candidate endorsed. Which would be better? The simplest would be by candidate. Sen. Clinton's article may still be too long, but we could cross that bridge when we get there. -hugeTim ^(talk) 01:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hugetim: I am assuming once the actual candidate for each party is selected they will get their own endorsement page. Like for List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 and List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012. Until then, I feel that keeping everything on one page would be beneficial. Perhaps, we can cut down on the explanations after each endorsement. For example, the U.S. Representatives section repeats U.S. Representatives over and over again for each line. Instead of "Karen Bass, U.S. Representative from California", "Karen Bass, California" would suffice. In fact, Karen Bass, CA would probably be just as good. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly agree with removing redundant or overly long explanations. But, after trying to do one edit on the entire article yesterday and having my article crash, I really must insist that something more substantial be done. WP:SIZE says even are article less than half this size "almost certainly should be divided." Can you point to anything in that guideline that justifies keeping this article as is? -hugeTim ^(talk) 14:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is finished. I only removed the least significant categories of Hillary's endorsements (to another article), and the article is down to almost half its original size (and no longer freezes my browser when editing it). Unfortunately, there are a bunch of broken links to references which I will help to fix later. -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This also broke the transclusion to Hillary's candidate page. I don't like this at all. Either move all of the endorsements or move none. Having half here and half there is a content fork and just make it really confusing for the people that are adding endorsements. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The transclusion works fine, other than the references. The status quo was ridiculous. I'm open to alternative suggestions, but there's no going back. -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the transclusion does not work fine. I only set it up to copy this one page. Hillary's candidate page is now missing all of the sections that were moved. I also don't know if I can do a labelled section transclusion of two separate pages. So now, whenever someone wants to add a batch of Clinton endorsements they have to check three separate pages. That is not fair to the people that keep this page updated. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I fixed it. The references are all working now, too. Any other issues? -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You performed a potentially contentious move without so much as a proper discussion. There was no input from PotvinSux who is the one who primarily keeps this page up-to-date. Splitting one person off into their own article also presents NPOV issues. Why does Hillary get her own endorsement article and the other candidates are lumped together here? Why shouldn't Bernie get his own page? What makes Hillary so special? Is it because she has the most endorsements? That isn't a good enough reason. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You said, a week ago, "As of right now this article stands at 248,161 bytes. That is far too large and is causing network slowdowns as the sheer amount of information here tries to load." PotvinSux agreed: "I agree in principle that the page should be trimmed (this is indeed madness)." The filesize of this article is even now at almost half of Wikipedia:Article_size#Technical_issuesthe absolute maximum limit set by the MediaWiki software (for reasons I don't understand). But you proceeded to discuss responses that would only reduce the size by 10% at most. Feel free to come up with an alternate solution--my work is easy enough to revert once you have a good idea. But the status quo was untenable and it was urgent to fix it, in my view.

Why does Hillary get her own endorsements article? Because she had too many endorsements to put in a sub-section, for technical reasons. Bernie could get his own article, too, and he probably should. The only reason I haven't done it already is that it is not currently necessary to bring this article down to a manageable size. I want to reiterate that I am not at all insisting on the particular solution I implemented, and I do apologize if my actions seem unnecessarily brash and insensitive. -hugeTim ^(talk) 00:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

While giving Hillary a page of her own might be the most convenient solution, I don't find it especially logical and I agree with the concerns Stabila711 has raised. Giving Hillary her own list seems to make the title of the article inaccurate because it is in fact missing the majority of what the title claims to contain. I'm not sure which way the NPOV issue cuts on this one, but inequity is generally best avoided. In general, I think this list is a perfect example of why both the notability and length criteria are not absolute, particularly with respect to lists; I do, though, certainly sympathize with the concern about size. We have cut a significant bit recently, and I think there is considerably more that can be done in this regard by cutting descriptions. I would not call the status quo ante this change ridiculous. If it were an order of magnitude off of the [intentionally flexible] length guidelines that might be a fair characterization. As far as the article crashing when you edit - I've found it sometimes slow down if I edit the entire article, but editing individual sections has never presented a problem for me, even prior to the cutting we've done of late. My suggestion is to restore and get to cutting some descriptions (for example: repetition of titles, gutting years of tenure, long-winded explanations of celebrities, etc.). I'm not sure exactly how many bytes we're at right now, but if making these cuts is a good idea either way, it would make the most sense to try this first and see how far we get. Other idea: creating a separate list for office-holder endorsements one one hand and for individual/celebrity/organization endorsements on the other. PotvinSux (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Just look at the history page: the wikitext size peaked at 253KB about a week ago. You guys had it down to 238KB before I jumped in, a 6% decrease in size. I agree that a division into separate office-holders and celebrities articles would be reasonable, but I didn't go that route because it would involve a more drastic change to the structure. As it stands, I don't understand why you say "the title of the article [is] inaccurate because it is in fact missing the majority of what the title claims to contain." It's not missing anything. It includes all of Ms. Clinton's endorsements, just like her campaign does. As an aside, I don't understand what you have against subtitles and more detail Table of Contents, such as in Lists_of_mathematics_topics. I think they belong here and deliberately added them to Ms. Clinton's section. They would make it much easier to understand the contents at a glance and navigate this overlong article, not to mention making it easier to edit smaller sections so that your browser doesn't hang. -hugeTim ^(talk) 04:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You know what, you're right - they are all right there. I somehow missed the box when I looked last night. I think something that might make sense would be to put everybody's in a box and include some kind of summary. Or, alternately, to leave some (for example, national legislators and governors) outside of the box and put the rest (celebrities, etc.) in the box. Thoughts? (Also, I personally don't have anything against sub-titles or tables of contents in general or in this case) PotvinSux (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're giving Clinton her own, you must give Sanders, O'Malley, etc. their own too. Otherwise that represents a non-neutral point of view and possibly a conflict of interests.74.107.74.186 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. I'm not sure how this would represent a conflict of interest, but it could be perceived as non-neutral presentation. I, for one, would not be opposed to Lessig, O'Malley, and Sanders pages.PotvinSux (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if it is non-neutral, the problem already exists elsewhere. Only Hillary and Bernie (on the Democratic side) have their own separate "positions" articles. Anyway, go ahead and create separate pages for the others, whoever wants that. Be bold. -hugeTim ^(talk) 16:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove Webb & Chafee?

Chafee & Webb have dropped out - should those sections be removed now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

We don't remove past endorsements just because the candidate has dropped out. See the Republican page. Walker and Perry are still there. If all of the endorsements for the drop outs publicly say they switch and their section becomes empty, then we can remove it. --Stabila711 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Requesting review of Bernie Sanders "endorsements"

This appears to be a really bloated list.

A random check quickly reveals that the list includes people who have just said friendly things or even who have done something as little as tweeting a slogan like "Feel the Bern." The video of Ralph Nader is not an endorsement at all. It seems reasonable to guess that many of those listed are not formal "endorsements" in the way that term historically has been understood. Johnlumea (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnlumea:For any specific endorsements you found that do not check out, please either remove them or tag them with this template: Template:Failed_verification. Why make others repeat (tedious) work you've already done? -hugeTim ^(talk) 13:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think tweeting "Feel the Bern" amounts to an endorsement as much as tweeting "I'm Ready for Hillary" does. These are among the preferred phrases for showing that you support the given candidate in the particular lexicon of this primary election. I don't even think there's much ambiguity in it. There are very, very few who actually utter "I endorse X," but it's not because they do not intend to publicly show their support for a given candidate (that is all an endorsement is after all). This list has taken a broad view of what counts as an endorsement (because, for one, the media do). The standard I have used is whether one can reasonably infer exclusivity of support. I think the Nader case would be a perfect example that falls short of the bar. I'm sure there are more, and I think it is absolutely worth ferreting them out. At the same time, looking for "formal" endorsements seems problematic - what is an "informal" endorsement, and is it not still an endorsement?PotvinSux (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You write: "I think tweeting 'Feel the Bern' amounts to an endorsement as much as tweeting 'I'm Ready for Hillary' does. Which, I would argue, is "Not at all." If the only standard is tweeting "Feel the" this or "Ready for" that, this could become a very long page indeed. There has to be a more meaningful standard of what an endorsement is. I am exclusively supporting Martin O'Malley, but nobody cares about that, and I would never insist that my exclusive support of O'Malley is anything that should be documented on this page. I would argue that the only endorsements that belong on this page are endorsements by elected or former elected officials — or by other national public figures (writers, filmmakers, organizational leaders, etc.) who are defined primarily in terms of their commentary on U.S. policy and civic life, and who are followed primarily for this reason. The number of people in this second category who qualify as public figures is exceedingly small, I would argue: People like Ralph Nader, Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky, Cornel West, John Stewart, Norman Lear and the like. Johnlumea (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see to re-reviewing the list of Sander's endorsements. I do need help with Clinton's list. I still see some articles cited are not somewhat misleading. And can we try to make all the sections follow a similar pattern, so there's some sort of coherency. --Book wormed (talk) 12:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've culled through both the Sanders and Clinton list a number of times - I haven't found anything less "endorsey" than we might consider "Feel the Bern" - that is of course not to say that multiple eyes should not continue to go through them. We have already worked very hard to establish and maintain consistency as this list has developed. One of the major differences that remains is that Sanders and Lessig have a separate "Internet, Radio personalities" type section - so perhaps some of Clinton's individuals and celebrities should be funneled to such a section. Then, there are some minor differences in order between Sanders and the others (i.e. celebrities are put last before organizations for most). Any other differences you notice? PotvinSux (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Local Union Endorsements

Under the page-requirement we have in place for all those beneath the rank of State Legislator (excluding DNC members because they are "superdelegates" who vote at the nominating convention), local union chapters or divisions should, in my view, be deleted. For example, the Vermont AFL-CIO does not have a page. Similarly, the NYC chapter of the National Organization for Women does not have a page and should be cut. Ditto IBEW locals. Does anyone have an argument for keeping them?PotvinSux (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

State-level unions seem quite notable to me. (They are certainly more politically important than random celebrities or city councilmen - and this is reflected in the fact that state-level union endorsements do make headlines in the mainstream media. Local unions are somewhat less notable, but some are quite important (e.g., SEIU 32BJ is enormous and has its own article). In any case, I don't think we can justify taking the unions out while we still have quite marginal celebrities, some with exceedingly thin (or just plain wrong) sourcing, like Tweets. Neutrality^talk 03:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I agree this is worth discussing (the discussion never seems to get off the ground until someone acts but so it goes): In order not to make these subjective notability judgments, we installed the page requirement. The exceptions made were for: State Legislators - because the majority of that population has their own pages - and DNC members - because they vote at the convention. In these respects, local and/or state union chapters are more like city councilors - they are very, very many and the majority of them have not been considered sufficiently noteworthy to create pages. Just like municipal legislators, there are a few who are noteworthy enough to have their own pages - and you gave one example - but I think it is telling that the vast majority are not. As with celebrities, I struggle to see how to objectively approach the question of marginality (other than this page requirement). How do we decide who is a marginal celebrity and who is not? Are we really going to start counting Grammys? It seems the same with union locals - what threshold of workers represented justifies inclusion? What share of a union's locals chapters are necessary to warrant inclusion? Does any local chapter of any union anywhere in the US make the cut? One would then have to extend this logic to organizations in general, which are also often state-based, etc. It just seems untenable. PotvinSux (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, also on your sourcing point, which I think is separate - when a celeb. tweets "Feel the Bern" or whatnot it seems like a fairly unambiguous informal endorsement. We couldn't expect these folks to hold press conferences to announce their support, and yet I don't think that they "matter" any less. This is manifested in that the media often cover these kinds of endorsements, which then shapes ideas of who is "cool" or "in" among what subcultures (and has more influence on voters than it probably should). PotvinSux (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right that action usually prompts the discussion. I certainly agree that state legislators and DNC members should go on here. As for local officials - that is trickier. I would exclude extremely minor local officeholders such as precinct committeemen and committeewomen (who are elected in some states). I'd probably keep most others (anything countywide, such as sheriffs, plus maybe elected officers in cities over 5,000).

I disagree with you on the slogan tweets ("Feel the Bern" etc.) - I do not think these are unambiguous. It's an expression of support, sure, but not at the level of an endorsement, which would be more explicit. I think an "informal unambiguous" endorsement is sort of a contradiction in terms.

As to both the celebrities and the union locals, I think that the sourcing question and the notable question aren't separate. I think they're interlinked - i.e., if an endorsement is real and significant, some media outlet will publish it. So for these categories in particular, I would favor a "no primary sources rule" - i.e., each entry must be supported by at least one secondary source - so that a random Tweet, Facebook post, or blog entry would not qualify. If we enforce this rule, we could remove the marginal celebrities (and locals) in one fell swoop - according to an objective criterion, so we wouldn't be counting Grammys. Neutrality^talk 22:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Is a city councilor in a city of 10,000 more significant than a one-time drummer in a c-list punk rock band? I don't have an answer to that question - but whether or not they have a page seems like a reasonably objective measure so that I do not have to. Our cutting originally started because the Hillary section was growing so large as to be pushing technical limits (and threatens to begin doing so even as a standalone article) - next to spinning off the article, the most effective cutting we managed to do was of page-less mayors and local officials (and the vast majority of these belonged to cities and counties of more than 5k). If we are to consider some other criteria, drawing a figure for what is considered a significantly large city seems like a very arbitrary exercise. A secondary-sources only rule is far less arbitrary, but these are generally instituted to avoid bias - an endorsement is in and of itself partisan, so this doesn't strike me as appropriate. I think you're more saying that that the existence of secondary sources should be used as a marker of notoriety, but that is a criteria of notoriety for articles; the subsection for notoriety in lists explicitly states that the criteria for notoriety in articles need not necessarily apply.

As to the tweets, I do not think that an "informal endorsement" is a contradiction in terms because formality in the way I used it is a question of medium - not of authenticity. That is, one doesn't give an interview to his local reporter these days - instead, one tweets or posts to Facebook. Just because the former is more "formal" in a sense does not mean the latter is less significant as a sign of personal commitment. To the ambiguity of #FeeltheBern, one would not know to use the combination of words "FeeltheBern" without knowing that it is the slogan used to associated oneself with his candidacy. Ditto "ReadyforHillary." Where one says "Bernie Sanders looks interesting" as in the Spike Lee case (that was an interview, but nonetheless), I agree that that falls well short of the line, but when you're throwing out the campaign's main slogan, I think that is a fairly unambiguous show of support - because I think the vast majority of those who receive it interpret it as just that.

Back to the union local endorsements, I think these violate the criteria that we have in place at present (and that I think are holding up well). @Stabila711:,@Hugetim:, thoughts?PotvinSux (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As for the page requirements, can you please provide a source for the page requirements, so that I can have a review of it. State-wide and local union endorsements should be considered as endorsements, seconding @Neutrality:'s opinion. And as for celebrities tweeting 'Feel The Bern', it should be considered as an endorsement as it is noted in Sander's presidential election article that the message is an officially recognized slogan developed for the campaign. Book wormed (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The main editors of this page came to a consensus on a page requirement (see the longest thread here) as a way of staying within technological limits, maintaining neutral POV, and not needing to litigate each individual case based on increasingly arbitrary criteria. (I am sorry to keep removing these because I agree that it is somewhat contentious and requires discussion, but that seems to be the only way to get people to discuss.) Basically, my position on these is that they clearly violate the bounds of the page requirement as resolved at the time; though it was not originally my idea I have become protective of this page requirement because I think it is keeping us from becoming consumed in a Pandora's box worth of issues (for example whether a semi-famous guitarist is more important than a union local is more important that a council-member in a city of 250k people) for which I do not think we have ready or can develop answers, and which I think would probably inaugurate a needlessly contentious and worst of all fruitless circular conversation (I dread anything like what is going on with the GOP version of this article). I could see an argument for carving out exceptions for state chapters of organizations similar to what we have done for statewide legislators and DNC members (though not executive officials e.g. a liquor commissioner for some reason), but certainly not locals. Including all State Level people and orgs. would probably not tax technological considerations. As a separate issue, the AFL-CIO should not be on this list per the other threads on this talk page. I just have become desensitized to them, which is probably bad.PotvinSux (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of suspended candidates

Are we really removing the endorsements of the candidates that have suspended their campaigns? Wouldn't those endorsements still technically stand unless those people issued a new statement? I was just going to revert the removal but I thought I would ask for some other opinions first. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I would certainly retain them - notability isn't temporary, and this is supposed to be for the historical record. I might collapse them into a drop-down list. Neutrality^talk 03:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I just went ahead and undid the change. If someone wants to remove it again they can discuss it here. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering since we have restored Lessig's endorsement list, shouldn't we do the same courtesy to the other candidates who have proceeded with suspending their campaigns? In addition, I was thinking that we could possibly note down somewhere in their sections that these candidates have in fact, suspended their campaigns for further clarification. --Book wormed (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgetting to restore Jim Webb's section was an oversight on my part. I have restored the section. Chafee never had a section since he had no endorsements. I would be alright with putting a small blurb in the section of candidates that have suspended their campaign. --Stabila711 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I made the edit removing Lessig because I had thought that the removal of Webb was due to him dropping out. I see now that this was a mistake and I apologize. Carry on! 74.107.74.186 (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

They should stay. It's historical information that they were part of the history of the campaign. See Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012, List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 and other past campaigns. It's not just about 2016, the goal here is to write an encyclopedia of what happened. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved * "AFL-CIO Vermont and South Carolina divisions" under Bernie Sanders to be under Labor Unions instead of Organizations

I made this decision because the AFLCIO is a labor organization, same as the other unions listed. If this change seems incorrect, please let me know why. I also suggest, in case you don't consider the AFL-CIO to explicitly be a labor union, that you could change "Labor Unions" to read "Labor Organizations". Thoughts on both? 74.107.74.186 (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who opened the labour union section. I was conflicted at first, so I didn't add the union divisions. I'm fine with shifting labour organizations into the labour union section. --Book wormed (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Great! Does anyone have a dissent? Otherwise, I will make this change in 24 hours. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Its actually interesting that valid, credible and publicly declared union endorsements are permanently being tried to be bounced out, particularly by users that greatly contributed to expand and maintain a particular and competing political campaigns list of endorsements. It may be recommended that the particular user keeps his focus on the good house keeping he has demonstrated for the entries in the section of HRC, he has done a great job on keeping wikipedia up to date and readable. Focusing on all campaigns may be a little bit too much being asked for a single human being. I support the change and reinsertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.220.39.147 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now made this edit because there seems to be consensus agreement for it. Quick question, if I were to register for a Wikipedia account, would my edits transfer since it's the same IP? That's one thing that's keeping me using my raw IP as an ID. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

No they wouldn't transfer but you can put a link on your new user page to the IP's contribution page. The difference is that if the IP ever gets reassigned you could be linking to a page with contribs that you didn't do. --Stabila711 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! What's the benefit of registering over not registering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BENEFITS. If you do decide to make an account you should only edit logged in from that point forward. Switching back and forth between logged in and logged out can be misconstrued as sockpuppetry. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Lessig and Webb

We need to either add a note explaining that the two men suspended their campaign (at least within the Democratic Party) or to remove their endorsements. We can't just keep the endorsements like they are know. It's extremely misleading and lengthy.

I'll add a note because some might find them misleading - I don't think anyone would find them lengthy.PotvinSux (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that they should have their own collapsible section just like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I actually find that they are distracting, and would like to see them there for historical purposes, but not in the way.

As a secondary point, I don't know if it is possible, but it would be nice to have the people that have suspended their campaign to be auto-collapsed be default, whereas those that are still in the campaign would have them auto-opened?? Just an idea Ciscorucinski (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I modified the page to fulfil the primary point I said above. I also suggested a change to the Template on Endorsements Box to help display the content better as per the secondary point Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

IN NEED OF HELP TO ADD ALL NAMES OF MUNICIPAL AND COUNCILMEN FOR SANDER'S PAGE

Link: http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article43615482.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book wormed (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on this. Feel free to change the subheadings each person is listed under if you feel it's inappropriate. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This has now been completed. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we change Sanders's section to match O'Malley's, where there's a section for current and former Mayors and County Executives, and a section for current and former Municipal Leaders? It makes sense with the new addition. Also, wouldn't Annejanet Harp go into a statewide section? She works for the South Carolina Democratic party, not a local party.

That section in general can be seen as confusing, sure. I'm open to hearing suggestions. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should format O'Malley's to match Clinton and Sander's formatting. O'Malley seems out of place. In addition, thanks a lot for adding the new names onto the list. I'll see to working out O'Malley's section when I have time.--Book wormed (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome! 74.107.74.186 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Folks, due to technological constraints a page requirement was installed about a month ago for all municipal officials below state level. See the longest thread on this page.PotvinSux (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

why don't we bury then campaigns that ceased to exist, that are no more campaigns, with endorsements that are history. That would make for a good page requirement. I think national or state level organizations do not completely reflect the footing of the candidate BernieXYZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernieXYZ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere on this talk page, we leave those who have bowed out of the race because this page documents in part for posterity. Can you rephrase, "reflect the footing of the candidate?" I'm not sure what you mean. The "page requirement" means that we only include [officials below the state level] if they have a Wiki page. PotvinSux (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

To your question, its very simple, if a given candidate has disproportionally more endorsements by what's called "the national/Washington establishment", and another candidate has more support/endorsements on a state and local level, such fundamental differences in reflecting the profile of endorsements should be to my mind kept visible. But there is a new page, so plenty of space and time to agree new page requirements for that page. BernieXYZ —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no such mismatch in practice (and technological considerations preclude addressing theoretical concerns). Clinton had/has several hundred municipal politicians that were removed/have not been since included because the page was starting to grind to a halt when users attempted to edit it. From an NPOV standpoint there seems to be a consensus that if they can't be included for every candidate, they should not be included for any candidate - precisely to avoid this misconception.PotvinSux (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference Issues: Please note down in this section if you find any reference issues.

Just list down the candidate, the endorser and the issue at hand.--Book wormed (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 was just created.

Just noticed that List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 was just created. Should I and others be adding endorsements to Bernie's list from that page now instead of this one? 74.107.74.186 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor ones should go there so this page can be more of a summary. I think that's the way Clinton's is done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

They all automatically transclude from that one PotvinSux (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine but that's only a section from here. The minority stuff from here can be added there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what you are saying. No, all of the Clinton ones transclude onto here. Her page is already up to something like 80% of the size the original page was when it started to crash on people - adding back all of the removed page-less municipal and party officials (about 16%) and the ones she has accumulated since the article was spun off (definitely more than 4%) would take it over that tipping point again. So, we can't include her pageless ones here or on her own page. Bernie Sanders is a different story - so long as they do not transclude on to here, I don't think it would be an NPOV issue to list his page-less endorsers on his own page.PotvinSux (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Individuals" versus "Celebrities" versus ...

The distinction between "individuals", "celebrities", "leaders in business", and "Internet, radio, and television personalities" seems arbitrary and blurry. Does it serve any purpose? Alexbook (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Individuals might be like a catch-all term for those not fitting in those groups? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly how it has developed - we've just put people where they seem to fit best and if they don't quite fit anywhere else they go in "Individuals." In the half-year or more that this page has been around I don't think I've seen anyone complain about a placement or take offense if another editor moves one to another section. This leads me to believe it is not a cause for concern. I do think the categories are helpful - it might even be useful to have subcategories among celebrities (for musicians, actors, etc.) or in the Individuals section, but I do not feel strongly enough to go and do this.PotvinSux (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Verses / Head-to-Head Matchup View

I always come on here and compare the candidates by their endorsements. I always thought it would be nice to have an addition section for a comparison of all candidates. I have created a mockup view of what I mean with an online tool, but I would hope that it could be more indepth. https://www.diffchecker.com/e8zgtckx Ciscorucinski (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

As a secondary point, I think the categories should be edited to be the same across candidates. In the link above, Hillary has "Labor Unions" but Bernie Sanders has "Labor Organizations" and is further subdivided into smaller categories. These categories should be consistent across candidates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscorucinski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)