Talk:List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

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

January 2020[edit]

While I agree that there was recruiting done to clean up the page, it does not appear that there was any bias in doing so. All changes seem to be relevant, neutral and well-cited. Thoerner (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection warranted?[edit]

It seems that Yang's supporters are constantly adding endorsements that fail WP:ERFC. At this point, it's fair to consider this bad-faith/vandalism given that it's repeatedly happening. I think we may have met the criteria for WP:SEMI. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request made. This needs to stop. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree. You keep deleting endorsements that are of historic value. Where I do agree that some endorsements are badly cited, a lot of endorsements that are cited by a tweet are immediately deleted without any hesitation. This is not how WP:ERFC is intended. In this day and age endorsements are made public on Twitter. Where I do agree that not every tweet claiming something can be used, I think that tweets that come from that person directly can be seen as an endorsement under the condition that it is unquestionably an endorsement (specifically stating 'endorse' or something similar); it should be reliable, well, more reliable then the source itself is impossible. This is exactly in line with WP:ERFC. Now, any endorsement with a citation to Twitter is deleted without making a true distinguishment.

Example: Mike Honda, the citation leads to a tweet stating that he is endorsing Andrew Yang. This tweets includes a video of the person in question literally saying that he is endorsing AY. Deleting these kind of endorsements to me, comes across as complete denial of the facts. It is just easy but sloppy deleting work some people do.

I am beginning to sense that the ones deleting (dozens of) endorsements at once have a political bias, excluding the ones that actually put effort into getting the wrong ones out. If we consider similar pages of other democratic nominees, you can clearly see a lot of endorsements referring to a tweet. On one hand, I am glad that this wikipedia page is thoroughly scrutinized to avoid this page being disingenuous, but on the other hand, I do think this page is being vandalized regularly in the sense that users delete entire lists of endorsements without proper discussion. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ERFC. The following criteria were debated and decided. "This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources" and "This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example." Therefore, citing Honda's own tweet(s) do not meet these criteria. I don't know how this could be any clearer or more unambiguous. Endorsements can only be included if they are covered by reliable, independent sources (e.g. news organizations). I'm not sure that you understand, primary, self-published sources are not "independent." The fact that Rep. Honda is making the endorsement himself in his own tweet in his own twitter account is exactly the problem. See WP:IS. Also, please, please look through WP:ERFC. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Stoepkrijtske and Global Cerebral Ischemia: I've found two non-Twitter sources. One is from "Savvy Progress" and the other is from the University of Washington's The Daily. Both sources can be considered independent. The first source includes the video, which is primary-source material and pretty much unambiguous. The latter seems to be an opinion piece, so I did not cite that one.
As for the RFC, I still have the same stances I outlined in my responses to each of the three criteria. However, as I respect community consensus, I have been removing incorrect/unsourced/poorly sourced endorsements. Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found a third source. From the website, Rafu Shimpo "has been the nation's leading Japanese American newspaper since its original publication". This source seems a little more reliable than the Savvy Progress one, so I will swap the two sources. Bobbychan193 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bobby! Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Global Cerebral Ischemia, Stoepkrijtske, and Bobbychan193: Now this is good. You are now making real distinguishments instead of ruthlessly deleting it.
Also in response to what you said about WP:ERFC (read: "This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources"), like I said earlier, I don't think you need to follow the criteria literally where they only approve articles. You should also realize that WP:ERFC can be interpreted slightly differently, since you already gave an example of a primary-source material which is unambiguous and reliable despite it being a tweet. So it is of importance to act in the spirit of WP:ERFC. In addition to that, I would like to refer to the notes at WP:ERFC and more specifically WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." But I think my point has come across now and you have also shown the willingness to distinguish citations from one another. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in support of WP:SEMI. Anonymous users keep adding a lot of unreliable content or they delete a lot of existing content. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ERFC is clear, and it is not something that you can just ignore. Please be aware that people who disruptively edit topics under discretionary sanctions can be topic banned. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I am pointing out is that WP:ERFC includes several notes (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) which literally nobody mentions here. Also nobody here wants to ignore WP:ERFC. As can be seen in the discussion above, eventually there was consensus about a particular example. Hence it is in line with WP:ERFC: "In deletion discussions, a lack of consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept."
Wikipedia is a place where we are and should be able to discuss the contents freely and critically despite of different views. Implying that someone can be banned for disagreeing with (often tremendous) list deletions is not my cup of tea. I have been contributing to this page since December 2019. I have added quite some endorsements, maintained the page and deleted endorsements or changed sources in case they were unreliable: this is all verifiable. As can be viewed in the history, some editors choose the easy way out by deleting entire lists of endorsements: that is what I call disruptive. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying anything. I'm explicitly telling you that I will either topic ban or block people who ignore that RFC. That means no citations to Twitter, Instagram, or other self-published primary sources when the endorsement is from an individual. For organizations, consensus can decide whether to include it. But please note that this is not a "deletion discussion"; that would be WP:XFD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It was becoming tiresome & tedious to point out WP:ERFC only to be ignored over and over. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weaknesses of WP:ERFC[edit]

While I do not disagree with the spirit of ERFC (with the goal of curating the most important and interesting information), I do question the arbitrariness of it. The weakness of ERFC shows in a situation where either: 1- The candidate is not popular enough, or the endorser is not popular enough. 2- Systematic information suppression and censorship exists in said country. Note here that I used the word "popular" and not "notable". Notability is NOT the same as popularity! A notable individual can be unpopular, and thus, have no independent coverage, especially if censorship exists. For an extreme example, consider a very prominent neo-nazi that endorses some candidate in Germany, no independent news will cover that endorsement since it is illegal! Confusing notability with popularity is a dangerous rabbit hole, and I really question the execution of ERFC when users remove dozens of endorsements without discussion. Wiki-asd-97 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bari Weiss[edit]

Does this article by Bari Weiss count as an endorsement? I haven't had time to carefully read the whole thing, so I don't really have an opinion. Did do a Ctrl+F for "endorse", but there wasn't anything relating to Weiss. The last paragraph, however, does reveal her stance... "If getting Yanged means that I believe that this curious campaign is a cause for that rarest thing in current American politics — hope — and that Mr. Yang is modeling how to harness the populist energy that otherwise threatens to tear us apart, then count me #YangGang." What does everyone think? Bobbychan193 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you.I just read whole article before I happen to find her name here.Her article includes conditions,as you say,"If getting Yanged means...".But my native language is not English.I hope other people write what they think too.Paperworkorange (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Then count me #YangGang." Looks like an endorsement to me. Stoepkrijtske (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Andrew_Yang_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements&oldid=1212743253"