Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential forums/Archive 1

Forum tables
What would be your thoughts in making the display of candidates attending forums more visual by using tables similar to the debates, like this:

{{legend|#e0e0e0|Past forums}}

SCC California (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've also thought about doing this before and am open to the idea. It should be noted when a candidate was not actively campaigning for the nomination as a forum was being held (ex. instead of listing Bennet as "absent" for the Heartland Forum, it'd be better to list him as "exploring" or something similar). Otherwise, I think this would be useful. - EditDude (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've made some changes to this effect above. One question: Tim Ryan declared his candidacy on April 4, so he would be marked as out of race for forums before that. However, he attended the Heartland Forum on March 30. I have currently marked him as present there but out of race for the next forum on April 4 - this seems to be the best but still imperfect. Do you see any better alternative? SCC California (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that we should add a note next to Ryan's entry for the Heartland Forum noting that he hadn't formally declared his candidacy at the time. I've added a note to the table to demonstrate, let me know what you think. - EditDude (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I like it (though the "along with several other candidates" part may not be necessary). SCC California (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe something else (like TBA) should be added to the legend for the second table? Right now, it looks like no one is planning to attend the last two forums (which probably isn't the case). David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Was just coming here to say this very thing  Nevermore27  (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I tried adding "TBA" to the table yesterday, but it looks like the "TBA" needs to be added to a template (which I don't know how to do). I got a red link when I previewed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To me, the best thing to do would be to change "plans not to attend" to "doesn't plan to attend" - it is true that (at least publicly), no candidates are planning to attend. Otherwise, the distinction between N and TBD seems hard to place (it's unclear to the public when it's too late for candidates to sign up). I have made this change for now. SCC California (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there no "unknown"?  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * @Nevermore27 my concern with using something like "unknown" is that there is no clear threshold for when it should switch from that to not planning to attend. The time at which candidates must have made up their mind for each forum is not available to the public. SCC California (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The easy (to my mind) solution is that you say "Unknown" until the forum passes, and by then you know. It's more accurate than putting "planning not to attend".  Nevermore27  (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I love the new table, good work everyone. Relieves strain on the first table and creates a valuable visualization of how many forums each individual candidate has attended vs. missed.  Agree that in some cases it's desirable to wait until during/after the forum to confirm candidate attendance.  In the case of the recent PPC Forum, everyone had Castro listed as a confirmed attendee until his flight got canceled last minute and he couldn't attend.  I also agree the legend could use some further clarification.  We editors here understand it perfectly, but looking at it through the lens of Wikipedia as a primer for many readers: "Out of race" and "Withdrawn" may sound the same, and in some sense they are (not yet a candidate --> not a candidate <-- no longer a candidate).  I might suggest combining these or at least clarifying "Out of race" to something more like "Not yet a candidate."  "I" for "Plans to attend" may be confusing.  "Has not announced intent to attend" is not the same as "Has announced intent to NOT attend," and shouldn't be combined into a single thing.  Instead of separating these items in the legend, why not just leave the upcoming forum cells blank until a candidate (or the forum sponsor, or a credible news outlet) announces his/her intent one way or the other?  --USPrezDebates (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think those are good suggestions. I have combined the out of race and withdrawn into one category (stilled called "out of race") and took away the NIs (they can be replaced for those that have confirmed that they will not be attending, but I don't think there are any in that category now). SCC California (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda inclusion/exclusion
I think that Richard Ojeda should be included in the debate table because he was considered a major candidate (represented with a W just like others after they will drop out). JFG removed him from the table, so I am hoping others will weigh in as well. Thanks SCC California (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that all major candidates (including Ojeda) should be included in the table. Perhaps there could be a designation in the table like "campaign suspended," to make clear that the reason that Ojeda, and any future major candidate to drop out, did not participate in the debate was that they were no longer actively running. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ninja edit: When I first looked at the table I did not see the W for withdrawn. In that case, the table is fine as it is. Apologies for double posting :). Jacoby531 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's appropriate to include him in the debate table because he dropped out long before debates were even a thing. But I'm open to getting convinced by other editors, if consensus develops this way. — JFG talk 18:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to leave him out of the debate table. If people want to know why he wasn't in the debates, there are ample opportunities for them to learn that in this very article. In the second paragraph of the lead, it says, "so far only one (Ojeda) opted to withdraw before the first official debates". The next time his name comes up is in the "Withdrawn candidates" section, which states that he suspended his campaign January 25, 2019. The timeline graph shows his candidacy ending well before the first debate line, and the timeline section mentions him three times, the third of which is his dropping out of the race. In the "Campaign finance" table, his row is grayed out to indicate that he is a withdrawn candidate. And if they are still baffled by Ojeda's exclusion from the debates, they can refer to the first paragraph of the Richard Ojeda article or the second paragraph of the Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree he should not be in the table. He dropped out way too early to be included in the table. I think you should have to be an active candidate at the time the debate invitees are announced to be included there. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * An IP editor has now removed him from the table, and it does not look like we are moving to consensus to include him again. — JFG talk 14:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. To me, the reason to include him wouldn't be because, as Metropolitan90 suggests, readers wouldn't be able to figure out why he isn't in the table - it is more for consistency. Because he was considered a major candidate by Wikipedia, he is included in these various other tables, and I see little reason to make a difference in this one. Plus, how long in advance of the first debate must "long before" (JFG), "way too early" (Rreagan007), or "well before" (165.189.65.43) be? These seem to be wholly subjective measures. As Danish Expert | pointed out, he withdrew after the preliminary debate schedule was announced. SCC California (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that the primary race only really started in January 2019, as everybody and their dog announced their candidacies. Ojeda decided at this time that he wouldn't join that crowd, so his candidacy was never really pitted against any other entrant. All the others have pressed on, and are striving to get a spot in the debates; Ojeda doesn't, so he should not be included in that particular table. — JFG talk 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion is exactly as SCC California described above. As a major candidate, Ojeda should be included in the debate overview table for consistency throughout the article, with a W displayed for all 12 debates. If another major candidate (i.e. Messam/Moulton) decides to withdraw on June 15, due to realising he had no realistic path to qualify for future debates and did not qualify for "debate 1", this extra 2nd withdrawn major candidate shall likewise not be entirely excluded from the debate table, but just like Ojeda be listed with a W for all 12 debates.
 * The consistency argument for including Ojedea in the debate table, is that all major candidates (incl. Ojeda) are also listed in the campaign finance table, and we have a line in the lead of the article saying: "As of May 2019, a total of 25 major candidates have entered the race to be elected as the Democratic Party presidential nominee, of which so far only one (Ojeda) opted to withdraw before the first official debates.".
 * Ojeda had an active campaign from Nov.11-2018 to Jan.25-2019, and the preliminary schedule for the 12 DNC debates (along with info that qulification to these would be decided by a polling criteria and fundraising criteria to be specified in January) was announced on Dec.20-2018. DNC subsequently only specified its debate criteria on Feb.14-2019.
 * I think it would be wrong (incorrect) and confusing, if we decide status for major candidates in the debate table would only be listed for those who were active on/after the date of either "when the first debate was held" (June 26) or "when DNC specified its debate criteria" (Feb.14). What is the argument/need for excluding the withdrawn status for the 1 or 2 major candidates who withdrew before the date of the first debate? The argument for inclusion is consistency, plus you then also get a complete (and not incomplete) overview of the status for all major candidates by a stand alone look at the debate table itself. Danish Expert (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, the difference is simple: Ojeda withdrew his candidacy even before there was a path to getting into the debates. All other candidates so far are in the race trying to get a spot on the scene. Even if somebody else withdraws prior to a debate, for example because they did not make the cut and are giving up, they should still be listed. Ojeda is for all intents and purposes a non-candidate; he campaigned for a couple months, including the inactive holiday season, and bowed out. That's the end of the story. — JFG talk 20:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argumentation is bad. Ojeda comply with the article criteria of being a "major candidate", and should therefore be treated as such along with a W letter to note that he has now withdrawn. Just like we will do for all the 23 other major candidates who will eventually also withdraw at a later point in the race.
 * The article has not defined your now proposed extra criteria for candidates to be deemed major, saying that candidates now also "need to have been active for min. 3 months (and only counting after the christmas holiday)" or "need to have been active after there was a path to getting into the debates (which I presume you refer to then should be the Feb.14-2019 date when DNC specified their debate quallification criteria)". Such extra criteria for candidates to meet before being deemed major candidates (who deserve their status mentioned in the tables), does not make any sence from a scientific/logic point of view. If Ojeda as an active candidate met the wikipedia article's definition of being Major in Jan.2019, then based on a scientific/logic argument he was also one of the major candidates in the "2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries" as of Jan.2019, and should be treated as such also after the day he decided to withdraw on Jan.2 (changing his status from an "active major candidate" to a "withdrawn major candidate"). Danish Expert (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that the treatment of major candidates needs to be identical in each section of the article. The purpose of the Candidates section is different from the purpose of the Debates section. A row consisting entirely of W's seems unnecessary.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I allege that Richard Ojeda should not be considered a major candidate; neither did I suggest any "proposed extra criteria". I only pointed out that his candidacy expired long before the debates, and as he never tried to, or had a chance of, being present in the debates, his name has no legitimacy in a table summarizing information about the debates. — JFG talk 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @JFG I think that the core of your argument against including Ojeda - "It could be argued that the primary race only really started in January 2019, as everybody and their dog announced their candidacies." - is false. The start of the primary race began when John Delaney announced his candidacy, just like the article recounts; the fact that several candidates declared after he dropped out is frankly irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that he was treated no differently by Wikipedia than any other major candidate, and there seems no reason for this to change now simply because he dropped out a long time ago. Thanks for sharing your opinion. SCC California (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I've got another argument that does not depend on anybody's opinion, but is fully in line with WP:RS and WP:V policies: there is no source that talks about Ojeda potentially joining the debates. — JFG talk 21:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you've made it clear that you are more interested in the outcome being your favored one than it being what makes most sense (which could be either way), seemingly in complete contrast to your earlier statement that you were "open to getting convinced by other editors." As to your new justification: nowhere in the article (this one or the old one) does it mention talk about the possibilities of various candidates getting into the debates. The table is a compilation of information from a collection of reliable sources sharing, for each candidate, their status regarding each debate: present, absent, invited, invited to other debate, not invited, or withdrawn. SCC California (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Remember, the fellow WITHDREW from the race before the debates were scheduled. Hew is no longer a candidate and therefore shouldn’t be included. Arglebargle79 (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was indeed "open to getting convinced by other editors", and the more I read arguments in this thread, the less I was convinced. It's that simple. Regarding the outcome of the discussion, we both want "what makes sense", but what makes sense to you is the opposite of what makes sense to me. We're done here, just agree to disagree. — JFG talk 06:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

As per your previous reply you agreed Ojeda should be defined and treated as one and the same as all other major candidates participating in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. The argument from me and SCC California, is that for consistency reasons all of the article's overview tables should list all major candidates (with a denoted W or special color, to note those who withdrew). All those 25 major candidates having launched a campaign in the 2020 cycle were potential participants for the debates, from the very moment they launched their active campaign. If they withdrew before the first debate, this is also valuable information for a "debate overview table" to show.

DNC scheduled the 12 debates on Dec.20-2018, then Ojeda withdrew as a candidate Jan.25-2019, and DNC specified its qualification criteria for its first 2 debates on Feb.14-2019. Your argument that Ojeda should not be included by the "overview debate table" because he withdrew before Feb.14-2019, does not make any sence from a logic point of view. Excluding Ojeda to be listed in the "qualification table for the first debate", is however a point where your argument makes a lot more sence, and here I agree (which is also so far undisputed and supported by the current version of the article´s qualification table).

In contrast to the more detailed "qualification table for the first debate" (which only cover a more narrow time span ahead of each debate), the more general "debate overview table" however sums up the debate status for all major candidates participating in the 2020 primary race (covering the entire time scope of the 2020 primary race, meaning 2017-2020). Excluding Ojeda from this overview table would be wrong and inconsistent compared to how the rest of the wikipedia article has handled all other overview tables for the major candidates, because this "debate overview table" simply is expected to provide an overview for the entire time span of the race, and readers will only find it helpful and informative to see that Ojeda withdrew before the first debate, as he has a W noted for all 12 debates.

So including the W status for Ojeda only in the "debate overview table" is both helpful and consistent. FYI a few articles were also published elaborating on the chance for Ojeda to participate in the debates, i.e. I found this 538 article from Jan.15-2019. But to which degree articles have written about the debate participating prospects for Ojeda is really besides the point of my argument. My argument goes, that as official DNC debates (just like collecting campaign finances is) are an integrated part of the 2020 election event, then all overview tables for these elements of the election event, should also include the names/status of all major candidates taking part in the election event - irrespectively of the date they opted to withdraw. Danish Expert (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your point of view perfectly, no need to expound on it. I just disagree, for reasons explained above by me and others, and I won't expound further. Open an RfC if you think this is particularly important. — JFG talk 15:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that might actually be called for given there has been significant edit-warring even during this discussion (eg: |1 |2) SCC California (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

''I have moved this discussion to this new, more appropriate page. Pinging other contributors: JFG Jacoby531 Metropolitan90 Rreagan007 Danish Expert Spiffy sperry''
 * Instead of devoting a separate row to Ojeda, it would be preferable to add a note below the table to say that Ojeda withdrew before the debates began. This would avoid cluttering the table any more than it already will be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda needs to be included There is no mention on him elsewhere on the page, and as a major candidate he needs to be included in the article somewhere. Candidates such as Messam are unlikely to make the debate, but I doubt anybody considers it wasted space. Ojeda needs to be included so readers know that he had already withdrawn prior to the debates. It may not look good, but the job of Wikipedia is to make information accessible, not aesthetic. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would understand including him if the topic was about the 2020 Democratic Candidates as a whole. The name of this article is "2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums". Why include someone who has nothing to do with? -Npnunda


 * He withdrew barely after the debates were even announced, he doesn't have a place in this particular article. He is included in the main article, so it's not like we're burying him. But he's just not relevant to debates/forums side of the race.  Nevermore27  (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Can Someone Update The Forum List?
Can someone update the fifteenth forum to include the fact that Tim Ryan and Bill De Blasio did not attend despite being scheduled to? (This was a result of logistical and scheduling problems.) I can't do it myself due to inexperience with editing charts. PoliticalBoi (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. JRSpriggs (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Could someone help update the Forums table?
According to this LA Times article, "Marianne Williamson was expected to attend but canceled because of a scheduling conflict, organizers said." Could someone update the table to reflect this? And possibly replace the original source as well, since it leads to a dead page. Thanks. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's the citation for convenience: Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just update that. Thanks Bobbychan193. SCC California (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we keep the number of entries in any one of the forum tables as large as possible without exceeding or expanding the page margin, please? There are almost going to be a lot more forums, and we may as well try to keep the section as compact as practically possible. In the absence of any objections, I'll make the change now. PutItOnAMap (talk) 1:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC + 1)

Philadelphia Council AFL–CIO conference
Is the Philadelphia Council AFL–CIO conference notable enough to be included in the list/table of forums? Multiple candidates, including Yang, Biden, etc. have participated. If it is notable enough, if someone could add it, that'd be great. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * News article
 * Full video
 * I don't see any reason not to include it. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. I'd appreciate it if anyone can double check for formatting or other errors. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The video of the livestream was up yesterday, but it doesn't seem to work anymore, so I didn't include it as a citation. If the full video gets published on YouTube or somewhere, feel free to add it. Bobbychan193 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I looked up the name of the conference and got a video of Yang speaking but couldnt find anyone else. I've put the link here. I don't think it is fair to only include Yang, though, so until further notice I say we wait until it gets uploaded in full. WittyRecluse (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article I cited is enough for proof that those six candidates attended. I agree that we should not add a video source that only includes Yang. Also, that video was uploaded by a third party, which might not be ideal for citation purposes. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes in forum participation table
Would people object if I removed the notes on the forum participation table that say which day a certain candidate appeared or give candidates' reasons for not appearing at a given forum? I think that information is better suited for the individual campaign pages and definitely does not belong in the table. The notes have also, at least on my screen, extended the table to the right of the margin. WMSR (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections here. Bobbychan193 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

major forum with multiple candidates to be added
On Friday Nov.8th, there will be a Presidential Forum on Environmental Justice: “Moving Vulnerable Communities from Surviving to Thriving,” with several candidates (Warren, Booker, Steyer, Williamson, Delany, Sestak) attending. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! and former EPA official Mustafa Ali will co-host as moderators. A few of the more than two dozen organizations involved include the National Black Caucus of Legislators, South Carolina State University, Children's Environmental Health Network, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Mom's Clean Air Force, National Children's Campaign, the National Wildlife Federation, and leaders from frontline and tribal communities. Lead media partners include Grist, Democracy Now, and Gizmodo. It will be live streamed on DemocracyNow.org. Could someone please add it to the list? https://www.democracynow.org/events/2019/11/amy_goodman_comoderates_first_ever_presidential_forum_on_environmental_justice_1535 https://freespeech.org/announcements/tune-in-nov-8th-6pm-et-to-watch-the-2019-presidential-forum-on-environmental-justice-live/ https://ejpresforum.org/press/ WordwizardW (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! WittyRecluse (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Table Fontsize
Recent good faith edits have been made expanding the size of the tables for forum participation on the basis of MOS: font-size. However, for a typical monitor/zoom level, this means both participation tables cannot be easily viewed at the same time. IMO the former form of presentation was worthy of the smaller table size. If there are no objections, I'll revert this. PutItOnAMap (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Second Step Presidential Justice Forum award
That section is interesting, but completely off topic here, Trump vs. Harris has nothing to do with the Democratic Party presidential debates. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E30:3170:968:2492:516A:E2DE (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump vs. Harris. –84.46.53.211 (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)