Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

Andrew Yang
For future discussions, I would think this may be helpful to note. In their mid-day coverage of Kamala Harris' announcement (which came this morning) CNN displayed a photo of Yang in their gallery of candidates, alongside only the major candidates. Additionally, NYT appears to regard him as a major candidate. Not arguing for him to be considered as such here, but rather providing supporting evidence which may be useful to those wishing to make that case going forward. I, myself, am not convinced of the matter. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with the current mid-January influx of candidates, a number of "2020 watch" articles have appeared on mainstream news sites. Many have included Yang and none of his companions in the "minor candidates" gallery. These include NYT, as you said, along with The Independent and Axios. However, he was omitted in an ABC Article talking about prospective candidates. It's a difficult position to decide whether he is major or minor. Yet more evidence in his favor though, is that he has appeared at one of those Democratic "cattle call" events, according to Iowa starting line, along with Buttigieg, Merkley, Swalwell and the two Iowan Congresswomen-elect, Cindy Axne and Abby Finkenauer. I think this gives him some legitimacy. However, it's still difficult to place him, with my belief being that he is major, but will end up like Lawrence Lessig - not invited to debates, despite a decent amount of proper grassroots support. EDIT: As we seem to attempt to be forming consensus, I'd Support, citing a growing media presence and the precedent of Lawrence Lessig. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Continuing with mainstream coverage, both Fortune and the BBC mentioning him amongst the major candidates (with no mention of the other minor candidates). I think it's time to move him into the major candidates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Mélencron (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Judging by what the reliable sources seem to be showing now, I'd support the inclusion of Yang as a major candidate in this article for now at least. Clearly in a different league to the other "minor candidates". Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment– Yang has been included in a list of candidates and potential candidates by 538, too, whereas none of the other "minor" candidates have. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 03:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support for major candidate. Appears in the NYT and on an early CNN polling with major candidates. Had his own full length campaign article until it was merged. He also has been covered by Rolling Stone, CNBC, The Washington Times, Fortune (which lists all of the major candidates we have AND it includes Yang), and CNN (includes him on the list with Castro, Delaney, Harris, Gabbard and Ojeda all of which are considered "major" here). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait for now, sources are not describing Yang as a "major candidate" and that is something up to our interpretation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Include – Recent sources give him equal status with other major candidates. — JFG talk 12:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this seems like serious cherry-picking of sources to me, based on a quick Google News search for such listicles of likely/expected candidates (and again, the point isn't the exact number but that Yang isn't treated with anywhere near the prominence of other declared/potential candidates):
 * Oppose for now, per above. Maybe he will be considered a major candidate in the future, maybe not. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now - I'm waiting for the Q4 fundraising numbers (by Jan 31) to have an opinion. There's currently no consensus among media organizations on how to treat Yang (or Ojeda); until there is better data about their campaigns it will be hard to make a definitive statement.  For better or for worse, money raised will be the key factor that the media and political operatives look at. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The accusation of cherry-picking sources would, at first glance, appear to be valid. However, I was preferencing recent sources from mid-January to show that his stature has changed somewhat from when he announced, with his omission being the exception now, not the rule. I also preferenced major national news sites (as opposed to local ones), and gathered my sources through search queries such as "2020 candidates", and "2020 democratic candidates", omitting queries about Yang himself. Like I said, we've come to the point where him getting mentioned is (at this moment) the exception, not the rule, and I believe that the disparity in numbers vs present coverage in media is due to his campaign efforts in raising awareness.NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what we're going to be able to learn from the Q4 fundraising numbers. Most of the more prominent candidates didn't file with the FEC until after January 1, so they won't be reporting for 2018 Q4. Hopefully Tom Perez will announce the debate entry guidelines before the end of the month, as he had previously said he would. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Under current criteria, Yang would not be considered a major candidate, since he hasn't held public office nor has he been included in 5 independent national polls (in fact, he hasn't been included in any independent national polls as far as I know). So including him would mean that another criterion would have to be defined to get him to be classified as major. I don't know what that criterion would be, nor do I see an objective criterion being proposed here (which ought to apply to any candidate who happens to satisfy the criterion). And in any event, I don't like the idea of redefining the criteria with the goal of bringing certain candidates in or keeping certain candidates out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose IAR here. Yang doesn't meet any of our criteria, and hasn't been included in a single independent national poll.  As a tech-focused candidate like Lessig, his candidacy will have an outsize presence in many Wikipedians' social circles, but we should keep in mind the systemic bias of this and shouldn't just bend the rules.  In the wider electoral world, he is about as "major" a candidate as Williamson, although she appeals to a different constituency.  Both certainly have the potential to gain in prominence to become major candidates, but we'd need some sort of objective criteria to judge that (the current criteria or a reasonable variation).--Pharos (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't that more of a sign that the criteria should be changed? I mean... some of the other candidates haven't been included in five national polls either. The only difference between, say, Yang and Buttigieg is that the latter has held elected office... and I don't think Wikipedia should be inventing an arbitrary criterion like that to distinguish major from minor candidates. Wikipedia should be following what the reliable sources say, and the RS are generally treating Yang on the same par as all of the other candidates which are labelled "major". I don't think the local consensus should override the general principle of following reliable sources. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 00:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support another Emerson poll included Yang . The Des Moines Register is covering him as a major candidate  .  And his Q4 fundraising  of ~$150k compares favorably to Delaney  ($125k + $1million from Delaney) or Ojeda  ($57k + $42k rollover from his House committee).  I see no reason not to list him as a major candidate so long as the likes of Ojeda and Buttigieg are included there. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * support how many polls has Yang been in already? I pretty sure Emerson isn't the first one. Anyway he should be in the major candidates sooner rather than later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C8:C000:F900:EDCB:C5AB:37F0:76AE (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In an analogy to 2016, in regards to media attention and fundraising, it appears that Yang is shaping up to be more like a Lawrence Lessig than a Willie Wilson/Rocky De La Fuente. I am leaning more towards including him as a major candidate (like we did Lessig), but am not entirely convinced yet. I find no urgency, and am also fine with waiting some more. SecretName101 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yang just tweeted another poll . I expect that he'll meet the "5 poll" threshold by the end of the month.  I'd prefer to just move him now, but don't see a compelling reason to rush if people are hesitant.  power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also feel that Rocky de la Fuente would be a "major candidate" compared to the likes of Harry Braun but don't expect to find consensus on that point. From Results of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries: Two candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, appeared on all 57 ballots. Two others, Martin O'Malley and Rocky De La Fuente, appeared in over 30 states and six others appeared on between two and ten states. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the threshold of five independent national polls mean specifically polls of the nation, or does it mean polls conducted by independent national polling groups, because if it is the former, Yang is at 1, and if it is the latter, Yang is at 3 if I understand correctly. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If above is correct, Yang is at 4 since the Feb 15th McLaughlin & associates poll included him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildcoconut (talk • contribs) 07:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yang RFC
Should Andrew Yang (entrepreneur) be listed as a "major candidate" on 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There's been a lot of discussion over the past month with no consensus, and Yang's prominence has increased. The "5 poll" rule appears to have existed since time immemorial, and unfairly biases the page towards elected officials. Discussion below suggests that some feel the unknown mayor of a Miami suburb (with a city manager system) would be a major candidate, while Yang (and also Marianne Williamson), who are running bona-fide campaigns and regularly the subject of substantial news coverage in high-profile sources, are not. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that we should make any exceptions to the rule for Yang or anyone else, but I do think that a change of the criteria is well in order. I personally think that we should remove the elected official criterion and make five polls (or fewer if people prefer) the only one. I agree with Power~enwiki that it is currently biased toward people who have held offices, while that is no longer as much of a requirement today. By only including those who have been included in some number of polls in the major candidates section, it will be biased toward people generally thought of as worth polling, regardless of their previous experience. SCC California (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My view is that the "criteria" should be abolished in favor of "major candidates are whomever the talk page agrees are major candidates" - with a note for the future that members of Congress and state governors are presumed notable. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that Yang should be listed as a major candidate, and instead that the bar for who is considered a "minor candidate" is raised – Yang and Williamson are really the only two serious minor candidates in that list, as I've emphasized before, as the only two among them who have made multi-day visits with numerous events in Iowa and New Hampshire; none of the rest are actively campaigning or receiving any #FITN press coverage. Mélencron (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - Sorry to ask a dumb question, but I'm new to this kind of question; where is the 5-poll rule enunciated? NickCT (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's simply in the article text and stands so long as there's not a consensus to change it - I'm not sure when/where there was initially consensus for it, I believe it carried over from articles on the 2016 primary cycle. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 23:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that 5-poll rule should be the determinant and discard whether they are elected officials.   The article saying elected “or” 5 polls seems wrong if it could mean a mayor of small town with no polls gets shown, but someone with nonzero numbers in 4 polls would not.  While the surprise successes are rare, it should be recognized if its happening.  I would think prior elected results have a better chance — but until they show on polls that seems ‘not yet major’.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, and change rules – Yang has received enough continued coverage to qualify as a major candidate. Buttigieg on the other hand is nowhere to be seen, but considered "major" just because he's been a small-city mayor. This does look inconsistent, and we should make the abundance of RS coverage the key criterion for calling a candidate "major". As everywhere on Wikipedia. — JFG talk 10:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Get rid of major/minor distinction and instead put everyone in the same list, with notability determining whether or not they make that list. If they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, they are notable enough for the list. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this. Buttigieg and Yang are showing that the distinction is very fine between major and minor candidates. It seems rather arbitrary to keep it under these circumstances. 137.122.64.159 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's not throw the baby with the bath water. This article states that there are currently 189 candidates. No way we should give them all equal weight! — JFG talk 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with this. I can understand how tempting it is, but this wouldn't serve readers well.  We do need to indicate (and make it easy to find) the ones who are receiving massive national coverage as distinct from the ones who have a bare minimum required to mention them here in passing.  --Aquillion (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Andrew Yang has stated he has met all the criteria to meet the debate stage in June. What is the criteria for being a major declared candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.230.7 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Debate criteria
Now that we have criteria for who will be participating in the debates, I was trying to find a good source for which candidates (claim to) meet those criteria. This might also be more useful than trying to distinguish "major" and "minor" candidates. To qualify, candidates need to register at least 1% of support in at least three state or national polls approved by the party, or have received donations from at least 65,000 people, including a minimum of 200 people in 20 states. Bovlb (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So far there has only been one (or two, if you count the open-ended ABC/Post poll) early-state/national polls that are within the list of pollsters approved by the DNC published this year (the other being Monmouth), so the polling criteria can't be validated yet for any candidate. Mélencron (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the list of approved pollsters? I was looking for it but haven't seen it yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

From the DNC press release:
 * DETAILS ON THRESHOLD FOR PARTICIPATION:
 * Democratic candidates may qualify for the first and second debate by meeting one of the two following sets of criteria:

Mélencron (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Polling Method: Register 1% or more support in three polls (which may be national polls, or polls in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and/or Nevada) publicly released between January 1, 2019, and 14 days prior to the date of the Organization Debate. Qualifying polls will be limited to those sponsored by one or more of the following organizations/institutions:Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Des Moines Register, Fox News, Las Vegas Review Journal, Monmouth University, NBC News, New York Times, National Public Radio (NPR), Quinnipiac University, Reuters, University of New Hampshire, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Winthrop University.  Any candidate’s three qualifying polls must be conducted by different organizations, or if by the same organization, must be in different geographical areas.
 * Grassroots Fundraising Method. Candidates may qualify for the debate by demonstrating that the campaign has received donations from at least (1) 65,000 unique donors; and (2) a minimum of 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 U.S. states. To demonstrate that the fundraising threshold has been reached, candidates must provide verifiable evidence, which they may do by authorizing ActBlue and/or NGP VAN to provide that evidence.
 * If more than 20 candidates qualify for the debate, the top 20 candidates will be selected using a methodology that gives primacy to candidates meeting both thresholds, followed by the highest polling average, followed by the most unique donors.
 * Agree. The DNC has laid out specific rules for what they consider to be a major candidate. Their qualifications should be followed, since their decisions on notoriety effectively decides who has a shot at winning the primaries. The line between a major and a minor candidate should not be handled by the opinions of the editors. 67.176.208.136 (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Cuomo
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/andrew-cuomo-thinks-hes-best-democrat-beat-trump/583642/ I'm not sure if this qualifies him as a "candidate who has publicly expressed interest" but I guess we could discuss. Thanks Benwitt, 3 March 2019 12:07 (UTC)

Candidate Categories
I think we should combine two tables of major/elected individuals and non-major/non-elected individuals together. The U.S. was established based on democracy. Thus, all declared candidates should be treated fairly. Later on, we can categorize them based on their ability to fundraise and attract donors to get to the debate stage. Tomdoan (talk) 18:20, 03 March 2019 (UTC)

Though I understand the sentiment, this is completely impractical. As the article mentions, 191 individuals have filed to run. 76.210.6.68 (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * John Hickenlooper official photo.jpg

Portraits
Why are candidate portraits being changed all the time? What is the criteria of a candidate's portrait photo? —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, File:Pete_Buttigieg_in_February_2019.jpg whose author is by marcn, a Flickr user. Is that acceptable? —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It being from Flickr itself doesn't make it unacceptable, but I agree that there seems to be no reason to replace an official portrait with this. SCC California (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to see the official portrait's deletion discussion to understand why the image was changed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hidden text
Per Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text, hidden text discouraging particular edits is generally not allowed; one inappropriate use for hidden text is telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit Even more gentle encouragement (telling people to look on talk first) is disallowed unless there's a clear local consensus:  When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Mere lack of consensus is insufficient to allow any form of hidden text discouraging an exit. I removed the most egregious examples, but all the hidden-text instructions on this page need to be examined and reworded, since it seems like people have been adding them to try and structure the page without a clear consensus backing them up. I can understand the desire to end disputes stemming from recurring edits by new users, but this is not the way to do it - a consensus on this talk page cannot establish long-term binding structures for the article the way these hidden texts imply. It can merely establish, at best, a "check on talk first" note, and even that requires that the hidden text be cautiously worded and merely encourages people to check talk first. Beyond that, if new, uninvolved editors constantly make the same edit to the page, it's probably a sign that there's a problem with the page, not that we need hidden text to try and scare them off. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * In the Endorsements section under Tulsi Gabbard there is a comment to not add David Duke, as he has explicitly stated he didn't endorse her. But due to inaccurate reporting by some news sources  people have added and will add the supposed endorsement. As this isn't really an issue of consensus or the way the page is set up, rather one of misinformed users making factually incorrect edits, I don't see any other way to prevent this than a comment. --eduardog3000 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was the one who added the hidden text " ". I did not know this guideline exists. I just want to inform the editors to look at the talk page discussion before moving Williamson and Yang back and forth. This edit war is happening too frequently. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Decision by"
Several possible candidates have said that they will make a decision by sometime, such as the end of February or the end of March, while not giving a specific announcement date. Would people be willing to have something like this? I have removed the references (except new ones) for brevity.


 * Stacey Abrams, Minority Leader of the Georgia House of Representatives 2011–2017; Georgia State Representative 2007-2017
 * Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator from Colorado since 2009
 * Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States 2009–2017; U.S. Senator from Delaware 1973–2009; candidate for President in 1988 and in 2008
 * Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City 2002–2013
 * Decision expected by February 28


 * Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2007; U.S. Representative 1993–2007
 * John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado 2011–2019; Mayor of Denver 2003–2011
 * Decision expected by March


 * Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General 2009–2015; Acting U.S. Attorney General in 2001 from Washington, D.C.
 * Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington since 2013; U.S. Representative 1993–1995 and 1999–2012
 * Decision expected by April


 * Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia 2014–2018
 * Decision expected by March 31


 * Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator from Oregon since 2009
 * Beto O'Rourke, U.S. Representative from Texas 2013–2019; Democratic nominee for United States Senate election in Texas in 2018
 * Decision expected by February 28

SCC California (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim Ryan, U.S. Representative from Ohio since 2003
 * Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007; U.S. Representative 1991–2007; candidate for President in 2016
 * Eric Swalwell, U.S. Representative from California since 2013


 * No – Way too much detail. We move people when they do announce something, not when they answer a journalist asking "when can we expect to hear from you again?" — JFG talk 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Include. I think it's valuable information that Wikipedia readers will come here looking for. I've come to this page a couple of times looking for it myself.  I would however, suggest a more compact format, maybe keeping it all on the single line, or just having a date in a small colored box to the right of each line if applicable.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: @JFG, I am not suggesting to move them, but just to add when we would know by. @Pharos, I am happy to condense it to one line. SCC California (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Modification: Would you all be fine with something like this?
 * Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City 2002–2013 (Decision expected by February 28)
 * I think that this is important information to show for the candidates for whom this is the most data we have. SCC California (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good format to me.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. SCC California (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems extremely WP:CRYSTAL – and not to mention the fact that these dates aren't necessarily firm, given repeated speculation about when Biden will announce, for example; it seems inevitable that anonymous sources quoted in the media may at times contradict each other. Mélencron (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Mélencron - thanks for the input. I disagree that it is WP:CRYSTAL because we are not using anonymous sources (that wouldn't be RS) but the candidates' own statements of when they will announce by (and with the word "expected"). Unlike some other candidates, Biden doesn't have a clear answer of when he will announce, so there is no date for him. Excluding this information because of less than 100% certainty seems to me akin to excluding a Senate candidate's policy positions because they might end up voting against them after being inaugurated. SCC California (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No – I agree with JFG and Mélencron - this is an entirely unnecessary level of detail and also wp:crystal (reporting on things that aren't definitely happening) and wp:or (deciding who's given a "clear answer" and who hasn't). These are not filing deadlines, just arbitrary dates plucked out of the air that candidates can, and do, ignore. We shouldn't insert these as if they carry the same weight as an announcement date or date of a withdrawal when often it's just the candidate saying "I hope I'll let you know by the end of the month". And what happens when a "deadline" comes and goes? You mentioned Joe Biden and said that he hasn't given a clear answer as to when he'll decide by – except he has. He said by the end of January. That's come and gone, so should we list him as "Overdue"?


 * Giving vague answers and setting arbitrary decision deadlines is what politicians do to keep themselves in the news and Wikipedia shouldn't list these dates. Take John Hickenlooper. He's gone from saying I'll decide this summer (2018), to I'm running, oh wait no I've not decided yet, to I'll decide by January 8, to I'll be another few weeks, to I'll decide in February or March, to I'll decide in March. This level of news coverage and detail belongs in a newspaper, which reports the day-to-day minutiae of campaigns, not Wikipedia - see wp:notnews. By all means touch on this in the candidate's presidential campaign article, if and when one is created, but it shouldn't be listed here. Dcfc1988 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm for including "decision by" info. I come here for it. Some people keep their word about such announcements, and if someone waffles, that's also useful info. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1436:1DA9:72DE:A66D (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

New "inclusion criteria"
We should say that anyone who is important enough that their presidential campaign is considered notable enough for an article is considered a major candidate. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this is a better consideration than whether the individual is merely notable – though all individuals whose campaigns are notable enough are also necessarily notable individuals. I'll reiterate, again, that I don't believe the other "minor candidates" listed aside from Yang and Williamson should be included, as the press coverage for those two are disproportionate compared to any of the other minor candidates – since while the prior two are actively campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, the others aren't. A clear cutoff for what makes a campaign "notable" still needs to be defined, however (maybe just mentions in a majority of an agreed-upon list of sources/candidate lists from reliable sources, e.g. NYT/Politico/etc.)? I also don't advocate for changing the distinction between major/minor candidates at this point in time (officeholders/national polls). Mélencron (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree, being notable enough for Wikipedia is enough to be included in a "these people are running too" section. If it weren't for Yang I don't think the minor section would be questioned as being for anything other than "these notable people are running less than serious campaigns". However, we could just put them in a list instead of a table. We could maybe have three tiers (major and minor with tables, notable with just a list), but arguably even some officeholders would belong in the middle tier. --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but prefer over Melecron's proposal of removing minors other than Yang and Williamson: With there likely to be around 20 candidates even a few of those who have held office will have relatively small campaigns that push the idea of a "major" campaign. The poll criteria makes sure that candidates like Yang who are even lesser know than a random House Rep or Mayor have run enough of a campaign to be seriously considered. I don't doubt Yang will eventually meet that criteria, but his single section article that mainly focuses on a single issue doesn't really make for a major campaign at the moment. However, as I said above, being included in a debate should be enough to be considered major. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether there are 2 or 5 or 20 major candidates is something that isn't under Wikipedia's control. We certainly shouldn't try to pick the top 5 candidates. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there should be a limit. I'm saying since the field is already rather large, we don't need to be expanding the criteria. Like I said, Yang will probably end up on the list anyway, and that's fine as long as it's under the existing criteria. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: With a field of 11 major candidates already and given that this number is only going to grow in the coming months, the criteria of what it takes to be a major candidate should be stricter not looser. As the number of such candidates is increasing, candidates like Yang and Williamson are becoming more and more minor to the democratic primaries as a whole. TheSubmarine (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * this criteria is stricter – it removes Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells entirely, as their campaigns fail to meet WP:GNG. Mélencron (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your proposal, power~enwiki's proposal is to lift Yang (and now Williamson) into the "major" table while leaving the minors in place. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the substance of the initial proposal but would rather go further in raising the bar by removing the major/minor distinction and applying the proposed criteria to all potential candidates. Mélencron (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's an overview table of some such candidate lists. (To emphasize my point regarding Yang and Williamson, none of the other candidates that are listed in this article as "minor candidates" are mentioned in any of the sources above – because they're obviously not serious and don't have staffers in Iowa/New Hampshire or visits there, unlike Yang/Williamson. A completely different level of seriousness, which is why I'd advocate for the rest of the "minor" candidates to be removed.) Mélencron (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an extremely WP:CHERRYPICKed list. These lists are of "candidates", not "major candidates",  And probably the majority of RS candidate lists exclude Yang and Williamson, and some even include people like Wells.--Pharos (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it's cherry-picked, then I challenge you to come up with your own list and come to a different conclusion, because it's not, and I just chose what are considered to be major media outlets in the U.S. (if they published such an updating list, which some didn't). Also, I don't see your point regarding "major candidates" – these lists obviously exclude the 200 or so fringe candidates who have filed with the FEC, and includes mostly just notable officeholders. Mélencron (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Side note: I've now created an article on Williamson's campaign here. Mélencron (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

New idea: This may be too difficult, but what if we listed all notable candidates in one table with the default sort based on a polling average? This would remove the need for an inherently arbitrary line between "major" and "other" candidates and would have the added benefit of putting, for example, Bernie Sanders above Pete Buttigieg in the table. It would require a fair bit of maintenance, but there are many editors who actively edit this page so that shouldn't be a huge issue. Hopefully including everyone but ordering them based on polls conducted by outside sources would also remove most of the original research concerns. Thoughts? SCC California (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything but alphabetical order is not objective, and the inclusion of candidates in primary polls is itself an entirely subjective decision up to pollsters themselves to make. Mélencron (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but complete objectivity is impossible (you even advocated for removing certain candidates). Alphabetical order is, of course, objective, but as soon as you make separate categories, that goes away. Leaving the subjectivity to a range of outside pollsters, each with their own methods of selection, would hopefully roughly average it out. SCC California (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All other U.S. election primary candidate lists on Wikipedia – in particular, on downballot articles for Senate, gubernatorial, House, and statewide elections – are listed alphabetically, and I see no reason not to maintain that order here, as it's the most objective of all possible criteria (other than random order perhaps with an agreed-upon seed such that the order is reproducible). I don't see how this is a solution to anything – the order isn't at issue here, it's the inclusion of candidates, and most pollsters aren't even including some potential "major" candidates listed on this page (namely Abrams, Bennet, Moulton, Ryan, and Swalwell). Mélencron (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What's the definition of "substantial coverage of their campaign"? It just seems vague to me; setting a more fleshed-out definition for it would help, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging, , , please participate in this discussion instead of going back and forth. --eduardog3000 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, applying criteria to all candidates, as the notability of individual campaigns can be reasonably ascertained under WP:GNG – this goes for all candidates already considered "major candidates" under the existing criteria, in addition to the campaigns of two candidates (Yang and Williamson; see the table above) which have received a substantial level of press coverage (i.e., enough for articles on their individual campaigns to be deemed notable). At the same time, this criteria would reduce the WP:UNDUE weight given to four individuals (Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells) who have filed with the FEC as candidates but have not received any substantial amount of press coverage – certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG – and are not actively campaigning for the Democratic nomination. Mélencron (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, you support having one large table for which the criteria is "officeholder or campaign wikipedia page", and then no other tables? That's not quite what the original proposal was, and I oppose this idea even more than the original. There's no harm in listing those minor candidates in a separate table, as they themselves are notable enough. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree as my own view is that WP:UNDUE applies regardless of the major/minor distinction; I can barely find any articles, and none with more than a passing mention, on Arth's candidacy, for instance, which is an unacceptably low degree of coverage to warrant a mention regardless of the notability of the individual. Mélencron (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 'Support, Andrew Yang and Marianna Williamson are acting like serious candidates. Yang is even getting very close to getting in the debate, I don't know about Williamson but she has gained endorsements from former Representatives and the former Lt. Gov. Candidate in South Carolina in 2018. Yang and Williamson desvred to be inculded in the serious candidate section espically if Ojeda was considered a serious candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by President1640 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The reason Ojeda was considered a major candidate was that he held statewide office. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ojeda did not hold state-wide office (like Governor or Secretary of State), he was a member of the West Virginia State Senate. His national profile was due to winning the primary election for WV-03 last year. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what any of us personally think about Yang and Williamson, it's fairly obvious that most sources are including them in the category with Harris, Sanders, and the other obviously "major" candidates rather than the category of Nwadike and Wells. I vote to support a policy that gets them listed there. Jhn31 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support moving Yang and Williamson from the minor table to the major table. And the next step after that should be getting rid of vague nonsense like "substantial coverage". If you don't want to treat the candidates equally, criteria should be based on who has campaigned in New Hampshire and Iowa as suggested above. Connor Behan (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But it isn't "vague nonsense" such as substantial coverage - it's 5 polls, or holding public office; objective measures - these are indicators on whether the candidate will have a serious shot at showcasing their platform to the majority of the Democratic base - via the debates. IF they get into the debates, or make the criteria that has been set, then they will be moved. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The criteria was changed recently; it's currently:

"In addition to having announced that they are running for president in 2020 or having formed exploratory committees for the 2020 presidential election, the candidates in this section have held major public office or have substantial coverage of their campaign. " David O. Johnson (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * When/why was it changed? Last I saw (after Inslee announced) the criteria was the same, and no consensus was reached to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk • contribs) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here: and here . David O. Johnson (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The change was a part of power~enwiki's proposal that also put Yang in the major section, so I'll change it back to the old criteria while this is still being decided. --eduardog3000 (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The polling rule seems totally fair to me. If they're truly notable and a "major" candidate, then pollsters would include them in their polls. Currently Yang has 2/5, Williamson is at 0/5. If he continues to raise his national profile, I'm confident Yang at least will be a "major" candidate soon enough. Williamson has a slimmer chance, though. Thinking back to 2016: I can't really compare either of these two to, say, Ben Carson (he was actually very briefly the front-runner of that race) or even Carly Fiorina. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This proposal is far too broad and would allow the inclusion of non-serious candidates. SunCrow (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Depends. If they qualify for the debates,then why not include them,then they are serious candidates,but i do get the concerns about this move,but they will be the only two,and anyone who qualifies for the debates should be included.Alhanuty (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Wait: I agree with Alhanuty. Wait to see if Yang and Williamson qualify for debates. If they do, then they are clearly major candidates, but if they do not then they aren't. It seems like the most reasonable solution since there is so much disagreement regarding their inclusion. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I preferred the original criteria of either holding/having held public office or being included in at least five major polls. Andrew Yang has been in six according to FiveThirtyEight, but Williamson only two. She's not being treated as a serious candidate as far as I can tell. I think the only reason she's included on websites like Axios is because she announced in the midst of other major announcements like Gillibrand and Booker. That, doubled with her being a pseudo-celebrity in some circles, caused the misunderstanding that she was as major as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the like. None of this has to do with my personal opinion. I just think we should go back to the original ruleset, keep Yang, and take out Williamson.RajanAwasthi127 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)RajanAwasthi127
 * I don't necessarily disagree with you personally, but I don't think it's really appropriate to make our own speculative reasons why 80% of national media sources (according to the chart above) are listing Williamson as "major." As long as they do, Wikipedia should too. 80% (or 90% in the case of Yang) is enough to be in the category of Buttigieg and Delaney (100%) instead of the category of Arth and Wells (0%). Jhn31 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak support. It's pretty clear that most reliable sources regard Yang & Williamson as major candidates for the nomination. That being said, most criterion changes to include them (such as "[receiving] substantial coverage") are a bit too vague to realistically apply, unless we can all come to a collective agreement on a change that'd be appropriate (maybe reducing the threshold from five polls to three?) Otherwise, I feel like the best thing to do is wait until the DNC announces who's in the first two debates and who isn't; although more likely then not, there's still a chance that Yang or Williamson won't make the cut. - EditDude (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging : Please participate in this discussion instead of making changes that a consensus has not been reached on. If and when a consensus is reached, then Yang and Williamson can be reflected as major candidates in the article. TheSubmarine (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have participated in this discussion, and I will do so again. As long as a clear majority (in this case 80% or 90%) of major national media trackers consider Yang, Williamson, Buttigieg, or whoever else to be "major," Wikipedia should too and not list them in the category with people like Arth that are literally 0%. In addition to the chart shown above, there's been very little argument on this thread that Yang, Williamson, or Buttigieg should not be included, so there's really no justifiable reason beyond editors' personal beliefs about their long odds to include them as "major." Jhn31 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument, but just because you believe that they deserve to be considered major candidates does not mean that the article should reflect that. Please wait for this discussion to reach a consensus before making these changes. TheSubmarine (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is strong support for their inclusion on this Talk page. I'm hardly the only one or the first to try to make sure the article represents the opinion of the editors here AND the opinion of national media organizations. At this point, you're the one trying to make the article conform to your personal opinions, not us. Jhn31 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. I've come around on this; the media is including them in their coverage of major candidates, so we should, too. And after 2016, limiting major candidates to elected officials seems...risky. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It'd be good to come to a final agreement on this instead of rehashing the subject every once in a while.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of Yang and Williamson– because reliable sources treat them in the same way as the other "major" candidates. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, If they were major candidates, they would be included in at least 5 polls. --I am here to contribute (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support moving Yang and Williamson to major, the rest of the minor candidates are outright jokes, Yang and Williamson are not at the same level as them. If John Delaney and Jay Inslee are major candidates then Yang and Williamson certainly are. TheXuitts (talk) 4 March 2019


 * Support - Williamson and Yang have not held major office but neither has Buttigieg, who is considered a major candidate. They are rather well known in comparison to the current list of minor candidates. MrInfernoCow(talk) 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is not a viable criterion. Major sources do not treat Yang and Williamson as similar to the officeholders running, for example FiveThirtyEight, which keeps a running tally, explicitly excludes them.  The five-polls criteria has worked quite well, and we have reached the point where we can drop the officeholder criteria for people like Buttgieg if they do not meet it.  It should be noted that "serious candidate" is not the same thing at all as "major candidate".  We should move to the Democratic debates criteria or a slightly more lenient version of it sometime soon.--Pharos (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's just literally not true. Most sources DO list Yang and Williamson as major, judging by almost all of the citations above the major candidates section. That's what should determine what Wikipedia does, not the arbitrary "five polls" standard that "works" because you assert it does. Jhn31 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most sources do not list them as "major candidates", they list them (when they list them at all) as "candidates". What publications are using the words "major candidate" to describe Yang and Williamson?--Pharos (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Uncertain - I'd be all for moving Yang into the major candidates category, but not Williamson. This may be due to some confirmation bias (due to preferring Yang as a candidate) but I see much more grass-roots support and media coverage of him, as opposed to Williamson, who only really got covered when she announced. I do not believe Williamson to be a "major" candidate, and seeing as I cannot find an objective and enforceable criteria to discern the two, I'm uncertain. To kill two birds with one stone, I'm also opposed to combining major and minor candidates. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. These sources don't indicate that they are "major"; they're merely lists that happen to include them.  Major candidates should be defined by specific, dedicated coverage about them in particular, or sources unambiguously calling them a major candidate or words to that effect.  There's insufficient support for Yang and Williamson in that regard.  Beyond that, it is clear from the frequency with which new users move or remove them that including them there is WP:ASTONISHing, which we should strive to avoid - we shouldn't get tied down in trying to form a mathematical model.  Would most typical readers consider them major candidates?  No, plainly not.  Therefore they should not be listed there.  --Aquillion (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Would most typical readers consider them major candidates?" Yes, they would, at least as much as they consider Buttigieg, Delaney, or even Gabbard to be "major" candidates. Those 3, plus Williamson and Yang, are likely to all 5 be listed as candidates in any media list that a "typical reader" would read online. Jhn31 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support adding Williamson and Yang, per source coverage as outlined above. Remove all other "minor candidates" entirely unless they obtain equivalent coverage. Wikipedia must follow sources, not lead them. — JFG talk 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Williamson and Yang have their own campaign articles and have been seen as major candidates by the NYT, WP, CNN, and NPR (per chart by Mélencron). I mean if Richard Ojeda (I literally didn't know who he was until a week after he threw himself into the ring) was considered major (a state senator) then Williamson and Yang should be seen as major. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The criteria has been changed back to five polls by User:Pharos here: .David O. Johnson (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Support for moving Yang and Williamson is at 11, oppose is at 6, while noncommittal posts saying "wait until they formally qualify for the debates" or supporting only moving Yang into the major candidates table but not Williamson are at 3. Pretty clear we're getting close to a consensus here. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Yang and Williamson might make it into the debates based on both of them meeting the donation threshold, making this discussion moot. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment My vote is for moving Yang/Williamson out but add anyone who qualifies for the debates via donation threshold back to the table.Froo (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that any candidate that meets the debate qualifications for any reason, and isn't already on the major candidate list, should automatically be added to it.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment It may be time for some reconsideration, given that Politico and the Daily Beast had articles today discussing Yang's candidacy and how he's picking up more donations than some candidates whose "major" status is not in doubt. Jhn31 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support inclusion of Yang - He's already being included in the polls and met the party's criteria to be on the same stage as the other candidates in the televised debates. If that's not good enough to list him next to them, then our current rules are deeply flawed. Andrew Yang is currently polling at 1 percent, but John Hickenlooper, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Julian Castro are all listed as major candidates, and none of them poll better than Andrew Yang according to the latest Morning Consult poll. According to the latest Emerson poll, Castro polls at 0 percent, behind Andrew Yang's 1 percent. According to a Harvard-Harris poll, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Gillibrand, and Castro were all at 0 percent. He's also getting more donations than "major" candidates. Full disclosure, I have no intentions of voting for Yang, but Yang is as major of a candidate as Klobuchar and arguably more major than Castro. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice for editors
I'm sorry that I didn't look at the discretionary sanctions before reverting an edit that was undone by. But my reason is that I only made 2 notices, the 3rd one was moved by me. Also, I made 2 notices because people could edit in one section but not the other. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please don't move Andrew Yang (as you did here) before the consensus is reached. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are the one moving Yang/Williamson and going against the consensus. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have not reached any form of consensus yet. What do you mean? Williamson and Yang inititally are in the Notable individuals who declared candidacy and exploratory committees section. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't move them, it was who made this this edit to move Williamson and Yang back to minor candfidates. I was only trying to keep the section's original status by adding notice comments and fix what  had done here. Please view the history more carefully before judging me. Thanks for your contributions. —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not correctly interpreting the mess of a history tab this article currently has, and definitely did not mean to judge anyone or come across that way. As to your other point, I disagree that there isn't a consensus. The vast majority of editors on this Talk page in the last few days (not months ago, but in the last week or so as it's become apparent that Yang will make the debates and as we've realized that virtually all media sources are considering Yang and Williamson as major) are on board as counting as at least Yang as major, and a majority (though maybe not a vast one) agree on Williamson too. Jhn31 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I just looked, there is about even distribution between Support and Oppose, even over the last few days. WhoIsWillo (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Starting with 's chart posted on March 3, which was enough to change my mind about their inclusion and presumably others too, I count 13 editors (not necessarily edits, but distinct editors themselves) in favor of including Yang, with 6 against. A couple of editors suggest just Yang and not Williamson. Granted, people aren't always very clear in their opinions, and I didn't also count all the editors/reverters who haven't posted here, but since that chart, it's more than a 2:1 ratio in favor counting at least Yang as major. Jhn31 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Transclude endorsements
The candidates' endorsement lists here don't match with the ones on their respectful campaign articles. (e.g. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries v. Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign). Should we transclude the lists to here or to from their campaign article pages? —Wei4Green &#124; 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the lists should be maintained here given that this page seems to get more traffic, but you could probably argue for the candidate's pages as well. - EditDude (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what the suggestion is – it doesn't have any visible effect/affect on traffic, the boxes would still be here but just maintained on candidate articles instead. Mélencron (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that. I suggested these lists should be maintained here because this article gets more traffic, and thus they would receive more consistent updates then if they were in campaign pages. I didn't suggest that they influenced traffic directly. - EditDude (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

From my point of view, the question is where we want the talk page discussions to happen. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New Monmouth Poll
Most recent Monmouth poll - there is a long statement there. Per fair use, I am replicating a section of it here:

First off, I think the debates on the talk page regarding who major candidates are is basically over. All of the candidates listed here should be included on the page. Based on my own knowledge, I believe the list to be complete, but if there's a source of similar quality - please let me know. The Des Moines Register/Selzer poll over the weekend had similar candidates and a similar result.

I'd like to propose a moratorium on discussion of what to do with Richard Ojeda - I haven't even checked if he's in the article right now, but I'd like to wait until at least one other candidates drop out before anyone tries to change it. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Qualification for the first debate (polling threshold)
I am a bit confused by this new section, and I am hoping that somebody can help me out. Why are all of the numbers out of 3 when there are only two qualifying polls. Also, would it be possible to include a similar table below with the fundraising threshold? SCC California (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Candidates need to get at least 1% in 3 polls from a specific set of qualifying pollsters, as defined by the DNC, in order to enter the debate. Only 2 such polls have been conducted so far since the start of the year. As for the second request, that's not possible as only campaigns/ActBlue/NGP VAN have access to that data; while FEC data is public, filings are only quarterly and as such won't necessarily be up-to-date by the debates. Mélencron (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Mélencron. I will try updating the page to make this more clear. SCC California (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would also add that if a candidate qualifies for the debate, they should be added to the "major candidates" list. It appears Andrew Yang is likely going to make the grassroots donor threshold per this article https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-little-known-andrew-yang-may-end-up-on-the-2020-debate-stage-by-gaming-the-system?ref=home Froo (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that any candidate that meets the debate qualifications, and isn't already on the major candidate list, should automatically be added to it.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but there are already enough other sections of this talk page to discuss qualifications for the major candidates section. Why don't you discuss this there; this discussion is specifically about the second table here. SCC California (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SCC California, your point is well taken.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Who to include in debate qualification table

My opinion is that only declared major candidates (as defined at the time) or declared candidates included in at least one qualifying poll (regardless of what they got) should be included. That would mean that it would look (with the current two qualifying polls) as it does now: All of the candidates in the table have been included in at least one of the two polls, but Marianne Williamson has not, and she is not currently considered a major candidate (do not discuss whether that should be the case here; instead do it here). If there was a major candidate who, for some reason, wasn't included in any qualifying polls, eg. if Michael Bennet declares or if we make Williamson a major candidate, I think that they should be in the table with the second row being "N/A." SCC California (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @ANájeraWolcott I see that you added Marianne Williamson back into the table. I have undone your edit for now, but if you disagree with my recommendation above, please share your idea here. Thanks. SCC California (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone genuinely improves on an idea of mine I have no right to complain about it. thanks for the tableArglebargle79 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Table
I've removed this section from the article as a WP:OR concern, but am replicating it here. I expect the Democratic Party or one of the major US newspapers will be reporting debate participation soon enough. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The DNC has since stated that it won't confirm whether candidates have qualified until close to the debate itself. Mélencron (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This poll also complies with the DNC list of accepted polls as it is CNN with the Des moines Register polling Iowa can anyone who knows how to edit tables please add this on

thank u

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Marianne Williamson (cropped).jpg

Beto O’Rourke
Beto O’Rourke - Do we consider him as an official candidate now? I put him in on this page, but my edit was reverted. I have found many reliable third-party sources reporting that he has officially announced his campaign today. You can search on Google to see for yourself. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course.- MrX 🖋 12:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor candidates
I propose that we do away with the minor candidates section entirely, since it's arbitrary to pick out these 4 candidates out of hundreds and give them the full photo, flag, website link, etc. Instead, I propose to replace it with this sentence at the bottom of the major candidate list.

As of March 2019, 180 additional individuals have filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for president in the Democratic Party primary, including Michael E. Arth, Harry Braun, Ken Nwadike Jr., and Robby Wells.

This way, we still acknowledge the other candidates running, but we don't give them undue weight (since their campaigns are not notable), and we do not arbitrarily list 4 above all the rest. We can add more names to the list if there's a compelling reason to. After the primaries, we might list anyone who appeared on a ballot in any state. Jhn31 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the minor candidates section is useful. It creates a space for candidates in between "totally legitimate" candidates and "totally looney" candidates. Take for example Ken Nwadike. He has a following and an interesting role outside of politics. But at the same time, he isn't given the same level of credibility that the other candidates have. It can also raise awareness for certain candidates, helping them to break into the conversation - I bet you Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson have been helped by this decision, in a real way. DaCashman (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. without it, I would've never found the absolute joy that is Jeff Boss, so I need it).


 * It's not Wikipedia's role to "raise awareness" of any candidates. If a lot of prominent media sources (such as New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Politico, Axios, Guardian, NPR, Vox, etc. - it doesn't necessarily have to be all of them, but a bunch of them) start listing Nwadike as a major candidate, Wikipedia should add him, regardless of what the editors personally think about him, but until then, he's overrepresented on this page given his campaign's complete lack of coverage. Jhn31 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally think it's absurd and not grounded in reality to include anyone and anyone who happens to have an article on Wikipedia who's filed with the FEC in this article in general – none of them have received any level of substantial press coverage in the slightest and to even include them at all is in my view a ridiculous level of undue weight and shows how absolutely unserious this project can be at times.
 * Take Robby Wells, for instance. When it comes to speculative candidates, the standard on this article is to include only those candidates who have been mentioned as a speculative candidate within at least two articles in the last three months. What articles have there been on Wells within the last three months? A Google News search turns up a total of exactly 6 "articles". Of these, two are columns from an online-only newspaper called the "Barrow Journal" owned by a chain that manages several online papers, one is a press release, one is an op-ed in the York News-Times, a local newspaper with a circulation of ~4,000, one is on a site called the "South Florida Caribbean News" about a "University Panel Series" hosted by the Caribbean American Cultural Arts Foundation, and then there's this article from what's left of Time Magazine, which only gives him an ephemeral mention in the final paragraph.
 * (This is why I'm in favor of applying the threshold proposed by Power~enwiki above to all candidates in the article, by the way.) Mélencron (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Jhn31's proposal. I definitely agree that the minor candidates are currently being given undue weight.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, but re-create the '2020 Democratic Presidential candidates' article, featuring minor candidates. This would bring it into line with the "2016 Democratic" article set. I see no reason why that article should not be re-created at this time, we are now up to 14? candidates, and as such, we have entered proper 2020 election season. This article will be re-created sooner or later, why not solve our 4 "definitely minor" candidates out of the article to de-clutter it slightly. This does raise the question of Yang and Williamson. On that, I'm not sure. I guess we'll go with consensus. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's time to create the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates article. We can then move the minor candidates to that page for the time being. Until that article is created though, I support the OP proposal as presented.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been saying this for months. Let's do it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, but re-create the '2020 Democratic Presidential candidates' article, featuring minor candidates.
 * Oppose until they are featured somewhere else, NebuchadnezzarHammurabi's solution for that is good. --eduardog3000 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment as noted, there are hundreds of candidates filed with the FEC. Some are fairly obvious trolls or gadflies (a fake filing - I won't single out any gadflies), others are private individuals who can't be identified.  While being an identified individual with a campaign website should be all that is required to be included somewhere on Wikipedia, I have no objection to re-creating the "candidates" page at this time, and moving those people who have filed paperwork but are not conducting an active campaign there.  The "photo gallery"-style listing format is kind of silly in general, but particularly for this section. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposed solution, maybe just including a main over the main candidates table, which can still remain here (or be transcluded from the separate article). Mélencron (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Transcluding the main candidates table from 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates seems like the best thing to do. --eduardog3000 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that a photo gallery listing for minor candidates (on whatever page they are listed) is excessive and possibly a violation of WP:WEIGHT.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The minor candidate section should be erased. It’s not Wikipedia’s responsibility to be a news outlet. Otherwise, let’s include all 180 other minor candidates. TexasMan34 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Erase – Indeed there are ~200 candidacies not worth mentioning, and Wikipedia should not give any of them a platform, just because they happen to have a WP page for other reasons. — JFG talk 18:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Erase not reason they're included and have a trouble seeing their notability in the 2020 article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Erase, as per the reasons detailed by power~enwiki and which I've detailed earlier in this section. I'm also not convinced there's a justification for a separate article for a list of candidates alone on the basis that it's not clear whether the volume of content would justify such a split. Mélencron (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the table showing Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells, but still mention their candidacies in a paragraph of the text. The photo gallery is WP:UNDUE weight, but their candidacies should still be briefly noted. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 15:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There seems to be overwhelming support for this, so I have removed the table with photos, but still mentioned their names. We should discuss whether these are the appropriate 4 to mention (Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells), or if there should be more. (Or fewer). Jhn31 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Erase I've strictly been a listener to the discussion regarding the "major/minor" candidate organizational issue, although I may add that I agree it's more appropriate re: WP:UNDUE to exclude the "minor" candidate table altogether. "Major" candidate status should be assigned independently of Wikipedia user-created guidelines (perhaps based off, collectively, polling inclusion, mainstream media coverage/analysis, debate inclusion, etc. -- these pieces should be analyzed holistically, and there appears to be broad enough proof for including Yang and Williamson as "major"); other candidates not considered "major" by independent sources, although are WP:BIO notable, should only be mentioned in a sentence thereafter. MrVenaCava (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus on recreating the candidates' page, I have done so. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus, and I have restored the redirect. — JFG talk 08:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * So, should we put the minor candidates chart back up as it was part of the consensus for getting rid of the one here?Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a sizable consensus in this thread to remove the remaining minor candidates, after Williamson and Yang have been promoted to the main table. — JFG talk 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Another vote
Does anyone here NOT want to recreate the candidates’ page? With 15 “major” candidates listed and a near certainty of another five or six in the next three weeks, and with a bunch of people saying we should reverse the small consensus of last December. A negative vote is FOR recreating the article.


 * NO. (that means I do want to)Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I oppose the recreating of the article.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Endorsements
, there is already a separate page for Bernie Sanders's campaign endorsements. Maintaining two separate lists is not a good idea, a link (or potentially transcluding) is sufficient. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We should probably transclude endorsements from individual campaign articles (if they exist), otherwise maintenance will be a problem.- MrX 🖋 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Born column
The table should not include the born column. It's arbitrary information suitable for a biography, but not for a listing of primary candidates. I'm not aware of any sources that list the primary candidates in this way.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree: Age and place of birth have proven to be relevant details in presidential elections. eduardog3000 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean they have "proven to be relevant details" in presidential elections? Candidates are only required to be 35 years old. The birth date is merely trivia. Experience and positions are relevant.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Candidates are called too old or too young and those points affect how people vote, meaning they are relevant details. Generational politics also has an effect. Birth state is about as relevant as home state because if they are different they are usually treated like a secondary home state. We could set a max width on the column and/or wrap its contents in small if you feel its size gives undue weight. There is plenty of space otherwise for the more important Experience column and in fact Castro and Williamson's entries make the cells for other candidates look rather oversized (not that that needs to be changed). --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Candidates are only required to be 35 years old no previous Experience or positions necessary. SCAH (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Legal requirements are one thing; encyclopedic interest is another. Birth date and place of candidates have always been part of the basic details in candidate lists for Wikipedia's coverage of major elections around the world. Not sure why this particular field should be an exception. — JFG talk 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Final Comment
I am retiring from this article until the Iowa caucuses are complete. It's not you, it's me. As a resident of the state of Iowa, I can't keep track of what information on the race has already been covered by the national media, and what information has not. There's also a non-zero chance the media might quote me: there are a lot of presidential candidates in town and very few voters at events. I will make a longer statement on my blog about this potential COI later this month. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , blog? COI? What'cha mean? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Blog is at User:power~enwiki/Blog. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say COI=conflict of interest. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:D5AA:54D9:C5D3:C8F (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Colors of the 2020 Democratic nominees should be as followed

 * Bernie Sanders - Red (used historically for left wing movements)
 * Elizabeth Warren - Purple (used historically as a mix of different ideologies, or new protest movements that are critical of all previously-existing parties)
 * Kamala Harris - Blue (used historically for center-right)

As for the rest:

I based these off the state flags of the states they are from:


 * Cory Booker - Gold
 * Pete Buttigieg - Yellow
 * John Delaney - Burgundy
 * Kirsten Gillibrand - Green
 * Amy Klobuchar - Orange

No reasons for these choices:


 * Julian Castro - Brown
 * Tulsi Gabbard - Black

Let me know what you think. AHC300 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait on assigning colors until later in the summer when we know exactly who's running, so we can assign the "main" colors to candidates judged most likely to win states. Also, I'm not sure we should use red or blue, given their connotations in American politics. In 2016 we used green and gold, and in 2008 we used purple and gold. It would be sensible for Sanders to be green, in order to be consistent with the 2016 article.Jacoby531 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Jacoby531
 * Agree, Bernie should definitely be green for consistency. Potentially gold could be Biden or Harris, if they are the highest performing candidates with an ideology closer to Clinton's, but that's not as big a deal as keeping Bernie consistent. Edit: Maybe Biden purple as Obama's VP, and Harris gold. --eduardog3000 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should be coloring anyone based on their perceived closeness to Obama, or any otherwise subjective criteria – with the exception of Sanders, I think that the colors should probably be assigned randomly among a set of hex codes (for which were exists sufficient contrast to distinguish between on a map). Mélencron (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No. This is what WP:OR is supposed to try to keep out.  We don't need a map now (and won't for months), let's not assign colors. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jacoby and Power~enwiki. Some of these candidates may wind up dropping out before the first primaries or caucuses so they won't need to be assigned a color at all. Nor, for that matter, does any candidate who doesn't win a primary/caucus need a color to be assigned. And it's important that the colors assigned to the candidates who do win primaries/caucuses be clearly distinguishable from each other. If Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg wound up being the two most successful candidates, we wouldn't want readers to have to try to distinguish the gold states from the yellow states on a map because those two colors are relatively similar. Whoever assigns the colors should refer to MOS:COLOR and the tools linked there to help ascertain which colors will be clearly distinguishable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. OR at its worst. Jonathunder (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Bernie. He should be Green for consistency with 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --eduardog3000 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above comments that this is both too early, not neutral, and that the colors used should be consistent with 2016 (and previous primaries), preferably such that the exact same hex codes of past candidates are not reused (except in the case that they are the same candidate, as with Sanders). Mélencron (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Bernie Sanders should be green,using the color of 2016,but this is too early still.Alhanuty (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose using colors at this time. Waaay to soon for this, and the WP:OR concerns raised by Power~enwiki are valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard Oppose. Ideology is extremely subjective, especially in the primary. I think your labels show how difficult that is. Elizabeth Warren has been much more consistently left-wing than Bernie Sanders over the years. Bernie voted against sanctions on Russia, has an anti-immigrant record, has been inconsistent at best on guns, and his best friends in the Senate were all Republicans. The only thing that would place Warren to the right of Bernie would be their stated ideologies, which are often less than genuine. Kamala herself, while to the right of these two, is way to the left of anything "center-right" (I'm thinking Tories and PP specifically). She's not even to the centre-right OF this primary - she's to the left of Biden, Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Tim Ryan, Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Castro, Delaney, and Klobuchar. Meanwhile Kamala is out there talking about marijuana legalization and Medicare-for-All, and signed a clean campaign pledge. With how much misinformation is out there, and how much arguing there is, doing something this subjective is not wise in my opinion. DaCashman (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Good faith proposal, but no original research. We could spend months arguing about where Kamala is, how much weight to give to her voting record, how much weight to give to her recent endorsements of Sanders-backed ideas, whether her endorsements are a sign of her ideology or a political calculation, etc. We could argue about whether Bernie should be red because it represents the left, blue because the US tends to associate red with conservatism, mild pink because his healthcare proposal isn't viewed as radical in other western countries, bright green because the green party endorsed his ideas in the past, light blue because Sanders himself tends to use it, gray because he spent most of his career as an independent, etc. We don't need to have these arguments, and we shouldn't have these arguments. We would all put candidates in different places on a spectrum, and that's because it's not objective at all. WP:OR is here to save us from this. We can assign random colors closer to the ground-game portion of the primary. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 16:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth
Michael E. Arth has the makings of a major candidate with a unique background. He has a growing, media profile, but barring him from this Wikipedia listing will suppress further coverage. Wikipedia is not a kingmaker but it shouldn't block legitimate candidates either. We need more candidates from outside the usual sphere who are qualified, but not career politicians. He ran a major campaign in 2010 and it appears he would have had a strong showing if the Florida Democratic Party had not blocked his gubernatorial bid through corruption even more egregious than what the DNC did with Bernie Sanders. That's why he switched to Independent for the rest of the race. There's a documentary about it on YouTube called Gov'nor: A man on a bicycle, with no money, takes on the fat cats, dirty politics, and his wife, to run for governor of Florida. There are other documentaries by or about him also that might threaten the status quo. Very instructive.(Calimar300 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).


 * However serious his campaign may be, he is not being treated as being in the same level of other candidates, even those outside of politics like Yang and Williamson. It would be improper to give him undue weight by including him in the table. I support the current decision to list him as a notable individual running for president, separate and apart from the main list of candidates. --Vrivasfl (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support User:Calimar300's proposal. As someone living outside the United States, perhaps I can lend some perspective. Arth is clearly a grade above the other minor candidates, especially if you look at his personal and campaign websites, as well as what has been written about him, and what he has himself written. He's unusual in being so forthcoming and knowledgeable on the issues. Not like most politicians. As Amy Klobuchar said yesterday, "I think that competition is good in our party." Let us get more opinions on Arth and develop a consensus about whether we should raise the caliber of the debate by bringing Arth in the majors. Please do not delete him until we arrive at a consensus.Delhi3 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Arth hardly has a growing media profile. He appears on (to my knowledge) zero major news sites' candidate galleries. His twitter following is at 746, compared to Yang, who has ~150k, and Williamson, with over 2M. Arth has 75 results when searching his name and entering the news tab. Yang, the (debatedly) least well known candidate, has 63,900 results. The guy seems like he has interesting ideas, but it's not wikipedia's job to give the guy name recognition. Wikipedia is a scientific, not a normative site, and to put Arth with the major candidates would be a normative decision. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose Who? Literally has zero name recognition and has not been profiled as a 2020 candidate by any key news outlets. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Compare Arth's campaign website at www.michaelearth.org to the websites of two other "major candidates" listed in this article, Wayne Messam and Pete Buttigieg. Both Messam and Buttigieg are small town mayors with no substantive national policy positions. Prior to their listing here as presidential candidates, they had even less name recognition than Arth. For those two reasons alone, Arth would be a major candidate. It's not Wikipedia's job to give Arth name recognition, but it has done exactly that with Messam and Buttigieg. Any objective look at Arth's issues, his deep analysis of public policy, what he has done in rebuilding a drug slum, his work with the homeless, and his grass roots campaign as a Florida gubernatorial candidate (that was also the subject of a feature-length documentary) would say he should at least be allowed a seat at the table. Every criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is to some extent normative. In the case of Messam and Buttigieg, it was that anyone who has held elected office, no matter how insignificant, is automatically a major candidate. The public cannot decide about someone unless they know about him, and Wikipedia is often the first source people turn to for an introduction to the candidates. If Arth was listed here as a major candidate, within a few weeks he would almost certainly be the subject of major media and polls. Democracy requires an informed public, not just a public shaped by key news outlets.Politicon535 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, no significant press coverage, only English-language news article in the past three months is from Sputnik. Mélencron (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: His major press coverage is nearly non-existent. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Arth literally isn't covered in any candidates lists in the press.

Table adapted from a previous discussion, originally created by Mélencron.

— Wpeneditor (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Michael Arth is only promoting himself; he has not been assessed as a credible candidate by any RS. — JFG talk 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, there's a near-total lack of any sources covering him. However, I would like to include Messam in the above table:

— PaperKooper (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty disingenuous. Messam has held elected office, so he fits the current criteria of a major candidate, regardless of media coverage.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to suggest that Messam should not be included, only to note that he has not reached the same level of media coverage as Buttigieg, Yang, or Williamson. I meant this to show that Arth does not come close to demonstrating the same level of media coverage as any of the current major candidates. PaperKooper (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the media coverage surrounding Arth is not comparable to that of Yang or Williamson. Also, I am not aware of a major poll that includes him. If he starts getting major coverage or comes close to qualifying for the debates, then we can revisit this, but at the moment it would be wrong to count him as a major candidate.Jacoby531 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the lack of media coverage above. However in the case of Messam having held office is enough; the criteria is "have held public office, been included in a minimum of five independent national polls or have otherwise received substantial coverage". And he does have at least some coverage. --eduardog3000 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Arth meets none of the current prerequisites for inclusion on the "major" list.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose regretfully. Though I supported the inclusion of Yang and Williamson, both of which have received notable coverage despite lacking experience holding public office, the same cannot be said about Arth. Though this entire talk page is evidence that the original criteria (holding public office or being included in x number of polls) was flawed and a consensus existed to change it, I cannot see a consensus for a criteria that includes someone with effectively zero third party WP:RS coverage. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as of right now, not featured in any major election coverage, or included as a major candidate by any of the above sources. Additionally not included in any polls, so he does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Until he is either included in the polls or covered by major reliable sources, putting him in with the other major candidates would be giving him undue weight. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * oppose Yang and Williamson have enough financial backing to qualify for debates, Arth does not. Messem is a small town mayor.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS
As a reminder, self-published sources, like tweets from people other than the Twitter account owner, cannot be used as sources, especially for BLP content. This is explained in WP:BLPSPS. Here are a couple of examples that I removed:


 * Mike Gravel, U.S. Senator from Alaska 1969–1981; candidate for President in 2008


 * Nicolas Cage, actor

- MrX 🖋 10:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

1RR Question
I don't want to run afoul of 1RR, but I undid an anonymous edit that removed a properly sourced endorsement, only for it to be undone by another anonymous editor (or perhaps the same with a new IP). If I understand right, my undo should be kept unless it's discussed on this talk page. Am I free to resistate my undo without worrying about 1RR? eduardog3000 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The content in question seems to be whether or not Richard Spencer's "Yang Gang" tweet counts as an endorsement, which would be a reasonable discussion to have on this talk page. Per WP:BRD if the anonymous IP editors are uninterested in having that discussion, for them to repeatedly revert any further would be edit warring. If edit warring by IP users becomes an issue, we could seek temporary low-level protection for the page. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am the first IP (that edit was from work, now I am at home), that removed the entry for Spencer. I have no idea who reverted the revert, that wasn't me. On the topic: It is not about properly sourcing (as eduardog puts it), it is about the level of work counted as endorsement and secondly the ability to use (fake?) endorsements to smear candidates. Let me explain. The hurdle to put out a tweet is extremely low, it costs basically nothing. If I comb through twitter and other social media, I probably find thousands of 'endorsements' to the candidates. So we should really think about who to include. Even more, putting a tweet that potentially is seen positive onto someone who gains popularity - say because he is a candidate running for POTUS - that creates the possibility other people notice this tweet and therefore the user. So such an 'endorsement'-tweet is a pretty low level way to gain some followers of my own (hence self-promotion). So maybe something a little more should be required to list it as noticable endorsement. Also, as a side note, I always thought an edorsement as something exclusively, so an endorser only supports one candidate. Positive tweets are easily possible for multiple candidates, and I miss the magic word endorsement. So maybe I am wrong here, and exclusivity and a clear statement of endorsement is not needed to declare it as such. Anyways, going on my second point is, that such "endorsements" are also used to smear candidates. This strongly reminds me of the situation with Tulsi Gabbard and her "endorsement" from David Duke. Even Stephen Colbert used that as talking point, althought Tulsi Gabbard never asked for the support of the likes of Duke and don't at all indicates an alignment in policy. Same with Yang here. Nothing says me he supports the ideas of Spencer or aligns in policy. Still such declarations are used - as can be seen by the example of Colbert - as a smear against the candidate. If this Spencer-tweet qualifies to be listed in the Wikipedia, it basically asks 4chan-people to look for murderers, rapists, nazis, white suprematists make a positive remark about one of the candidates and add that here. This can't be healthy. I would say, there should be defined some qualifying traits for en "endorsement" to be listed in Wikipedia. -- 86.56.5.152 (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This falls under the category of what I like to call tactical endorsements, whereby an endorsement is given to a candidate for reasons other than actual support. Such endorsements have no business being here. If the endorsement in question becomes notable, it should be covered on the biographical article for a candidate, not this article about the primaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not up to Wikipedia to judge the reasons for an endorsement and editorialize based on that. If you check his Twitter past the cited tweet, it's clear he supports Yang. The only requirements to include an endorsement are that the endorsement is clear enough (I believe it is, so far tweeting a hashtag like #Yang2020 or #YangGang alone has been enough, but he also said he's "in the Yang Gang", that's clearly an endorsement, this tweet is also pretty clear) and that the endorser is notable enough, which Spencer is. In the case of Duke, he never actually endorsed Gabbard in the first place, and then explicitly stated he didn't. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't judging anything. It's reliable sources that do the judging, and I think it is pretty clear from coverage that nobody gives a shit who this absolute asshole claims to endorse. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Spencer endorsement should be left out. It is simply not noteworthy. Also, a tweet is a primary source, and not sufficient for an "endorsement" of a BLP subject. Use third party sourcing.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there are a lot of endorsements cited only to tweets in this article. I stopped counting when I got to 100 of them. (This is not a comment on the Spencer endorsement specifically, just on the idea of whether endorsements can be cited to tweets.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Someone should have read WP:NOT.- MrX 🖋 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ETA: This comment was not directed toward . My comment is directed toward editors who relied on primary sources (tweets) for endorsements of candidates for the highest political office in the U.S.in apparent disregard of WP:BLPPRIMARY.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a previous discussion about endorsements here. As User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords said, "Previous endorsement lists have been pretty wide-ranging and have included primary sources and hashtags, don't see the point in excluding people from a list of people for the sake of brevity.". Spencer's endorsement is just as notable as a lot of other endorsements on the list. There has already been discussions on whether to delete Hillary Clinton's political and non-political and Donald Trump's 2016 endorsements pages, with primary Twitter sources being a main issue. The result of those discussions was to keep the articles, List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements survives with over 1000 twitter sources cited. --eduardog3000 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you understand that that discussion has no binding effect. Anyone on the planet can tweet anything. Unless one or more independent, reliable sources take notice, it doesn't belong on the encyclopedia for reasons that I assume are obvious. If not, see WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mistakes made on Hillary Clinton should not be repeated here.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX here and it is the main reason for removing that listing. The hurdle for a tweet is really low and as I pointed out with such a tweet for someone popular (like presidential candidate) you can gain attention for yourself. So I am opposed to all endorsements based only on tweet, in Spencers case I see it additionally as harmful. In my opinion an endorsement to be worthy of listing should:
 * contain more effort than a mere tweet (speaking or performing at a rally for the candidate for instance) or
 * be from a major political figure (office holder) or
 * be recognized by the candidate himself or herself
 * This all would secure that not everyone can align himself with a campaign with minimal effort. Keep in mind, if just a tweet qualify as endorsement, 4chan could comb Twitter and Facebook and add random or even harmful person to the list of endorsers. Is this something Wikipedia wants? Especially as shown by Stephen Colbert and his mentioning of David Dukes support for Tulsi Gabbard this can be used political. -- 2003:CA:EF07:7E00:6C9E:F030:43CE:6196 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur that the best way to apply WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE concerns is to require more to an endorsement than just a tweet. The obvious approach is if reliable sources cover an endorsement, then it's notable. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still on the side of "why be so strict for additions for a list of people endorsing a candidate?" I see the worries about Spencer and Duke, but The Daily Beast had an article about Yang's alt-right supporters where they mention Spencer's support for the "Yang Gang." So even this proposal would keep Spencer on Yang's endorsement list while also simultaneously booting off nearly everyone else. And even then, there's several reasons to believe Spencer's endorsement is genuine: since Yang has been tweeting about declining white birth rates and the like recently. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with the statement above. I don't think that we should be the judges of which endorsements might be "harmful" to a campaign - we're not here to protect any particular candidate from the endorsements of people that we find reprehensible. I, along with many other readers, find it interesting to see which people are aligning themselves with different candidates, and I think that a tweet in support of a candidate is sufficient to say that someone is endorsing that candidate. If they later show support for another candidate or withdraw their endorsement for any reason, we can make the necessary edits when that occurs. Awesome335 (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledging the "polls that count"
A few more "polls that count", debate-wise, have come out recently, more than enough to officially qualify people to get on stage. I've tried a couple of times to acknowledge this by mentioning it various places but I keep on getting reverted. Why? Also, we should get rid of the list of people who have been mentioned but are not candidates. That's what the candidate page (which we really really need) is for... or at least we should get rid of those who never said they were thinking about it or used personal PACs to finance shadow campaigns.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't make the determination of who qualifies; that's WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. See . It's best to wait for an official announcement on who is included. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Richard Ojeda logo
Someone has removed Richard Ojeda's logo multiple times despite all of the non-withdrawn candidates' logos being included. I have restored it, but can this person please explain their rationale? Thanks. 17:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCC California (talk • contribs)
 * File:Ojeda 2020.png is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of it needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The file was removed with this edit and an edit summary explaining why. The file has a been removed once again for the same reasons. Basically, how an image can be used on Wikipedia is largely determined by it's licensing. There are "free" images (i.e. public domain or released under a free license) and there are "non-free" images (i.e. non-free content) and each must be used according to relevant policy. Free images are the things you typically find on Wikipedia Commons and they can be fairly easily used on any Wikimedia Project without too many restrictions; non-free images, on the other hand, are local files only for use on English Wikipedia and their use is quite restricted. Non-free use is not automatic and there are ten non-free use content criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file is used, and one of these criterion is WP:NFCC, which among other things requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use. If a file is being used two or more times (either in the same article or in different articles), then a non-free use rationale specific to each use needs to be added to the file's page; otherwise, the file can be removed from whichever articles are lacking the required rationales per WP:NFCCE. So, if you truly feel that this file's not free use meets all ten of these criteria for this particular article, please add the required rationale to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. At the same time, you're also going to need to provide a rationale for 2020 United States presidential election because adding the image to this article transcludes the file into the main article about the election which means one more use. This is one of the problems that can happen when content is transcluded by template into other article that I mentioned above in my posts about the external links.FWIW, I do quite a bit of non-free file cleanup, and I would've added the missing rationales myself if I thought the respective non-free uses could be justified. Just adding a rationale, however, doesn't automatically mean compliance since all ten criteria need to be met. With these types of non-free logos, the establish consensus over the years has been that it's OK to use them per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are being used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the organization, etc. they represent; so, using this file in Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign is fine. Using them in other related articles, however, tends to require a much stronger justification for non-free use in which the logo itself is typically the subject of sourced critical commentary so that the logo use is not really considered decorative. This is why using logos such as this in tables (WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO) isn't really allowed and likely why this type of non-free use would not be considered acceptable at WP:FFD based on prior FFD discussions about similar types of non-free use. You don't have to take me at my word and if you disagree with my assessment, you can ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ or WT:NFCC. Regardless, the file is going to need, at the very least, a rationale for each time it's used to stop it from continuing to be removed by a human editor or a WP:BOT. Once the missing rationale(s) have been added, there will at least be something to discuss at FFD; so, please don't just re-add the file again without providing the required rationale(s). -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Goofy state graphics in the candidates table
I really don't understand the reasoning behind using these state-shaped flag cutouts in the candidates table. It looks silly (and in some cases just ugly, like the little flecks of Hawaii with fractions of stripes peeking through). If we're trying to be informational, why not just use the flags? Does anyone think it really looks better with the cutouts? &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment. Some some might feel that the images add color to the article, but I think they do the opposite and unnecessary distracting. I'll actually go one step further and say the campaign logos as well are also not needed for the same reasons per MOS:LOGO. Images of the candidates are really all that's needed in the tables; everything else is either more suited for stand-alone articles about the individual campaigns or not needed to begin with. There may also MOS:ACCIM issues as well to be considered since not every reader may be using a desktop/laptop computer and there may be also some people using machine-readers.Finally, the point of the article is to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the primaries; it's purpose is not to become default platform to be used to campaign for/against any one in particular. The major-party candidates certainly don't need Wikipedia, but minor candidates (with less resources at their disposal) might see Wikipedia as an important way to get onto the same playing field as everyone else. So, it's important that this same matter be discussed for articles about 2020 presidential primaries regardless of party so as that any consensus established is uniform in it's application to all similar articles and WP:CONLEVEL not just local. The question then is where to hold that discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would go as far as all that, but I have gone in and switched the flag-maps for ordinary flags. Straightforward representation of the facts trumps having flashy graphics, in my book. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 21:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * May I suggest we go further and remove the flags too. MOS:FLAGS is clear here. We should not be using flags like this. Bondegezou (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the flags also should be removed. Moreover, as I tried ot point out above, what happens with this article is not going to be limited to only this article. This article is being transcluded by template into 2020 United States presidential election; so, any change here is going to be reflected in that article. The same thing is being done for 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, etc. So, removing the cut-outs from only this article, but leaving them in the other articles is going to make the appearance of the main election article appear inconsistent and may lead to claims of some candidates being treated unfairly. Elections tend to be emotional issues and Wikipedia articles about major national elections tend to attract lots of attention, including from people unfamiliar with Wikpedia's various policies and guidelines. It can be quite a community effort to keep such article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, especially as you get closer to the actually election date. So, those editing the main election article should be made aware of this particular discussion and why the cut-outs are being removed from this article. My suggestion would be to move this discussion (Moved discussion to) to Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries Talk:2020 United States presidential election and continue it there. That will not only make it easier to deal with all the related articles in one place, but also make it easier for any consensus which is established to be extended to cover each individual primary article. Template:Please see couldn't be added to the individual primary article talk pages to direct others to the main article's talk page per WP:CENTRALIZED. If the discussion gets fragmented, then it's possible that different consensus will be reached for different primary articles. This would probably be fine if all of the articles weren't being transcluded into the main article about the 2020 primaries.As for the logos, they aren't really needed here and their use in the individual primary articles seem more promotional than not; many of the individual campaigns seem to have stand-alone articles written about them; so, using the logo in those articles for primary identification purposes makes sense, much in the same way using a sports team logo or a company logo is used in stand-alone articles about their respective subjects. There is also a possible issue with file licensing; all of the logo used in this article have been uploaded to Commons and are licensed as PD, so there are no real licensing issues related to their use here. I have, however, come across a campaign logo being used in another primary article which is licensed as non-free content. Non-free content use is quite restrictive and needs to meet WP:NFCC. While it would most likely be OK to use such a logo in a stand-alone article about a campaign for primary identification purposes, non-free use in an article such as this is pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC, WP:NFTABLES, and WP:NFLISTS. Individual candidate photos are easier to deal with because (1) they are presumably living persons and (2) non-free photos of individual persons are pretty much never allowed per WP:NFCC and are typically deleted quite quickly per WP:F7. A free equivalent image for a political candidate in a major election should be fairly easy to create or find; so, any attempt to use a non-free image is almost certainly not going allowed. Recreating or finding a free equivalent of a copyrighted logo, however, is much more complicated and may actually require the campaign itself (i.e. the copyright holder) giving their WP:CONSENT and releasing it under a free license so that it can be used in articles like this. This is one of the reasons using logos (regardless of their copyright licensing) is not recommended in MOS:LOGO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to correct link error. -- 04:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)]


 * If there's a specific campaign logo that seems to be unfree media we should deal with that, and that would then weigh on the issue of whether to keep the column; but barring copyright issues I don't see anything wrong with keeping the logos. I don't think it's "promotional" to display some standardized iconography from each campaign, and since we're not being selective about the logos it's hard to see how it's unfair to any particular campaign. I say err on the side of giving people that information, unless we have some non-hypothetical reason not to display it. &there4; ZX95 [ discuss ] 01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really referring to a hypothetical case, but actually . Sorry, for not clarifying that in my above post. There was this logo in addition to the one mentioned above being used in another primary article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that the discussion be held at Talk:2020 United States presidential election in hopes of seeking a consensus as to what logos/flags we use with respect to candidates of all political parties. Without expressing an opinion yet as to what that consensus would be, I hope that we should at least be able to agree that the same policy of using or not using logos/flags should apply to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and anyone else running in this same election. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's the link I intended to provide above in my previous post, but mistakenly copied and pasted the link to the Republican primaries article instead. Thanks for noticing the mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We should strive for consistency, but I note that MOS:FLAGS explicitly says that you should remove flags before worrying about consistency. I quote, "it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

For my own two cents, these are really silly and strange. Just text is fine. Most readers aren't familiar with any state flags but states they lived in, and sometimes not even their own state's flag. SnowFire (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedian770 - in light of your recent good faith edit (here) striving for consistency, I wanted to call your attention to this discussion where a consensus was reached to not use the flag maps on this article. If anything, other articles should be edited to match this one.

As for my personal opinion, I have none regarding flags versus flag maps, but I do think that the logos are a valuable part of candidates' rows and should be kept. SCC California (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)