Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Massachusetts

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Claudiahan5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute
Under "Endorsements" section for Joe Kennedy III (D, MA-4), user has written that Jayapal (D, WA-7) endorsed Kennedy in his Senate race, citing The fight for universal health care | Joined by Rep. Pramila Jayapal a video in which Jayapal and Kennedy discuss healthcare.

After watching the video, Srk93 (me) claims to have found no evidence of such an endorsement in the video, and thus removes the edit.

Davidmejoradas then reverts the edit, citing additionally a video clip from The Hill's "Rising" with Krystal Ball & Saagar Enjeti, claiming criteria under wp:endorsements to have been satisfied.

After watching the new cited video, Srk93 reverts the edit, saying: "Rising" cites the same video linked above with no further evidence to their claim.

Davidmejoradas then once again reverts the edit, stating in the edit summary, "It meets the criteria of wp:endorsements as The Hills is an reliable and independent source and they use the word "endorse" in their coverage". Additionally stated: "the fact that she appeared on a campaign events clearly shows that she supports the candidate, further info is shown in the second ref provided."

Srk93 does one final revert after also re-watching the original video for double confirmation that the original video does not contain an endorsement, stating that making an unsourced claim by definition makes The Hill's "Rising" an unreliable source on the matter.

Davidmejoradas reverts the edit, claiming that "under wp:endorsements primary sources for endorsements (such as Twitter or Facebook) are invalid unless reported by a independent and reliable source such as The Hill".

I (Srk93) am posting in Talk to avoid an edit war. After no resolution in 24 hours, I will seek a third opinion & potential administrator assistance. If you disagree about any part of my characterization of your edits, feel free to state so below.

Srk93 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion
My claims:


 * Interaction with a political campaign does not constitute endorsement. Appearance at campaign events in an informative and/or legislative capacity (such as Jayapal's appearance here) does not constitute endorsement.

Srk93 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Endorsements explicitly states there is no consensus on "reliable" news sources, warranting closer scrutiny on the individual claims any organization makes. For example, Fox News can be claimed as a reliable source on many facts, but if a Fox News commentator makes an unsourced or debunked claim, that claim cannot be used a citation for the same claim being made on Wikipedia, simply because Fox News is considered a "generally reliable" source. In that spirit, examination of Saagar Enjeti's (from The Hill "Rising") claim that Jayapal has endorsed Kennedy shows that despite The Hill being a "generally reliable" source on current events, the claim in question is clearly unsourced, citing only the video provided on this page, which is inadequate to the claim. Since no other evidence is seemingly available to substantiate the claim that Pramila Jayapal has endorsed Joe Kennedy III, the entry should be removed.

My claims: Davidmejoradas (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What the user is stating above of what I "supposedly said" is false and misleading. I never based my edits on the fact that Rep. Jayapal had interaction with a political campaign and I never said that given the fact that she had that interaction therefore that constitutes an endorsement. All my edits were based on the fact that an independent and reliable source (The Hill) explicitly used the word "endorsed" in their news coverage of the primary when talking about Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Kennedy III. Furthermore the user Srk93 tried to discredit the newspaper The Hill  by saying that "they are not a reliable source" based solely on his own opinion and providing zero evidence of that.
 * WP:Endorsements explicitly states there IS a consensus on reliable sources when it comes to individuals but not when it’s related to organizations. Given the fact that the user Srk93 stated the contrary, it clearly shows that the user didn’t even read wp:Endorsements and therefore was ill informed about the consensus.
 * Since the edit of Rep. Jayapal’s endorsements meets the criteria of wp:endorsements and because the edits made by the user Srk93 clearly show a political and ideological bias (based on his previous edits of removing the endorsements with no explanation, the fact that the endorsements meets all of the criteria to be included, and because of the fact that the user is so determined of having that particular endorsement removed) the entry should be kept.

Srk93 counter-claims:


 * The first point has been resolved, and above user's claim, "I never based my edits on the fact that Rep. Jayapal had interaction with a political campaign and I never said that given the fact that she had that interaction therefore that constitutes an endorsement," is directly contradicted, in my opinion, by the user's edit summary "the fact that she appeared on a campaign events clearly shows that she supports the candidate, further info is shown in the second ref provided."
 * I read the consensus point as being in reference to establishing the reliability of organizations, not whether organizations needed a secondary source. If I misread the Endorsements article, I am willing to acknowledge that, but is attempting to use that as a deeper attack on my credibility to evade responding to my third point, and is very clearly not discussing this topic in good faith.
 * The third paragraph is a completely immaterial ad hominem argument referring to my "ideological bias." I noticed an endorsement claim that stood out to me, and I investigated it. I found it to be factually dubious and am disputing it. Davidmejoradas is painting my focused attention on correcting this factual inaccuracy as an example of bias, and not simply of scarce time & attention devoted to the inaccuracy I happened to notice.
 * has not addressed my final point: an organization, even if generally reliable on reporting, cannot be cited as a source on a claim, if said claim has been found to be notably dubious or unsourced. Example: If a pundit on Fox News (known for making factual errors, but also largely considered a reliable source on the majority of facts presented) made an unsourced, dubious claim, that cannot be cited in good faith for the same claim on a Wikipedia page. Similarly, Saagar Enjeti's unsourced claim (granting the premise stated above that appearances at campaign events in a non-promotional fashion do not constitute endorsement) that Jayapal endorsed Kennedy does not fulfill adequate criteria in the spirit of WP:Endorsements). Thus, even if one can loophole their way into justifying the claim on the Wiki, the claim itself is demonstrably unsourced and thus should be removed.

Srk93 (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Counter-claims: Davidmejoradas (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad the first point has been resolved.
 * I am discussing this topic in good faith despite the claims made by and I was pointing out the fact that the user previously mentioned didn’t read the consensus and was making ill informed claims about it.
 * I pointed the fact of political and ideological bias based on the fact that practically every edit made by since creating the account has been dedicated to removing one endorsements, which is suspicious to say the least.
 * The final point was addressed in my first claims and the fact that tries to compare The Hill with Fox News is not accurate because, unlike Fox, The Hill is a well respected news outlet. The user just tries to discredit the newspaper with that comparison.
 * Clarifying: the first video provided where Jayapal and Kennedy appear and the one The Hill is referring to in their news coverage are two completely different videos. The first was an event streamed through social media and the second one was a town hall via Zoom that required a RSVP to attend. Here’s the two of them, this one is a tweet referring to the first video and this is a tweet that refers to the town hall that Reps. Jayapal and Kennedy hold and that is the one The Hill refers to.

Counter-claims:
 * Third opinion editor or administrator can judge whether user's constant attacks on my credibility & intent, rather than the content of my argumentation, are or are not signs of good faith.
 * "Srk93 tries to compare The Hill with Fox News is not accurate" is a misrepresentation of my argument and avoids addressing the content. I was using Fox News as an extreme example of a media outlet known for largely factually accurate reporting (hence its use as a journalistic source on this and many other sites), while still containing sources of information that can be accidentally or knowingly false at times. All news sources are subject to this basic scrutiny. Measures of either outlet's respectability notwithstanding, Davidmejoradas has still not addressed the content of my analogy, that Saagar's unsourced, unjustified claim on a largely factual news outlet in The Hill is comparable to a member of a major news outlet making another unsourced or debunked claim––neither example is submissible citation for the same claim being made on Wikipedia, in the spirit of WP:Endorsements
 * Thanks for clarification. May 4 event does not contain any explicit endorsement of Kennedy's campaign, and to-date there is no video on-demand available of August 18 event either, so neither source is adequate for justifying a claim that Jayapal has endorsed Kennedy. If any user can provide a video of the August 18 event, linking to a time mark in which Pramila Jayapal explicitly endorses Joe Kennedy III for Senate––or any other evidence of explicit endorsement unquestionably entitled to media coverage (per criterion #1 of Political Endorsements under WP:Endorsements), I will concede the claim as true. Until then, I maintain that the item should be removed for want of adequate citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srk93 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Above user's suggestion that my first editing dispute inherently calls for questioning my intentions is disingenuous and only serves to poison discourse. It is not my responsibility that none of my editing work to-date has resulted in dispute. Is any user lacking credibility in their first editing dispute, simply because they have not yet been in one before? The willingness of the above user to engage in such ad hominem arguments does not clarify the discussion in any way, and on-readers should be careful to engage with the content of the discussion, rather than above user's straw man arguments (such as the implication that an analogy is the same thing as a false equivalency) and ad hominem attacks questioning my intentions as an editor.

Srk93 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Response Davidmejoradas (talk) 00:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, user is trying to change the main topic of this discussion. In my above claims I was just trying to clarify my first remarks but the user is still trying to attack my credibility by bringing up a topic that, at least on my side, was already settled.
 * The form that phrased his comparison made it sound as if he was saying that Fox News and The Hill were the same. As for the claim made by the user that I’m trying to  "avoid addressing the content" I believe I already addressed the content perfectly and made my POV clear.
 * In regards of the user's last remarks of someone providing a video I would say that wouldn’t qualify as an endorsement per wp:Endorsements, that was the reason why The Hill video would be the acceptable source per wp:endorsements since they are backing their claims on the August town hall. In the spirit of reaching an agreement I would suggest using Template:Failed verification until a third source is added.

Srk93 Counter-claim
 * At this point, in light of ' implication that I am obfuscating the conversation for simply defending myself from gratuitous ad hominem attacks, I will confine myself to addressing the material of the discussion. I encourage above user to refrain from further ad hominem arguments.
 * Above user has absolutely not addressed the content of my analogy, which was to emphasize that an unsourced or falsely sourced claim from a reputable source is not credible simply because the source is considered otherwise credible. A counter to this very reasonable assertion––or a good-faith demonstration that The Hill Rising's claim in the linked video is adequately substantiated, to render the point moot––has not yet been made.
 * Failed verification does not work in the interest of reaching agreement, as the dispute isn't over what aspect of the above user's claim is supported by their source, but rather that the user's provided source themself does not have a basis for making the claim. Without any actual evidence of a direct endorsement of Kennedy's campaign by Jayapal, neither source provided gives any useful information regarding the claim.
 * Barring a satisfactory source on either A) the above user's claim that Jayapal endorsed Kennedy, or B) Saagar Enjeti's claim that Jayapal endorsed Kennedy, which the above user has as their main citation, I will be treating this as unresolved and seeking the opinion of a third party.

Srk93 (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * After reconsidering, I am willing to consider Jayapal's appearance with the Kennedy campaign in a legislative & informative capacity helpful but inadequate information regarding whether Jayapal has endorsed Kennedy, and thus a form of failed verification, in the interest of reaching some form of agreement on the page. I still urge the weigh-in of a third or administrative opinion.

Srk93 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. I’m glad we reached an agreement. Happy editing. Davidmejoradas (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Note from Srk93: Agreement is provisional in the interest of avoiding an edit war, pending other input. If a third opinion supports deleting the item altogether, I am still in favor of it Srk93 (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

That’s exactly correct. Jayapal never actually endorsed him. She’s an ardent supporter of medicare for all so Kennedy likely offered her a platform to talk about it, however she never specifically endorsed him. KRed221 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Removing the endorsement, in light of third & fourth-opinion edits (not prompted or formally requested) in favor of removing the endorsement due to lack of evidence––as well as a third opinion from a separate editor (in effect, a fifth opinion) in Talk section that endorsement lacks evidence to be cited.

Srk93 (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hakeem Jeffries
I’m following the wp:BRD method of reaching consensus about Rep. Hakeem Jeffries' endorsements. Under wp:endorse criteria 3, "expressions of support, use of particular hashtags, comments about donating to a campaign, and other forms of praise of a candidate is often included as an "endorsement"" and "Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement can be discussed on a case-by-case basis (for example, "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X")" and therefore Hakeem Jeffries should be included in the endorsement section of Kennedy given this (see paragraph 7), this (praising the candidate), and this statement made by Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( minute 35:30). Moreover there was consensus on the Teahouse that campaign and/or holding campaign events was a form of endorsement but that specific cases can be discussed in the Talk page. Davidmejoradas (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Pelosi's statement on Jeffries being a Kennedy supporter is not an adequate substitute for an explicit expression of support for Kennedy's Senate campaign. Given the Tweet and Jeffries appearance at a Kennedy event, the case for Jeffries' endorsement of Kennedy as a general politician is unimpeachable, and redoubtable in the case of his campaign, but at best this constitutes failed verification in my eyes. However, the sources you've linked are all relevant and provide important context for readers that more strongly than previous instances imply passive support for Kennedy's campaign, so I advocate leaving the item up under Template:Failed_Verification Srk93 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting the Democratic primary poll table
Why don't we split the poll section of the Democratic primary with two separate tables, one with the expanded number of candidates that have dropped out long ago and the other with just Markey vs. Kennedy? VietPride10 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One is the polling average and the other are the individual polls. Davidmejoradas (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)