Talk:2021 Ohio's 11th congressional district special election

Nina Turner endorsements
Considering the three criteria at WP:ENDORSE, many of the endorsements listed for Nina Turner do not belong here. Firstly, whether or not one must have a WP page to be considered notable within this scope is TBD at the article level; consider this discussion how that will be determined. Secondly, endorsements MUST be covered by reliable, independent sources (and namely not just a tweet). Right now, literally one of the endorsements listed (Ro Khanna) clears that bar; all others are sourced only to tweets or unsourced entirely. Thirdly, all endorsements must be phrased with endorse or a similar word. Some of the tweets listed here (i.e. Joe Sanberg) are unclear in that regard and thus cannot necessarily be taken by WP as a political endorsement for this specific campaign. Willing to discuss further, but I believe that as of right now, the majority of this section needs to be removed altogether with more info to be added later on. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Seems to me that a person saying "I endorse X" would count as an information about that person insofar as "did they really endorse X" is the matter at hand. It's probably not a bad idea to replace the tweets with more conventional sources when possible, but I'm not personally seeing a violation here. --Pikavangelist (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of violations here. Per criterion two of WP:ENDORSE, sources for political endorsements cannot be just a social media post, and per WP:SELFSOURCE, self-published sources like tweets cannot involve claims about other people, cannot comprise the majority of an article, and should be used de minimis. None of these criteria are adhered to in this article. I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but Wikipedia has tons of specific policies for literally this exact incident, and not following them would be unwise. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ENDORSE directly refers to WP:RELIABLE, though, of which WP:SELFSOURCE is a subset. I completely agree that a tweet from the endorsee would be an inappropriate source (let alone a third party tweet), but I'm not convinced that the same is true of one from the person actually making the endorsement.--Pikavangelist (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An endorsement, by nature, involves a claim about another person, as in "X endorsed Y." The way I interpret the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE and WP:SELFSOURCE is that a tweet saying something that isn't a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim (for example, "I was born on Jan. 1") would be OK to use a source for that person's BLP. However, any claim made involving another person or about politics in general needs to be handled very seriously. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, am I overlooking something here? Item 2 is very clear that an endorsement from an individual has to be covered independently to meet the bar for inclusion. Hence no tweets, which it spells out: "Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources. This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example." What am I missing? Innisfree987 (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tagging in, who has recently added many endorsements. I want to make sure you’re aware of the policy on these sources and ask whether any currently sourced to Tweets have a reliable independent source that could be swapped in? It would of course be great to keep the ones that do (assuming they meet the other criteria as well). Innisfree987 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes,, the policy on this regard is very clear that any endorsement listed must be independent. As such, any tweets should be removed and the only references should be news articles, as I noted in my first post in this thread. The only exception to this stated in WP:ENDORSE would be for an organization as opposed to an individual, which helpfully pointed out below. (I still have no idea why the guidance there is different). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding, but Selvydra's post further down re: criterion 2 covers what I was actually missing about the policy. I'm willing to defer to "is the endorsement worth noting" as being the important factor, as opposed to "is the statement itself reliable". -Pikavangelist (talk) 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Per [WP:ENDORSE], endorsements by organizations can be linked to official website or social media account.

So Gravel Institute and D4A endorsement clears that bar. Hadi (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that. Any guess as to why that's more lenient than for an individual? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit odd that an individual's endorsement is not deemed reliable unless a third-party WP:RS covers it. As far as common sense goes (whose use is advocated with content guidelines like WP:ENDORSE), if an individual tweeted an endorsement from a verified Twitter account, that is tantamount to said individual stating it out loud. To me the sub-text of criterion 2 reads like it refers to unreliable third parties stating it on Twitter or Instagram. It reads like a reliability criterion, not a notability criterion that would require validation from a RS. Criterion 3 discusses what constitutes as an endorsement: "In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof." And Twitter is widely used as a means of "saying" things ("use of [...] word[s]" in the above excerpt) just as you would in a live interview. Selvydra (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I’ve been rereading the RfC votes and your disagreement is really with the community consensus. If you believe it has changed since last December, you can start a new RfC. But this is really very clear that in this RfC,the community insisted on independent coverage and did not accept tweets. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It seems that the community in the RfC wanted to use criterion 2. as an extension of criterion 1 (as a notability checker – "if not covered by a third party, then it's not notable.") I disagree with the notion that tweets from verified accounts are not reliable or comparable to live statements, but I suppose you can argue that the endorsement isn't notable unless covered by third-party RS. Selvydra (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that’s essentially it, although rather than “notable”, I would say the idea is to make sure it’s of encyclopedic significance, because notable people make insignificant tweets all the time. This is to impose a threshold of significance. Reading the old RfC I also saw mentioned that m it becomes problematic WP:OR if the rules encourage editors to trawl Twitter looking for statements. That’s the job of secondary sources, and we’re a tertiary source. This makes sure wiki editors stick to our task, as well as making sure content is encyclopedic, rather than WP:NOTCATALOG. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Resuming this discussion
Are we in agreement at minimum that ENDORSE does not allow other expressions of support that don’t specify an “endorsement”? Just to pick one I clicked on at random, this would exclude Matt Deitsch, sourced to a tweet about donating? I ask because to me the page is getting out of hand; it looks like a campaign ad and IMO violates the basic principle of WP:NOTCATALOG. It needs trimming or maybe forking but it would be a tall bar to prove “list of endorsements for an unelected candidate” wiki notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Just gave $27 to help get Nina Turner into Congress." reads to me like as "Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement" (under criterion 3. in WP:ENDORSE). A clearly stated intent to help get somebody into Congress seems comparable to the "I'm backing candidate X" example in the aforementioned guideline – only one candidate can win, after all. Selvydra (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This should not be in contention. Criterion 3 specifically mentions "comments about donating to a campaign" as enough for an endorsement, which Deitsch's quote qualifies for, IF it weren't just a tweet. It is, however, and should not be included for that reason instead. More broadly, though, I want to clarify that some messages (i.e. a retweet, a simple "good luck," or something even more nebulous than that) should not be included under any circumstance as a specific political endorsement for this campaign. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough re: criterion 3. I've posted re: criterion 2 below. Selvydra (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More to your point, I think the WP:ENDORSE criteria can be used to whittle the list down – i.e. by establishing a notability threshold for endorsers and ensuring that the expressions of endorsement are reliable and explicit. Also, the page might need entries for the other candidates to add to balance, if that's a concern. Selvydra (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree, . The policy is very clear: social media posts and, more generally, statements not expressly stated as "I endorse X candidate in Y race" or something very similar will not fly. I'd like to point out here that from the edit history, it seems the vast majority of these vague semi-endorsements linked to a tweet or something similar were made in one edit, as a large dump onto the page, and may in fact be worth reverting with the few good sources to be added individually and more credibly-sourced endorsements to be added later closer to the election. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the thinking behind why a social media post cannot constitute an "express statement" of an endorsement? So far in this discussion, I've only seen the invocation of criterion 2 of the WP:ENDORSE guideline – not reasoning as to why. Common sense interpretation of the guideline tells me statements from one's verified Twitter account should be tantamount to a live statement. The news media has long already covered politicians' tweets as their express statements. Selvydra (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you can find instances covered by (reliable) newsmedia, please substitute that ref and the endorsement can stay. That would be very helpful. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing this conversation in the above section, in a reply to your other comment. Selvydra (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, that's not the question here. The policy is clear. Social media posts alone cannot be used as a reference for a political endorsement. If the news media is already covering these endorsements, that's great! Use those sources. Your opinions and my opinions and anyone else's opinions on whether or not the policy is good or makes sense does not matter here. Even if we all came to the consensus over here that the rule is dumb and stupid and needs to be changed, it will still exist. We are not the Supreme Court. If you have a legitimate problem with the policy, then start a discussion at the talk page of WP:ENDORSE, and if that ends up changing the rule, then the new guidance will dictate what this page looks like. But right now, we're going to operate under the policy as it stands. (And for what it's worth, I will never be convinced that something like the source for Aimee Allison will ever constitute an endorsement.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you could have saved a lot of time and just replied with, "I choose not to answer your question. Rules are rules, and if you don't like them, take it up with the rule-making committee." A predictable reply it was, so I'm not sure why I even asked. For what it's worth, I apologize for the inconvenience and seeming exasperation.
 * I found the answer anyway, by reading the guideline's RfC. They wanted to use criterion 2. as an extension of 1., i.e. as a notability threshold. The reason I chose to bring the interpretation of the guideline up to discussion is because guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". What I just wrote about the notability threshold now fulfils that common sense for me. Selvydra (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I read my post again and would like to apologize. This definitely came out ruder than I would have liked. I'm glad that everyone is on the same page now., good job on removing those sources. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 14:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, I’m pleased we could come to a mutual understanding. The entry is the better for it. (And now there are three more Wikipedians who are experts on the subject of ENDORSE!) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I’ve started a trim; trying to do in two successive session so it’s easy to retrieve if someone wants to look for better sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wondered why Tulsi wasn't in Nina's endorsements. Decided to add her. Then I looked at the talk page. All I can say is fucking hell. Notunawesomeatall (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Criterion 2 of Endorsement
If you look at the RfC which established WP:Endorse, in particular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_164#Discussion_of_criterion_2) there was consensus that someone having a Wikipedia page makes them notable and thus makes their endorsement notable. Editors then said that a tweet directly from a source saying "I endorse [X]" should be included if the person meets these criteria of notability. The people being excluded here are clearly notable, by this definition and by common sense, and yet are being excluded despite directly saying from their verified account that they endorse the candidate. I propose that such endorsements be restored if they meet the aforementioned criterion of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.254.13 (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, the RfC was closed to specifically require all three criteria for individuals and not for organizations, so being notable alone is not enough for individual endorsements. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, y'all. Cleveland.com reported on Gabbard, Williamson, and Shiflett's contributions to Nina Turner, so I cited it accordingly. While adding the endorsements, I did not realize someone was removing the Omar endorsement due to lack of independent sourcing, so it accidentally got restored. Can someone else please revert that? Thank you. C41nb31t (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks on all, I’ll take care of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you’re still around—as I can’t see that Plain Dealer story, could you just confirm it’s about endorsements not just contributions? The third criteria of WP:ENDORSE is kind of picky on this point. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , regarding OurCampaigns—this appears to be a crowd-sourced site, which wouldn’t be RS for WP purposes. From their “About” page: “OurCampaigns has been a work in progress since 2002. We are a collaboration with our trusted users who have access to a large variety of tools to help enter and maintain the data.” Will loop in for another perspective. (Also C41 if you have a moment to answer my question about the Plain Dealer/Cleveland.com article?) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. OurCampaigns seems to be similar to Wikipedia citing Wikipedia. I've replaced it at times with more reliable sources in re vote data (though I haven't specifically ever seen it for endorsements). Thanks for the ping . AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, I hadn’t seen it before, appreciate the confirmation. Will remove for now. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2020
Add Andrew Yang to "Endorsements" under the "Notable Individuals" section. Guybeingdude (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think just one tweet can allow him to be put there. h 05:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He's certainly notable, but User:Lettherebedarklight is correct. Unless there's an independent source saying Yang endorsed Turner (which there may be, or there may be one soon!), we can't add him to the endorsement section per WP:ENDORSE. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It's literally his Twitter. The tweet is from Andrew Yang himself. You nerds need to go outside I don't even care if there's a pandemic because being like this is worse than covid 19. Notunawesomeatall (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for adding Gelfand's Turner endorsement and Brown endorsements
Rationale for adding back 3 of the endorsers: -Marty Gelfand: listed on cleveland.com as a local Warren campaign endorsement; listed on NASA.gov as a speaker at their 2012 Hubzone Industry Day for Small Businesses Event; and news coverage from Jewish Insider and Cleveland.com

-Michael Siegal: not initially linked because the first result that pops up is an unrelated PhD; his position as Chairman of Jewish Agency for Israel is mentioned in The New York Times, Forward.com, The Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He is mentioned in the box on the Jewish Agency for Israel page

- Pro-Israel America PAC: mentioned on ReadSludge as Engel's top donor, The Palm Beach Post in ref to Trump fundraisers, and in Times of Israel & MinnPost in ref to $400,000 donations to Omar's.

External links: Gelfand as NASA event speaker: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/news/pressrel/2012/12-027-hubzone.txt

Warren endorsement mention: https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2020/01/elizabeth-warren-rolls-out-endorsements-from-local-officials.html

NYT mention for Siegal as chairman: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/us/politics/obama-tries-to-soothe-divided-jewish-community.html

PAC Sludge link: https://readsludge.com/2020/06/22/engels-top-donor-is-an-aipac-tied-group-that-backs-powerful-gop-politicians/

Palm Beach Post link about PAC: https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/20190927/where-did-pro-israel-pac-go-after-mar-a-lago-no-one-seems-to-know

MinnPost PAC link: https://www.minnpost.com/national/2020/07/how-political-newcomer-antone-melton-meaux-manage-to-raise-six-times-the-money-that-rep-ilhan-omar-did/ C41nb31t (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Omar's opponent C41nb31t (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , So notability depends on in-depth coverage, rather than passing mentions. It would be very uncommon for a council member of a small city (town?) like Gelfland to be wikinotable and it should be pretty easy to prove if he is—like if he were involved in something unusually high-profile, but I’m not hearing that. Siegal has a high bar to climb because usually we would cover him on his organization’s page unless he is known for something else. But right now even the org page only mentions him a single time, so it doesn’t seem a bio page is warranted. The PAC possibly is notable—WP:NORG is a higher bar than most notability measures, and readsludge is not the most compelling RS, so candidly I’m not sure it would survive deletion but that one has the best chance, IMO. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Here in this 2004 Chicago Tribune article, they went into depth about Gelfand's role in helping delay the deportation of Amina Silmi by 2 weeks (finding a slip from CAIR), while working for Kucinich. The deportation case itself made major headlines, being reported by CNN, Houston Chronicle, Harvard, and so on. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-02-04-0402040328-story.html

And here, in AP News, they talk about him being Kucinich's "attack dog" and his complaints to the Ohio Democratic Party due to Fudge's alleged disguising of endorsements (not by the Ohio Dems) as a sample ballot. https://apnews.com/article/32103984a6444f4da8cbe3e2f1989ce8 C41nb31t (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Amina Silmi doesn't even have a page. If you want to go ahead and create the pages you want, be bold, but please know they'll likely be deleted. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m afraid I agree they would be deleted. The additional references contain only four or five sentences about Gelfand, not nearly the in-depth coverage of Gelfand necessary to write a biography of his life. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Shabazz
Is Tariq Shabazz a major candidate or not? Personally, I believe he should be considered so, as he has received some media coverage, notably an Interview with WKYC that the other candidates considered minor have not received, but which the major candidates have. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Tables
Generally tables and images of primary candidates are only used for Presidential elections. Someone removed them from this page, but it was reverted.2601:241:300:B610:C0A7:3C9:66F7:3F91 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Shontel Brown Campaign Photo.png