Talk:Elizabeth Warren 2020 presidential campaign

Merger proposal
This article seems very premature. Warren has not yet announced she is running. Every cycle, a few candidates (even "major" ones) form exploratory committees and then do not run. In past elections (granted, I was only around for the 2016 election), we have waited until the formal declaration was made before starting the main article. I would suggest merging this article with Elizabeth Warren until a formal announcement is made or impending. For now, it fails WP:WEIGHT and WP:TOOSOON. PrairieKid (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and let the article snowball. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Amen, Believer. I agree.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

SecretName101 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. The announcement of the exploratory committee is enough of a step to justify separate coverage, given the longstanding speculation regarding such a candidacy. In any case, the discussion of a potential merger is likely to be drawn out enough that events will surpass the pace of the consensus-building process. bd2412  T 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with those who have already commented. The exploratory committee itself should suffice for now. And we have also written articles (retrospextively) about campaigns that ended in their exploratory stage, such as Evan Bayh 2008 presidential campaign, Donald Trump 2000 presidential campaign. I also believe John Kasich 2000 presidential campaign might have only been an exploratory campaign.
 * Also, you could make the case that Donald Trump (despite running a full-flagged campaign operation for two years) has not formally announced his 2020 campaign either. SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep It Even If She Doesn't Enter. I think it's obvious that she'll enter, and in that case might as well keep it. But even if she doesn't, I think it would be worth keeping it. After all, we have pages for Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh's 2008 campaigns even though they never got past the exploratory stage. Pickle Mon (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Pickle Mon


 * Vilsack did formally announce and withdraw. I think the same argument for Bayh could be used as I am using here; I don't think we should have that article either. Saying it is obvious Warren will enter is clear WP:NOTSPECULATION and WP:TOOSOON. As I said, many candidates (even major ones) have had exploratory committees without running. Until she announces officially or formally, I do not see why it is anything aside from speculation to say she will run. PrairieKid (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

It should stay. There was wide speculation over whether she will run and she did formally announce forming the exploratory committee. She's been in the spotlight for the viral announcement. We should keep it. capriaf (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ir should stay, just as the pages should stay for every plausible candidate. Iff she should subsequently withdraw, we can reconsider.  DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I closed the discussion as both the main Warren bio and this page are likely heavily trafficked pages and it does not appear that there is consensus to move forward at this time. I'm not putting formal closure tags over this discussion or anything; if you would like to continue this conversation and readd the merge discussion tags, by all means please do.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No mention of Pocahontas? I Googled "elizabeth warren Pocahontas" and got 3.1 million results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.114.108.98 (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Needs updates
This article needs to be updated for Warren's 2020 campaign. Free college and student debt forgiveness plans. And all of her other policies that have gotten huge media coverage. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Loaded Language
The article is really informative, and for the most part neutral, but there is some loaded language in here. Examples include: And most blatantly, I know I'm not the best person to clean this up, or I would, but I wanted to bring it to the right person's attention, especially as the Warren campaign picks up steam. Thanks. - Amatheur (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Warren supports the proposed Green New Deal to create jobs and fight climate change."
 * "She emphasizes the protection of customers and workers and stopping monopolies from forming.[33]"
 * "Former top economic adviser to Obama and both Clintons, Gene Sperling has said "This type of wealth tax is essential." David Leonhardt wrote that "Warren is trying to treat not just the symptoms but the underlying disease."[31]"
 * What is loaded about that language? PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the last one, what's the legitimate, encyclopedic purpose of including those two quotes? They don't tell you anything about her position, but rather just serve as endorsements thereof. For the first two, those don't really say what she believes in. Frankly, they're politician speak ("emphasizes the protection of customers and workers." Who wouldn't say they believe in that? Tell what she's doing, and then say that's her goal). If those were coupled with policy suggestions, it would be fine. - Amatheur (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * EDIT: I see that you took the liberty of removing the loaded language tag. I'll discuss with you here, but if we can't figure something out within 24 hours, I'm going to put it back up. - Amatheur (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "loaded language" is the right tag. "Politician speak" just sounds like you should rephrase it to be more neutral. The article can also include a broader array of POVs on these things. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't tag it "loaded language," I tagged it non-neutral, so it sounds like you agree with me. If you do, then why did you remove the NPOV tag? I'm acknowledging right now that I have neither the time nor the skill right now to clean it up, but I'd like to bring to the attention of someone who can - and the reader. = Amatheur (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What I think you're saying is that some of the statements read like promotional content or from a Warren talking points press release. Fine, you might have a point there, but I don't think that means the whole article should be tagged as though it is biased or some kind of Warren puff piece. It's a few sentences lacking some balance, like you say, not the whole article. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fair. Maybe Template:POV section would be better? Or it looks like I may have some time on my hands. Frankly, I don't want to be the one to revise because I am American and I'm not pro-Warren as the nominee, so I'm afraid that my bias will show. If you are, or if you feel more neutrally, I could do some revisions in the next few days and run them by you? - Amatheur (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements box
Can we delete the entire endorsements box? I don’t see the benefit of having the main article link and a duplicate box. This is essentially creating double work, as updates to one article have to be matched in the other and vice versa. Warren’s list of endorsements is also fairly long, so this adds to the page size and creates unnecessary citation clutter. Bobbychan193 (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Since no one responded, I've boldly deleted it. If you have an objection, ping me and let's discuss. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Potential update
New Story from Politico about the campaign. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting, of course this flew under the radar, but definitely a note worthy addition to the campaign ariticle, since its from Politico it should definitely be included --EliteArcher88 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That information has been in the article for weeks; it is the last paragraph of the section "Campaign." HouseOfChange (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

She dropped out.
Somebody please do a section on this for the article. ---Dagme (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I added citations to the sentence in the lede paragraph that stated she suspended her campaign, were you wanting a more expanded section? If you clarify what you want in a specific dedicated section, we can discuss it further. --TomaHawk61 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Suspended campaign
The final sentence in the lede paragraph states she suspended her campaign, I was thinking to expand upon maybe some of the reasons that led up to this ultimate decision, mainly her poor performance on Super Tuesday, I think that this information gives a good consensus as to why the campaign was suspended and all those facts can be backed by RS, thoughts? --TomaHawk61 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a paragraph in the "Campaign suspension" subsection under "Campaign" that contains some analysis on why she dropped out. Sk5893 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for pointing that out Sk5893. --TomaHawk61 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In drastic need of expansion
To be blunt, the article is shit. It hardly describes many aspects of the campaign, and leaves many other aspects unmentioned. I plan to help make improvements going forward, when I can find the time. SecretName101 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)