Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign

"Key people" in infobox

There are currently 8 people (and their roles) in the infobox's "key people" field, none of whom are independently notable. Is this list of names helpful? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Independent notability isn't a prerequisite, but I'd keep Jess Fassler, add Dan McNally, and remove the rest. R2 (bleep) 22:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, I understand notability isn't a prerequisite, but a lengthy list of non-notable people seems a bit problematic. Thanks for weighing in here. Also, who did mean instead of Dan McNally? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Right. The infobox of an organization shouldn't be used as an org chart. According to sources McNally is co-running the campaign along with Fassler. I didn't dig too deeply. R2 (bleep) 22:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ahrtoodeetoo, Ah, ok, I thought you said a wrong name since I didn't see McNally mentioned in the prose or infobox. Thanks for clarifying. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: I saw you made this edit. Curious if you have any thoughts on the key people mentioned in this article. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Not all staffers are notable, even if independent sources (such as Iowa Starting Line, which has the most thorough coverage of staffers based in Iowa) confirm that they are employed by the campaign. As a rule of thumb, anyone with the title of "Campaign Manager" is probably notable, anyone else probably is not notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I use the word "notable", but in a vague sense. Including a full org chart of the campaigns is a blatant WP:BLP policy violation, regardless of sourcing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on this discussion to date, I've removed all names from the infobox but the campaign manager. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

I just had a quick read about the other female candidates. In this page, there is no mentioning of "historical significance". Amy Klobuchar's and Kamala Harris' 2020 pages have "second consecutive female nominee". So, maybe "second consecutive" is a good choice of words. Maybe this page should have the "female historical significance" added back. [1] Maybe Elizabeth Warren + Tulsi Gabbard 2020 pages should follow similarly. Tony85poon (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the details, but as usual everything should be supported by a reliable source that explicitly supports the content. The old version you point to did not. R2 (bleep) 16:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

All of the "historical significance" is bullshit on all the articles; the sources that support those claims often have blatant factual inaccuracies. I'm too involved to remove it everywhere, but I would prefer that it were gone. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly! There is no "Historical significance" at Marianne Williamson 2020 presidential campaign. Tony85poon (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that simply mentioning that Gillibrand will be the first female president is "bullshit." Looking over the other candidates' sections, all I see is basic info; Gabbard would be the first woman and Pacific Islander, Sanders would be the first Jew, etc. It's pretty easily sourced and fairly important from a historical perspective. As for Williamson, she only lacks a "historical significance" section because no one's bothered to make one for her, not because a hypothetical Williamson victory wouldn't be significant. Virtually all other candidates do have them (Harris is particularly noteworthy, as she's black, Asian, and a woman). Following that precedent, it doesn't make sense to me why Gillibrand shouldn't have her own section. Silver181 (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

New campaign logo

In her official announcement video (released a few hours ago as of this writing), Gillibrand included a new version of the campaign logo. Does someone know where to get the file? Zach (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Sapphirewhirlwind, I just removed an outdated logo from the article. Do you mean there has been another logo change since the one currently displayed in the article's infobox? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding a historical significance section

Starting a new section on this as I think any discussion which involved a certain disruptive editor should be restarted.

I'm in favor of adding that she would be the first woman president, even if its a bit trivia style. Anyone object to @Silver181: re-adding it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydromania (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in a historical significance section. It is relevant information for many readers (including myself), and if properly sourced does no harm. I'm in favor. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 04:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jjj1238, Silver181, and Hydromania: Shouldn't this article be merged into the main one like I just did for Michael Bennet? This wasn't a very notable campaign... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Yes, it should. Her campaign barely had any real relevance and will probably be forgotten within a year (if it was not already forgotten). { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jjj1238:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)