Talk:Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

The lead of the Article

Huge smile! Kirsten, I am glad we are both in

That is a genuine feedback from Cory Booker. Tony85poon (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Not worth noting, especially in the introduction. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Position

Where has the "Political positions" section gone? (Below is only in a random order (chronological order would be better))

• John_Delaney_2020_presidential_campaign#Platform/positions
• Tulsi_Gabbard_2020_presidential_campaign#Policies
• Amy_Klobuchar_2020_presidential_campaign#Positions
• Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign#Political_positions
• Richard_Ojeda_2020_presidential_campaign#Political_positions
• Elizabeth_Warren_2020_presidential_campaign#Political_positions

As a supposedly-neutral editor, if you simply chop off the section with the substance entirely, you are treating Kirsten's campaign unfairly. Tony85poon (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm/we're following Wikipedia rules re: secondary sourcing. Please add facts using newspapers, journals, and other scholarly works as sources. Not Twitter. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there is anyone joining for new comment, please give your independent thoughts on "Can a tweet be used as a source in Wikipedia articles?" Tony85poon (talk) 05:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Can a political campaign article have a "Positions" section? Tony85poon (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tony85poon: You're welcome to share sourcing and preferred wording, or even update the article yourself, but please don't use Tweets as sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You got any good ones? Save time googling and search.yahoo.com et cetera. God bless Tony85poon (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's one. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

[1] I copied that link from the "number 19 citation" of the Serge F. Kovaleski article. As an example of sourcing, that Trump tweet helped to support the content of that article. (come on, guys, I am neutral. It is just for the sake of freedom-of-speech) Did the other editors argue that the Trump tweet fails to meet "secondary sourcing" requirement? Tony85poon (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To the fellow-editors who want to cite Tweets as sources, I recommend you read this, God bless. Tony85poon (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Whereabouts?

Do we need the "Whereabouts" section? What purpose does this serve, exactly? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Update: The content was removed with this edit. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Winning the popular vote (let us say, Kamala Harris gets a lot of votes within California where the population density is high) does not mean winning the US presidency. Back in 2016, the democratic primary between Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton did drag on for some time. Back in 2008, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.

The significance is that New Hampshire is "first in the nation". When the 2020 democratic primary happens, people in New Hampshire vote first. The fact that she did go to New Hampshire means she took the campaign to the next level (not just a candidate who announces then chill out / relax / go lazy and see what happens). The election has a special electoral college feature. As she went to places with the intention to grab points, it is useful factual basis of her trying to win over the other presidential candidates within the Democratic Party. Tony85poon (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need a list of all the places the candidate has traveled.

User:Tony85poon, your edit summary when you restored this material [2] shows that you misunderstand edit warring. WP:3RR does not mean that you are entitled to 3 reverts per day . The material had been challenged and is under discussion here. It's not appropriate to simply leave your opinion and restore it. Meters (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me what is appropriate then. I got a 48-hour block for edit-warring Film censorship in China (but I still managed to make a point during the block period at that talk page using IP). How can I avoid another block this time? Tony85poon (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tolerate vandalism of article? Tony85poon (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Don't call reasonable edits vandalism. That can be considered a personal attack.
2. Don't come back from an edit warring warning block and show that you still don't understand edit warring.
3. Don't WP:SOCK when you are blocked. You are lucky that you were not blocked again.
4. Discuss the material on the talk page and wait for consensus before restoring it, assuming consensus is to restore it. Meters (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think starting a discussion on the talk page and then marking it resolved 5 minutes later is the best way to go about cleaning up an article. (I am aware the content was removed by a different user) Re the actual question, I support leaving in the list of places a campaign has been as this is a page dedicated specifically to her campaign. In that context it is interesting and notable. (Providing it's sourced etc) Hydromania (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the "resolved" tag, and I'm perfectly fine letting more users weigh in. I've shared my preference below. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I support removing the "Whereabouts" section, at least in its current form. The list of cities provides nothing to readers. If the content can be expanded into prose to give some context and demonstrate significance, then I might change my mind. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I support removing the section per Another Believer's comments. ---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• I also support removing the section; there is no historical value in retaining such a list on Wikipedia, and merely reflects ordinary campaign travels. The only primary candidate whose itinerary is particularly noteworthy is Castro's given his 50-state tour during the primaries; there is nothing particularly exceptional or noteworthy about Gillibrand's campaign itinerary. Mélencron (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I will delete the "Denver · Dallas · Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders" and support the remaining locations with a brief prose. Tony85poon (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Tony85poon, this is not sufficient work. You're not addressing the concerns other editors have with this content. I've removed the "Whereabouts" content once again. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• You are too strict. Wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit. What's fair is to keep the section and let others (who read the section at a reasonable quality) continue to do "sufficient work". WP:censored Your removal tactic is effective censorship. What you can do (but Wikipedia is volunteer work, so you don't have to, it is really up to you) is to work on Julian Castro 2020 presidential campaign and/or others and find ways to improve those articles. With great respect to yourself truly from my heart. Tony85poon (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Tony85poon, I've undone your revert, and I strongly suggest you let this go. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• There is 1 opinion (from Hydromania) in favor of keeping the section. Do we really have to RfC again? Tony85poon (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  Tony85poon, Yes, you have a vote on your side, but more editors disagree with including the "Whereabouts" section. No, please do not start another RfC. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Should a section of the article be removed while a consensus at the Talk Page is pending? Tony85poon (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony85poon, Yes, remove this content until there's consensus to add. You're not cooperating here, Tony. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah no RfC needed. @Tony85poon:, you need to recognize when consensus is not on your side (or in this case, our side). You can try to convince others on the talk page of the merits of your arguments but an RfC is not the way to go. This is the third RfC you started on this page alone. I suggest re-reading WP:RFCBEFORE. Hydromania (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think administrators do have power to make a judgment and remove the RfC (but I hope that the RfCs stay. I prefer to let the Robot remove them due to the lapse of time). By the way, I was told twice that I misused the RfC function, that is, Talk:Hong_Kong_West_Kowloon_railway_station#Merge_West_Kowloon_Station_Mainland_Port_Area_into_Hong_Kong_West_Kowloon_railway_station and Talk:Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#The_list/table_at_section_6.

• The root of the problem is that the other editors are deploying a strategy of "removal" against this article alone. Time and tide waits for no man. If the consensus is that "hey, the other editors are correct, you shouldn't re-add the content" then I want to see that consensus faster, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude "Whereabouts" section. The RfC is inappropriate and should be removed, since RfCs on article talk pages are for content disputes, not conduct disputes. Regardless, on the underlying content dispute, it seems clear to me that the "Whereabouts section" Tony85poon wants to include is totally unencyclopedic and just plain weird, with potential BLP ramifications (shades of stalking). R2 (bleep) 22:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• 1. If you find that content to be weird, simply don't read it. Don't click the section. You can just read the "Political positions" (where the substance is) then stop. What's weird to you can be interesting to me; 2. Conduct disputes go to my talk page. Tony85poon (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You missed where I called the section unencyclopedic. Just because something is "interesting" doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Read WP:NOTEVERYTHING as well as WP:RECENTISM. R2 (bleep) 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Recentism as a positive". Tony85poon (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign#"Whereabouts"_section: I've removed the "Whereabouts" section from the Cory Booker article as well. Some of the other campaign articles may need to be updated as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tony85poon: This is not constructive. I recommend self-reverting if you'd like to demonstrate you're willing to follow rules. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC) No, I won't revert those 2 edits. I have also edited Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign#February-March_2019 and Donald Trump Jr.#2019, cheers. Tony85poon (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

You are using the "strategy of removal" again, WP:NOTCENSORED. I have to admit, your tactic is working. Tony85poon (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Your conduct here is borderline disruptive and raises some other issues – stop restoring content for which there is clearly no consensus to include and putting words into other editors' mouths, as it seems to show that you're not here to engage productively with other editors. Mélencron (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tony85poon: I've been familiarizing myself with this article, and my opinion is that the best thing you can do right now is self-revert those additions of text, since they have been objected to and everything works on WP:CONSENSUS. Throwing around NOTCENSORED doesn't help. If you don't, I think we should elevate this to an appropriate noticeboard, unless it has been already. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me what's the consensus at Film censorship in China? I insisted that article to have a "Run time shortened by the producer and/or the distributor commercially in the first place to ensure the profit of movie theaters". I don't see the consensus at the Talk Page. What I do see is a lot of personal attacks from User talk:Supermann. By the way, I am not going to self-revert my latest edits at Film Censorship in China. Yes, would you please elevate this to an appropriate noticeboard. Tony85poon (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

post your proposed edits on the talk page of that article and wait for feedback (I was told to)

See also: United States presidential primary § Calendar, and Political campaign § Strategies

Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have great strategic importance. Among all the states, New Hampshire has the first party primary vote.

References
References

• Tony85poon, thank you for posting this. Now let other editors weigh in, do not disrupt the discussion, do not reply to every single person with whom you disagree, and do not restore the content unless/until there is a consensus to do so. R2 (bleep) 18:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: moratorium on article edits by Tony85poon

Resolved

I propose that Tony85poon be asked by the local community to stop editing this article while the ANI thread is pending. I don't think it's intentional, but he's completely disrupting healthy article development. I don't know if such a moratorium would be enforceable, but it would provide a clear signal that the other editors of this page would like him to figure out how to edit constructively before he continues to try to do so. R2 (bleep) 00:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Probably o the right place for this in the first place, but moot now since the editor in question is CU indeffed for socking. Meters (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tags

A lot of content has been removed from the article. Are all the tags still necessary? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the tags can be removed now. Most of the problems that prompted their placement have been fixed.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A. Randomdude0000, I agree, I'll remove them. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tweets about her children etc.

I removed this from the page, we don't report everyone of her tweets, nor every tweet against her. Needs a secondary source to establish notability for inclusion.

Personal

Gillibrand tweeted a video clip showing her sliding around on an ice covered sidewalk with her son, captioned "campaigning is hard work when your 10 year old is along for the ride". In response to a different tweet, Donald Trump Jr retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign".

Hydromania (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

References

My edit got reverted. The below wikitext is preserved so that (if successful later), they can be added to the regular content conveniently.

Personal

Son of incumbent president Donald Trump Jr. retweeted, "...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign". In response, Gillibrand encouraged people to make monetary donations to the campaign. She avoided a war of words.

See also: campaign finance

Tony85poon (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Much better, as it's a secondary source. but I agree with the editor who removed it, needs a more mainstream RS to establish notability. Hydromania (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. If you insist on requiring a mainstream RS, then I guess you mean "Reuters" & "Associated Press". In effect, you are discouraging (making the life difficult on) the small-scale news organizations. Where do we draw the line between "mainstream RS" and "non-mainstream RS"? If you want to make counter-argument, please mention a specific wikipedia rule that says causeaction.com and dennismichaellynch.com have what-specific-problem, thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC Trump Junior Tweets

The consensus is against including this information.

Cunard (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the Twitter Exchange with Donald Trump Jr. ("...if you think running as a parent is edgy delete your account and your campaign") relevant and encyclopedic? Tony85poon (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose adding it. WP:UNDUE Hydromania (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment President Trump uses Social media heavily, so the "Tweet" itself meets the "weight" requirment. Having said that, it is up to the editor to determine which tweets are not significant and should be ignored, which tweets have significance should be cited. Also, the editor should be careful that the Twitter account is not a fake one, or it was not hacked by someone with malicious intent. In other words, editors should consider whether the tweets reflect a genuine state of mind of the twitter-account-users. Tony85poon (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are aware it's Trump junior's tweet we are talking about? Either way, multiple RS determine weight. Not wikipedia editors. That's called Original Research. Hydromania (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. The original research wasn't by me. It was "Scott Morefield" and "Evan Brechtel" who reported the Twitter Exchange. At secondnexus.com it says that there are "56 shares". Come on! Still not notable enough? Tony85poon (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As an example, I added the following to the Chinese version of Cory 2020 article,

除了英語，他也用西班牙語回答問題， 用西班牙語撰寫推文。

These two citations work strongly together (weak if separated). They serve a great purpose of letting the readers see that Cory Booker knows the Spanish language. There is no complain at the Chinese Wikipedia about the Spanish Tweet so far. My point is that we ought to have a holistic approach. Tony85poon (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

References

• Question. Did any WP:RS cover it? If not, then I would Oppose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:UNDUE and, as I've already mentioned, these and previous edits you've made to 2020 campaign articles have often added entirely unencyclopedic and irrelevant content for no obvious reason. Mélencron (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Answer MJL's question specifically. YES, I found THREE RELIABLE SOURCES. In the same article, I previously added, "She has drawn criticism from Rubio and Trump for tweeting 'Our future is female, intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another, And we’re just getting started'." supported by ONLY ONE Fox News citation. No one is complaining about two Republicans criticizing Kirsten Gillibrand. Ha! In fact, we are okay with Fox News being a "mainstream RS". Please stick to the WP:NPOV. Please keep Wikipedia healthy with freedom of speech. Tony85poon (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow ok. Seems everyone involved needs to WP:SLOWDOWN. Mélencron, no need to get personal. Hydromania (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Striking as it seems @Mélencron: had the right idea. Hydromania (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear-cut WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM. We don't include every tweet that's made it into the news, especially ones that include stupid, vacuous harassment. What are we, some sort of bullying platform? That's Twitter, not Wikipedia. R2 (bleep) 21:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose and it's ridiculous to include a ordinary Tweet from Donnie, Jr. on this unrelated page. And I think some editors have to relearn what a reliable source is. Except for in very specific situations, Wikipedia does not use self-published sources or blogs as reliable sources. It has nothing to do with censorship, it's about fact-checking and editorial oversight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• "self-published sources or blogs"?!? causeaction.com and dennismichaellynch.com and secondnexus are news-sources. Tony85poon (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Kirsten_Gillibrand_2020_presidential_campaign. Tony85poon (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I responded to this on the noticeboard and your talk page. I think I have answered your questions. Are you satisfied with the feedback or do you have a question that hasnt been answered? It's a good idea to request to close a dispute if you're satisfied with the replies you have received. Verify references (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the feedback. I no longer wish to argue this point. Tony85poon (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive 1