Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rapid request to merge with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign

NO MERGE:

There is a clear consensus against a merge of List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements to Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign.

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.

---

Even though one ended up making sense for 2016, this is wayyyy too early, not to mention presumptuous, to have this page. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The list is already getting rather long, and will only get longer. No reason to merge it only to have to recreate the page later, but the list is already long enough for its own page anyway. --eduardog3000 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It is premature to give this its own page, as Sanders does not have a larger number of endorsements than other candidates, who do not have articles for their endorsements. TheSubmarine (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Unless every Democratic candidate is going to have one at this early stage, it doesn't make sense for Bernie to have his own page for endorsements. He is a similar amount to Harris and other candidates AWiseishGuy (talk) 06:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support as Sanders currently has far less endorsements than what Jeb Bush had overall in 2016 and he never got his own page for his endorsements. Furthermore, to say that this list will get longer is WP:CRYSTAL, especially since there are plenty of other major candidates competing in the Democratic primary. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Walk Like an Egyptian: I just looked at the page with Jeb Bush's endorsements and the one with all the major Republicans' running in 2016. It seems that only Trump, Kasich, and Cruz got an endorsement page, but Bush didn't get one strangely. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: This page will get longer. —Capriaf
• Oppose: Per User:Eduardog3000 and User:Capriaf. Bernie Sanders is in fact placed second in almost every poll, so he is a top contender now. Not to mention he is the 2020 candidate with one of the most endorsements. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: This page is already long enough to justify a separate page. It will only burden the campaign page and will have to be recreated if merged. Tvc 15 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC) As per WP:Merging, this page is not "very short and is [not] unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time." This page is expanding and is already longer than "very short," whereas creating a very short endorsements page for Tulsi Gabbard or Jay Inslee at this point in the cycle would be unreasonable and would be cause for merge. This page warrants a separate article as have many others here: Category:United States presidential election endorsements. Should we propose deletion or merge of List of Evan McMullin 2016 presidential campaign endorsements and List of Jill Stein 2016 presidential campaign endorsements? Tvc 15 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: It's too early for a separate page; if he does end up becoming a top contender it'll make sense, but for now I think it should be merged. It's giving him undue credit, and then there'll have to be more pages made for Harris, Booker, Warren, and so on. Rishabh06 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Page will get longer trust me. Merging this now will only be tedious as eventually when this race get closer to the primaries more endorsements will come to the point we'll have a discussion about creating a separate article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Page is already long Shushugah (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Would make the other page much more burdensome than it already is, with the frequency with which this page is updated, both to add or vet additions. JesseRafe (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: That would make the page huge in the next few weeks. Bernie is only behind Joe Biden in polls so this page will continue to grow. Wadew1 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see a single reason to merge the already-long endorsements list to the other article. Davey2116 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support: Most of the arguments in opposition appear to be that this page will be necessary at some point, but that does not justify the existence of the page at this point. It may very well be the case that Sanders, O'Rourke, Harris, Biden, Booker, and other top contenders will need independent endorsement pages at some point, but future anticipation is not a justification for current existence. Avidohioan (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• I already said oppose, but can we just remove the header on the top of the page, because it seems to be consensus that it should remain separate. It's already long and it is getting longer with each rally Bernie does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capriaf (talk • contribs) 00:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ^{Discussion leans towards oppose but is not unanimous. As per WP:Consensus, a lack of consensus in deletion discussions "normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept" and I think that should apply to this merger discussion. As I stated elsewhere on this talk page, the result of similar deletion discussions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016 was keep. edited by Tvc 15 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)} Assistance from WP:Proposed mergers or WP:WikiProject Merge may be helpful until this discussion is added to Requests for Closure. Tvc 15 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Tvc 15, consensus doesn’t mean unanimous. It means general agreement, which there tends be as the margin is about 2:1. I read what you cited and you're logic is a little flawed. It's growing, the consensus is don't merge. So please do not confuse consensus with unanimous. -Capriaf
      • Capriaf: I did not mean to imply that consensus has to be unanimous and I've edited the comment. I've kept a portion of the comment recommending the Requests for Closure noticeboard mentioned in WP:MERGE#Step 4. The formal comment period is 30 days (i.e. ending 22 March 2019), but a discussion can be added to the noticeboard early "if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed." I have made my position opposing merge clear but I recommend that an uninvolved editor close the discussion. --Tvc 15 (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: It's already super long.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmithca (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: This article is 40 kb, compared to the main article's 17 kb... a merger would be nonsensical, as this list of endorsements would take up most of the article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony85poon (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: That the page could get longer should not be a reason to keep it. It very well may get longer over the next year and when it does, we should make this its own page THEN, but right now, we're trying to get consensus on what we think will happen in the future rather than whether there is merit to keep it right now. And as others have said, Bernie's current endorsements are not more numerous than others like Kamala Harris or 2016 Jeb Bush campaign who never got an endorsement's page. And as identified below, some of the endorsements included on the page don't appear to be endorsements at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:701:5D36:E0A5:53F8:A112:BA97 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per above Leotext (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Already lengthy enough that it is of no benefit to the reader to merge it into another article of significant size. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:39, 14 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.

Tweets that are not endorsements

There are a large number of tweets cited here along the lines of "glad to have him in the race" — these are not actual endorsements.--Pharos (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Being glad someone joined a race is different that supporting them. I support removing these people or organizations from the list 23.25.224.97 (talk) 20:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Direct endorsements, including tweeting campaign slogans, or messages of monetary support/donation, should be considered valid. On the other hand, acknowledgement or a mention of a campaign or candidate isn't an endorsement of the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVenaCava (talk • contribs) 04:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, we should not list 2016 endorsements in here as well without proof the person or group endorsed him this election. Richard Ojeda is an example. No tweet even mentions Bernie for 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capriaf (talk • contribs) 21:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Tons of "endorsements" on here are just people saying something along the lines of "Glad to hear that he is running." That is not an explicit endorsement at all. I agree that we should only include endorsements if they explicitly state "I support Bernie Sanders" or something to that effect. Silver181 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Mixed thoughts If this is a proposal that any endorsements via Twitter are to be removed, I oppose (I don't agree with the implication of the title "Tweets that are not endorsements") If this is a proposal that we remove non-endorsement endorsements, I support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Mixed Agree with what @BrendonTheWizard said that removing all tweets are wrong, but removing non-endorsement endorsements is correct. However i wonder why if it was the latter, why would it even need to be voted on? (0u0;✿) ~𝓜𝓙𝓛'𝓼 𝓔𝓿𝓲𝓵 𝓢𝓲𝓼𝓽𝓮𝓻 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for getting a separate page for list of campaign endorsements

What is the criteria for having a list for campaign endorsements? We have a related discussion of whether this list is too short to have its own page: Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements#Rapid request to merge with Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. I'm also questioning if having this kind of list is neccessary for candidates. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In the cases of List of Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements, and List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements, it is absolutely necessary to have these lists. All three of these lists exceed at least 250,000 bytes. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The value of endorsement lists -- and the reasoning for not merging or deleting -- is expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016, where the result in both cases was keep. Tvc 15 (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Retweets

Generally, a lot of accounts say retweets are not endorsements. However, some accounts are routinely retweeting #FeelTheBern or #Bernie2020. David Sirota (@davidsirota) is one in particular. He retweets his wife, who officially endorsed Bernie and retweeted several others. Should we include him? -Capriaf —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Brianna Westbrook

Capriaf-- Westbrook is not a DNC member despite being a State Party Vice Chair. According to the DNC, "Each State Party’s Chair and Vice Chair (technically, the Vice Chair position is filled by the highest ranking officer of the opposite sex of the Chair) are automatically recognized as DNC members." Not every vice chair from a state-level Democratic Party is a DNC member because some states have 1 vice chair and some states have multiple vice chairs. In Arizona, the Chair is Felecia Rotellini and the "First Vice Chair" is Pat Burns. In addition, the endorsement tracker by 538.com has a list of DNC member endorsements and Westbrook is not listed. Westbrook should be listed in the DNC member category if there's a source listing her as a DNC member. Otherwise, she should be listed as a Democratic Party figure. Although she does not have a Wikipedia page, she is notable as a Vice Chair of a state-level Democratic Party. What are your thoughts? --Tvc 15 (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I echo the above comment; the most recent DNC membership roster does not mention Westbrook, either – she's not a DNC member and shouldn't be listed as one here. Mélencron (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If she does not have a super delegate vote, then she should not be included anywhere on this list as she does not have her own page. If she has one, then move her to DNC Members because the super delegates, or "automatic delegates" as they now purport themselves as, are essentially DNC members. Capriaf

International endorsements?

Why are we listing these? They can't vote for Bernie, no one they represent can vote for Bernie (barring dual citizens) and while I'm not suggesting that this is actually going on, it's illegal for foreign nationals to either donate or give anything of value to an American campaign. So I'm curious what the rationale is. Nevermore27 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Endorsments?

So as those who watch this page & the Sanders Campaign know, Bernie 2020 recently released an "Anti-Endorsements" of people are dinstincly/explicityly opposed to a Sanders presidency. I'm curious what the Wiki community thinks about adding a section to this page or if it should be its own page. I raise this question because I think it's a fascinating concept but want to know what the sentiment about it could be... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.107.1 (talk) 19:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea simply cuz on the List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements there's a comparable "Declined to endorse" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccali1214 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Krystal Ball

In the given reference, an interview with TYT, Krystal Ball does not endorse Sanders, she only explains why she thinks that he is the better choice in comparison with Warren. Likely she will support Sanders at some point in time, but at the moment her favorites appear to be Sanders and Gabbard and Yang. This is very similar to the position of Kim Iversen, and you wouldn't state that Iversen endorsed Sanders before that actually happened. Please check the source and withdraw this entry if there is no better source to support it. This is also a professional issue, Ball and Iversen are journalists. Subscribed to The Hill, Iversen, Sanders and Gabbard on YouTube as curious user from the EU: –84.46.52.57 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

 – per WP:ENDORSERFC + WP:BLP –84.46.52.57 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

endorserfc again

@Jccali1214: See WP:ENDORSERFC. Please do not restore non-notable people or endorsements not based on coverage in independent reliable sources per that RfC. (If a person is notable but doesn't have an article yet, it should be accompanied by sufficient reliable sources to show notability in addition to the endorsement, but I don't know why we'd want that rather than just restricting to people who already have articles, i.e. WP:WTAF). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

538

I see several endorsements have been added with fivethirtyeight added as a source (this page). It seems like quite a stretch to call this coverage in a reliable source when all they're doing is collecting tweets without adding any context. @MrX: have you seen this come up on these articles before? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I have seen 538 used as a source for endorsements (and polling) and I've treated it as a reliable secondary source. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming they're doing their job of aggregating, that sort of defeats [part of] the point of #2 of the endorserfc. One part is to defer to them to determine what is/isn't an endorsement. That much is satisfied by 538. The other part is to wait until an endorsement is worth noting. I guess I don't know what 538's threshold is to determine how much they're useful in that regard. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Official Twitter accounts are valid sources

Some users are now removing some endorsements based on the fact that they are sourced to Twitter accounts and don't employ secondary sources. Primary sources are valid if they are used to state the source's opinion. So I'm going to undo the removals.Rafe87 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Undid only one removal.Rafe87 (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read the community consensus at WP:ERFC. Self-published sources are no longer acceptable sources for endorsements. Independent reliable sources are required.- MrX 🖋 02:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding Citations

Y'all, if you're adding a citation to an endorsement of someone who's already listed, DO NOT remove the original citation if it's clear it's an endorsement. There can be multiple citations for an individual or organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccali1214 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And as a corollary, can we as editors continue to add those citations that are removed back to the various endorsers as possible? I believe is valuable to the integrity of the record. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.170.6 (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to add. If you don't see an "independent" or "valid" source based on your opinion, please do a search to verify the endorsement is valid or not. TNH it's getting real annoying having to re-add legit endorsements that people lazily remove cuz they don't like Twitter or other websites as primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccali1214 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

What constitutes an endorsement for Wikipedia's purposes

As a reminder, the following criteria are in effect for endorsements on this and similar lists.

There is consensus among participating editors that endorsements from an individual must meet all three of the following criteria for inclusion on a list of endorsements:

1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

See WP:ENDORSERFC for details.

We still have editors adding all manner of Tweets, YouTube videos, and non-endorsements like this: "Bernie Sanders officially announces his presidential campaign on my birthday. Coincidence? I think not."[1] That is not an endorsement. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Just in case, because this section mentions "similar lists": Presumably the 2016 criteria are still valid for 2016, and I reverted my attempt to "fix" (=remove) a sourced "only supporter" entry. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The "criteria" that you linked is negated by the new criteria listed above.- MrX 🖋 12:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please Do This before Removing Endorsers/Citations that don't meet the criteria.

First, thank you to the editors who value maintaining the integrity of the page and verifying endorsers and sources meet the criteria as set forth WP:ENDORSERFC.

That said, please do a quick web search (Google, Bing, or whatever catches your fancy) to verify that the said endorser has in fact not endorsed the candidate (in this case Senator Sanders) before removing the endorser. If you do find a source, please add it. Maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia we're creating means making sure endorsers that have actually endorsed are sourced well, not just claiming they haven't endorsed because the source is deemed to be invalid. I've seen many editors first instinct is to remove the source when an endorser has clearly have endorsed a candidate (e.g. through social media only) but haven't had the privilege to have an article written about them. So please just take one additional step and be great editors. Thanks y'all. Jccali1214 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Plus, it's just a nice thing to do for many editors 1) who aren't aware of the latest rule and criteria changes and 2) who have, myself included, spending much time adding sources and trying to get it right. Let's help each other out y'all, thanks.

@Jccali1214: I'm sorry, but that's not how we do things, and if you reflect on it, you'll see that it's not reasonable. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wishing to add material. It's not even hard to do it right: Search "Bernie Sanders" endorsements in Google, click on the News tab, and Bob's your uncle. [2] - MrX 🖋 23:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's best practice to see if a contribution is fixable rather than removing it because as written it doesn't meet an obscure criterion not accessible to new users (in this case, detailed knowledge of the recent WP:ERFC). I notice, MrX, that you've been notifying some users of the RfC on their talk pages, but your notices don't mention that the second criterion—coverage in reliable, independent sources—is not applicable to organizations (where there was no consensus on implementing it as a rule), only applying to individuals. I take it that you're not aware of this, and so many of your removals such as Young Labour UK, Young Democrats of America, Young Democratic Socialists of America etc. were not covered by ERFC. If you could re-add them for the time being, that would be helpful, and if there are reasons to exclude specific notable organisations who clearly endorsed Sanders then we can gather consensus on whether to exclude them. — Bilorv (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

My notices do link to the discussion, so I think I've done a reasonable job of trying to educate new users without overwhelming them with information. Given the shear volume of endorsement WP:CRUFT across a dozen or so articles, I don't find it practical to investigate every entry. Of course, anyone else is welcome to do that, but I don't see the value when so many low quality endorsements are being added each day These endorsements (especially Sanders endorsements) will be far more valuable to readers if they are noteworthy. Random tweets and shout outs from rappers, wrestlers, and poker players simply have very little enduring value. - MrX 🖋 00:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

You didn't address the point that you have been removing entries which are not prohibited by WP:ERFC, those where an organisation clearly endorsed Sanders in a primary source, without discussion. Your notices certainly confused me for a while—all that's needed is one extra sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I'm sorry, I did not think it specifically needed a response. The RfC outcome says there is no consensus. In my opinion, these should be removed. If others disagree, we can discuss it and arrive at a local consensus. If we do, let's make it a separate discussion or an RfC so that we get a clear consensus. - MrX 🖋 13:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of State Legislators without an article

WP:ERFC details that an endorsement is appropriate to add as long as "The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one". Never before has the notability of state legislators been questioned, for any candidate. Included on the top of this page (and every other candidate's endorsement pages) is the text "Officials below the level of State Legislator and all other individuals and entities (excepting Democratic National Committee (DNC) members who vote at the nominating convention) are listed only if they have a Wikipedia page or are otherwise clearly notable." Should this be changed for all pages? Is there really an argument to be made that some state legislators are less entitled to a page than others, especially when the vast majority of all state legislator pages are stubs? Is the legislator from South Carolina's 76th House of Representatives District somehow more important than the legislator of the state's 101st House of Representatives District? --Only699WordsToGo (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for articulating the point better than I was making in another section of the talk page Only699WordsToGo. I look forward to a CONSENSUS, clear resolution to this confusion. Jccali1214 (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, state legislators are indeed generally notable, so these removals should be reversed where the endorsement has a secondary source. (WP:ERFC lists three criteria and all three must be met for individuals.) — Bilorv (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation. WP:NPOL provides guidance on who would be considered unquestionably entitled to an article. - MrX 🖋 13:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization endorsements

MrX recently removed many organizations' endorsements. Whether to include such endorsements can be decided on a case-by-case basis per WP:ENDORSERFC. The list (apologies if there are any mistakes) of removed entries is:

1. Chapo Trap House ([3])
2. The Juice Media ([4])
3. Oscilloscope (company) ([5]) ([6])
4. Topshelf Records ([7])
5. National Union of Healthcare Workers ([8])
6. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1634 ([9])
7. International Brotherhood of Teamsters PA Federation ([10])
8. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 230 ([11])
9. United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers Local 36 ([12])
10. Brand New Congress ([13])
11. Young Democratic Socialists of America ([14])
12. The People for Bernie Sanders ([15])
13. Young Democrats of America California Young Dems ([16])
14. Young Labour (UK) ([17])
15. da share z0ne, a weird twitter account with 135,000+ followers ([18])

I see #5, #11, #12 as obvious ones to include—significant organizations with clear endorsements. I also support #7, #8, #9, #13 at a first glance but am open to discussion. #2, #3, #4, #10 don't look like clear enough endorsements (criterion 3 of WP:ENDORSERFC). #1 would be suitable if we could find a better source (or at least get a specific quote from the podcast). Neutral on #6 and #14 at present. Of course, any of these are automatic passes if we get a secondary source on their endorsements. — Bilorv (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

#5 NUHW, #6 IBEW-1634, #7 IBT-PAFed, #8 UFCW-230, #9 UURWAW-36, #11 YDSA, #12 People for Bernie, and #13 California Young Dems have been re-added on the Article page. The re-added endorsements are supported by reliable secondary sources and are very clear (using word "endorse" in title or text). I've crossed out those endorsers above but feel free to remove my cross-outs.

1. Chapo Trap House ([19])
2. The Juice Media ([20])
3. Oscilloscope (company) ([21]) ([22])
4. Topshelf Records ([23])
5. Brand New Congress ([24])
6. Young Labour (UK) ([25])

Of the remaining endorsements, I think Young Labour should be included, supported by a different tweet: "YL support Bernie by default because our sister youth movement in Young DSA support Bernie and are preparing for a mass mobilisation to elect him. He is the only current candidate who is a democratic socialist and supports universal health care. Hope this helps!" The other endorsements are less clear. Topshelf Records' tweet is not a clear endorsement but at least they are clearly encouraging people to vote for Bernie. Tvc 15 (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, nice work! I'm agreed that the Young Labour tweet you mention is a clear enough endorsement to add them back. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your stewardship about this Bilorv. Just wanted to add my input about this

1. Chapo Trap House - So, I will yield to editor consensus on this. So between all the tweets listed here and an article like this which says "they want to him "in the White House" justify it's re-addition do the organizational endorsment criteria?
2. The Juice Media - since it's right after the previous prez election and not since the candidate has announced, no contest on why this one wasn't added back
3. Oscilloscope (company) - We think this is just a joke and not valid?
4. Topshelf Records Another case of yielding to editor consensus. In favor of adding: They do have multiple clear endorsements for Sanders . More dubious is this link, which confirms Ratboys endorsement, does explicitly state that Ratboys is Topshelf and in concordance with Twitter, it makes sense. Please feel free to concur or tell me I'm reading it wrong.
5. Brand New Congress - while supportive of Sanders, no evidence they've made an explicit endorsement, especially since they focus on congressional candidates
6. Young Labour (UK) - we can add the strikethrough to this one, right? I would but I don't know how to on Wiki.

Jccali1214 (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the response. You can do a strikethrough with <del>stricken text here</del> or <s>strike this out</s>. For Chapo, I don't think those tweets are enough and The Guardian actually says that their audience: the Dirtbag Left support Bernie, not that Chapo do. For Oscilloscope, the point is that it plausibly could be a joke, not that it probably or definitely is. Same with Topshelf Records' tweets, but I'm neutral on whether The Line of Best Fit is enough to include Ratboys. — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Facebook Groups

Since we added that Facebook group that endorsed Sanders recently, should we add Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I would say if there is a precedent on other pages and there is an independent reliable source, sure. However, since I was pushed from another editor (of dubious character) that we don't don't edit with precedent, but with consensus. So I'd say if they have a Wikipedia page and there is an independent reliable source, then go for it TDKR Chicago 101. Jccali1214 (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Questions about Celebrity Endorsers

Larry David?

Would this count as an endorsement from Larry David? ""If he wins, do you know what that's going to do to my life? I mean, do you have any idea?" he asked Colbert. ""I thought when he had the heart attack, that was going to be it ... but you know, he's indestructible. Nothing stops this man. I mean, it'll be great for the country, great for the country, terrible for me." [26] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe it would. The article doesn't use the word "endorse" and it's just David saying he believes Sanders would have a positive impact, not that he thinks him the best candidate or formally endorses his 2020 campaign. — Bilorv (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

John Mulaney

I need some group consensus on this. I've had multiple people remove the John Mulaney endorsement so I may be in the wrong. The first article I think is pretty clear, with an independent source saying "John Mulaney is a big Bernie supporter." The next two sources do note Mulaney is a supporter and cite is donations as a source, which I understand would not meet the criteria of endorsements in WP:ERFC but does coorborate the first article. I feel certain users are holding this endorsing to higher standards than most endorsers on the page as based on this evidence I believe it meets all 3 criteria of WP:ERFC but I don't want to act unilaterally.

So, what say other users?Jccali1214 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The first article does say he's a Bernie supporter, but that article is referencing a full interview with Mulaney which only mentions this: "Mulaney has donated extravagantly to liberal and Left politicians—many thousands of dollars, including at least $1,250 to Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries—but keeps such concerns out of his act." At the same time, the article is clearly titled "Mulaney is a big Sanders supporter" so it goes both ways. The second source references the first, while the third source mentions him as a "donor." From the sources, it's clear that Mulaney likes Bernie and donated in 2016 but it's not clear that he's supporting and donating in 2020. --Tvc 15 (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Clark County Black Caucuss

I notice the endorsement off the Clark County Black Caucus has been removed -- presumably because of notability concerns? While the group does not currently have a Wiki page its endorsement of Sanders, it's previous endorsement of Booker, and its involvement in the primary process have been the subject of considerable coverage:

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/blog/clark-county-black-caucus-backs-bookers-call-to-ease-debate-eligibility/ https://blog.4president.org/2020/2019/12/cory-booker-earns-endorsement-from-nevada-clark-county-black-caucus.html https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/478653-black-caucus-of-nevadas-largest-county-endorses-sanders https://www.cbsnews.com/news/with-a-flurry-of-endorsements-bernie-sanders-shores-up-nevada-support/

CharlesMartel (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Think this is a case of "no wiki page, not notable enough" which makes sense. Jccali1214 (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but sure why there's much discussion but honored I was included. I'm going to readd it because it really does meet the 2 criteria for organizations, and supplementally meets the 3rd. Jccali1214 (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I support Jccali1214 as above. If individual state/federal legislators are unquestionably entitled to a Wikipedia page and hence eligible for inclusion here, I think it is logical that a caucus or other grouping entirely comprised of said clearly noteworthy individuals would be 'clearly notable' as a group per the requirements of this page, even in the absence of a Wikipedia page. 110.32.121.99 (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson?

Hey y'all, I just wanted to see if anyone knew where the weird Jack Nicholson endorsement came from? Its citation is, to say the least, inadequate, and I can't find any info supporting him endorsing Sanders. He is known to be a Democrat, but I've found no source saying he's a Bernie Sanders supporter. Any ideas? - HDarby

Pretty sure that it was a Nicholson impersonator that was spotted at a Bernie event. Besides, appearing at a rally surely can't be consider by itself an endorsement. Leedar (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite (inclusion of Chapo Trap House)

In regards to the removal of Chapo Trap House: what about "The members of the group... [hope] to propel Bernie Sanders to victory" is too controversial for inclusion in this article? When a co-host of the podcast tells a local publication "'We want this to be a fun event for everyone that comes out, but this show is an unofficial rally for Bernie Sanders. We’re going to be very transparent when it comes to who we support'", what about that makes you question the legitimacy of this endorsement? Considering that the user who removed it (MrX), has only consistently removed endorsements from this page and has never added any, it's becoming pretty hard to AGF. Especially when the same user removed the rule about DNC members (who are clearly notable) that has existed since the creation of this article, without any consensus.--Only699WordsToGo (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

We have discussed this above (under #Organization endorsements) and garnered consensus to remove the entry. However, I see we've now got a new source ([27]) from The Gazette (Cedar Rapids). I now support inclusion of Chapo Trap House, as the endorsement is very clear and there is a secondary source, but we need to establish consensus first. Pinging Jccali1214 and Tvc 15, who participated in the earlier discussion above, to see what they now think of CTH with the new source. — Bilorv (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't consider "'We want this to be a fun event for everyone that comes out, but this show is an unofficial rally for Bernie Sanders. We’re going to be very transparent when it comes to who we support'" to be equivalent to an endorsement and I don't see anything about an endorsement in the source that Bilorv cites.

WP:ERFC #3 says "Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym." and the closer added: "There is an explicit consensus against against use of donations, generalized support, or the like as evidence of an endorsement." That is not a matter for local consensus like criterion #2. - MrX 🖋 20:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The article under discussion includes reporting towards the bottom of the page: "These aren’t the first entertainers touring with the hope of electing their candidate as president" which is not a statement of generalised support. Indeed, the term 'electing their candidate as president' in this context seems to be closely synonymous to 'endorsement' It is true that it isn't a single word but multiple words, but the word 'synonym' is defined as being a word or a phrase with the same meaning in the same language. Synonyms don't have to be a single word. It is the meaning, not wording choice that matters.

Additionally, the quote at the start: “We’re going to do all that we can to inspire people to look at what Bernie can do and hopefully earn the nomination of the Democratic Party,” is in terms of sentiment the same as 'We endorse Sanders.' It is not only support for a singular candidate, but linked to public communication or action to get others to support the chosen candidate. 110.32.121.99 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there's disagreement but honored to be pinged. The article clearly says Chapo wants Bernie for president. It clearly meets the 2 requisite criteria to be included and additionally meets the 3rd by being an independent source. Readding if it hasn't been already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jccali1214 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion of Chapo Trap House and agree with comments above from Only699WordsToGo, Bilorv, 110.32.121.99, and Jccali1214 in support of the article. Per WP:ERFC, "[o]ther 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')."

Plenty of language from the article can be understood as unequivocal endorsement. For example, the article states that the "members of the group" are "hoping to propel Bernie Sanders to victory." Chapo Trap House will "do all that [they] can to inspire people to look at what Bernie can do and hopefully earn the nomination of the Democratic Party." Chapo Trap House will "come in and try to raise attention and money and inspire people to canvas and make calls for Bernie." Chapo Trap House are "allies of Sanders" that will give "direct commands to the audience on how they must vote in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses." Chapo Trap House will host "an unofficial rally for Bernie Sanders" and "plan on entertaining the audience when they’re stumping for Sanders." Chapo Trap House is "touring with the hope of electing their candidate as president" while being "very transparent when it comes to who [they] support." The article makes it absolutely clear that Chapo Trap House is traveling to Iowa to campaign for Bernie Sanders and unequivocally back Sanders for president. --Tvc 15 (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support inclusion. W.r.t the criterion cited to remove this endorsement, what was agreed upon came with the following note attached:

3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

Note on #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". Support of this criterion would require the endorsement be explicit. In most cases, this would require use of the word "endorsement" by the person endorsing or by media coverage thereof. 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").

Perusing the archive, if I'm not mistaken, this is what was put to a vote and agreed upon. The endorsement here is pretty unequivocal, in my view. - PutItOnAMaptalk 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for endorsements from an individual

The following criteria are in effect for endorsements on this and similar lists.

There is consensus among participating editors that endorsements from an individual must meet all three of the following criteria for inclusion on a list of endorsements:

1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

See WP:ENDORSERFC for details. - MrX 🖋 13:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one. Current state and federal legislators) and by extension former legislators, as a Wikipedia article is not deleted when they leave office) have thus far been unquestionably entitled to a Wikipedia article. If they do not currently have one they are still eligible to be listed, provided the other criteria are also met. 110.32.69.14 (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support. As per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES, international, national, and sub-national (e.g. state or provincial) politicians are presumed to be notable and entitled to an article. Endorsements from international, national, and sub-national legislators and officials who do not have an article should not be removed from this page solely under the notability requirements of WP:ENDORSERFC. Comment of Support by DGG (talk) in WP:ENDORSERFC reminds editors of this policy, which also extends to local politicians on a case-by-case basis. Tvc 15 (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: DNC members are entitled to be featured in the article without a wiki page. This is precedence from previous presidential primary endorsement pages to feature unlisted individuals in the DNC members section. See: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book wormed (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on consensus, not precedent. The linked RfC is authoritative unless a new project-wide RfC changes that consensus.- MrX 🖋 00:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

So Mr, is someone going to remove the annotation at the top of the page: "Officials below the level of State Legislator and all other individuals and entities (excepting Democratic National Committee (DNC) members who vote at the nominating convention) are listed only if they have a Wikipedia page or are otherwise clearly notable." This is clearly causing confusion as it CLEARLY implies that state legislators and DNC members, whether they have a wiki article or not, should be listed. We should either remove the annotation, edit it so that it conforms to the RfC you're referencing, or restore the the removed endorsers. Jccali1214 (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jccali1214: Sorry I didn't reply sooner—I didn't see your comment. Yes, I will alter the annotation so that it reflects WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 12:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Attention users: I think we need to revisit this issue. I undid an edit by MrX for the reason that other pages for democratic candidates still maintain the DNC exception annotation for non-notable endorsers. My rationale is that we either need to have a consistent consensus that we REMOVE them from ALL pages or KEEP them on ALL pages, cuz otherwise it's unduly prejudicial to this page. Upon receiving escalated, direct ...compliants from Mr. X, I wanted to revisit this issue and come to a consistent consensus in line with WP:CON. Jccali1214 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jccali1214: I agree that the inclusion criteria should be consistent, which is why we did a community level RfC. If you wish for the outcome of the RfC to be changed, you can make a proposal in the form of another RfC at WP:VPR. Please keep in mind local consensus cannot override community-wide consensus per WP:CONLEVEL, so any discussion here would be probably be fruitless. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification @MrX:, but I wanna be sure you understand the issue. I was not able to find on any page any reference specifically to DNC voter members. If I understand your position, it's that they do not have an article and thus not notable, but the issue I AM raising is that the annotation you removed on this page is on /every other list of presidential endorsements page/ and thus we either need to remove them from every other page, restore the one on this page, or have an RfC specifically about this issue. I don't think it looks good to by unduly prejudicial to this page. 72.237.170.6 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@72.237.170.6: The annotation is not on every page. I've removed it from several pages because it is overridden by WP:ERFC (Also, we don't put instructions at the top of articles, although we can put hidden comments). If you see any that I missed, please help remove them. Meanwhile, if you think DNC leaders should be an exception to the guideline, you can start an RfC at WP:VPR. I hope that helps. - MrX 🖋 12:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

As for present I have seen DNC members without a Wikipedia page remain, I have done nothing yet (I do not know what the appropriate processes are), but if they are removed from this page I will be removing them from all presidential endorsement pages for consistency if nobody else does.

I would also suggest there is value in starting another RfC, both because there may be a significant change in the level of interest in it (many Wikipedia users may not have paid attention to such a discussion well before voting begins) and because there may be value in discussing certain issues that have only come up as endorsements have happened: can there be a consensus on a more specific test for when non-organisations or mayors without a Wikipedia page become clearly notable (i.e. being the main subject of a certain number of articles in reliable sources)? Does being a DNC leader mean you are eligible without a page, or all DNC members in general or none of them? It may be also good to clarify in a formal rule the suitability or otherwise of opinion articles published in the media that state an endorsement by the person who wrote it. That would address stuff like the self-written Tim Heideicker piece in Medium.

I don't think I'm in a position to initiate such a thing myself, but if anyone else sees value in it, I encourage them to consider such a new RfC proposal. 110.32.121.99 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If WP:ERFC is to be adhered to, then the criteria for notability remain equal to those for eligibility for a wikipedia article. That has been proven for every DNC member added to this page, and others. It has also been proven for the Mayor of Lone Tree: the depth of total coverage by reliable, independent, secondary surrounding him is sufficiently substantial, and not relating only to one event. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the sources I have listed - which are available for your perusal - are deemed insufficient, please explain why and where you would like more sourcing, so that it can be provided if necessary.

I will leave the edit removing the Mayor of Lone Tree unreverted for some time in case you wish to do this. - PutItOnAMaptalk 18:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

New campaign co-chairs

The Sanders campaign just released a list of campaign co-chairs across several Super Tuesday states. This includes a lot of new names. Though we'll obviously need to find a better source, there are a lot of notable names in here: Lee J. Carter, Jim Hightower, Elizabeth Guzmán, etc. --Only699WordsToGo (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Being a campaign chair is not an endorsement. They cannot be added to this article solely on that basis per WP:ERFC. - MrX 🖋 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap you added several of these that I removed. We need to establish consensus before adding these to the article. Obviously, I am opposed to treating campaign staffing as tacit endorsement. - MrX 🖋 17:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, you fibbed in your edit summary. Criteria #3 says "Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym." - MrX 🖋 17:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken. See the "Note on #3" in the WP:ERFC (I've cited it on this talk page, upthread). It's quite clear what has been voted on comes with this note, and being employed by the campaign in this case should count as an unequivocal endorsement - just saying "I am campaigning for X" is listed as something that might be enough as an example. Actually being part of the campaign is about as unequivocal as it gets.

I'll leave the removals unreverted for the time being in case you have any disagreements, but I'm pretty sure this complies with ERFC and that these endorsements are about as clear as endorsements can get. - PutItOnAMaptalk 18:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel pretty strongly that being a campaign staffer (many of whom are paid) is not equivalent to an "unequivocal endorsement". In fact, the examples given in the RfC question were "I am campaigning for Candidate X" or "I am backing Candidate X". Further, the OP writes: "Other language which can be understood as unequivocal endorsement..." Being a campaign chair is not "language".

If we can't sort this here, I think we should take it to WP:NOR so that we can get broad community input. Also pinging @Rhododendrites: for their opinion. - MrX 🖋 18:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe that publicly announcing via press release that you are joining the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign serves as ample evidence that you support his candidacy for President of the United States. Especially when the list includes several people who have already unquestionably endorsed Sanders (Leahy, Welch, etc.). --Only699WordsToGo (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I support inclusion of a state co-chair per criterion 3 (assuming that a co-chair listed also meets criteria 1 and 2). Per WP:ERFC, "[o]ther 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')." The article says that the co-chairs "will helm campaign efforts in each of the Super Tuesday States" and "represent Bernie's ... movement to take on Donald Trump." The campaign will "work alongside [the co-chairs] to build a progressive movement and elect Senator Bernie Sanders as the next President of the United States." This language makes it clear that the co-chairs are campaigning for Bernie Sanders, leading the Sanders campaign's efforts in their respective states, and backing Sanders for president in 2020. --Tvc 15 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Responding to ping. The note included examples of the kinds of things that I view as ambiguous and which could/should be handled on a case by case basis. That said, when closing the discussion Barkeep49 saw a consensus for something arguably more specific. I guess the question is whether "campaigning for" is a suitable synonym for "endorsing". I tend to think it's not. That's not to say they need to be excluded from Wikipedia, but that it probably makes more sense to include people working for the campaign (paid or otherwise) under the campaign article as opposed to a list of endorsements. I don't feel particularly strongly, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged I'll give my brief thoughts. Going from memory but I don't think this RfC really examined the case of campaign co-chairs one way or the other and so would not find that RfC binding in this situation and so editors may make a local consensus content decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

From the comment by Barkeep49 (talk) above, I would like to state to build towards a local consensus that it seems clear to me that when you look at the definition of the word endorse that is difficult to see how ongoing public action to elect a specific candidate to the exclusion of all others is not an endorsement of that candidate. Although it is a very valid point to raise that those working on a campaign may be paid and this may affect things, the definition of the word 'endorse' clearly does not distinguish between whether the person making an endorsement is being paid or not. As it stands, it does not appear that the RfC makes the motivations of an endorsement a test that has to be considered. And to be blunt, any endorsement made by someone who is not paid is still an endorsement made by a person who expects to benefit from making the endorsement, either directly in terms of popularity amongst an audience or indirectly in terms of the expected political changes if the candidate they have endorsed is successful. If 'campaigning for' is not a suitable synonym for 'endorsing' then to be blunt, you need to separately define 'endorse' for purposes of such pages here, so long as they still exist, as it would be a stricter definition (perhaps justly so!) than the consensus dictionary definition. 110.32.121.99 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether a person can be assumed to endorse the candidate based on their employment with the campaign, but whether this is a list that should include such assumptions. Should we also add voters? Donors? People who shake his hand? Babies he kisses? The purpose of the RfC was to establish a threshold for inclusion. With editors trying to find loopholes and carve out exceptions, this just becomes big, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that lacks any real encyclopedic value. - MrX 🖋 14:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am also going to chime in and say I support the inclusion. As 110.32.121.99 it's pretty clear that ongoing public action to elect a specific candidate to the exclusion of all others is an endorsment. I am fascinated by the splitting of hairs in regards to this, as I wonder if this dicussion is happening on other pages for the other presidential candidates. I have not seen evidence that is the case. Also in this favor, Faiz Shakir, Matt Duss, Ro Khanna, Nina Turner, Carmen Yulín Cruz either work for the campaign and/or are co-chairs and they're included in the list. It seems we have enough informal consensus in this thread and, to counter any undue prejudice this article may be receiving I'll go ahead and revert the edits. Please feel free to undo and conduct a more formal consensus process if we need. Thanks to all. Jccali1214 (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support inclusion of these campaign co-chairs. The "slippery slope" argument that an adult choosing to work to elect a particular person is the same level of consent as a baby being kissed on the forehead by a politician is a lazy one. Campaign co-chairs have financial conflicts of interest but so do lots of people whose endorsements we include (and in a more limited way, every person affected directly or indirectly by the U.S. government has a financial COI as to who becomes U.S. president). — Bilorv (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to my comment above, I support inclusion of the state co-chairs because the document posted in this reliable, independent News Center Maine article includes clear statements of endorsement (statements like "I am endorsing Bernie Sanders" and "I am proud to support Senator Sanders in his campaign for the Presidency") from the state co-chairs, excluding Leahy and Welch. The state co-chairs' direct quotes not only provide additional support for their inclusion, but make it absolutely clear that the listed co-chairs satisfy criterion 3 by explicitly endorsing Bernie Sanders for president. --Tvc 15 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Founders of the Group vs. Group Endorsement

Alright y'all, new question. Many of the March for Our Lives co-founders endorsed Sanders (see here: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483915-march-for-our-lives-co-founders-endorse-sanders https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1230588184301625347?s=20 https://twitter.com/People4Bernie/status/1230589365883043841?s=20) but not the group itself, which user Doug Grinbergs noted when they added the endorsement. I'm not sure if any of them are notable enough to have a wiki page.

So here's the questions: Are there a best practices? Do we remove it all together? Let it stay? Make minor edits?

I don't think it makes sense to add it in the organization sections but I'm not sure it should remain in the section it is currently and how it's written... Jccali1214 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Deitsch has a Wikipedia page (although a short one) and currently qualifies on the notability crieria. I don't think 'March for Our Lives (co-founders)' should remain, because as it is written it implies that all co-founders have endorsed Sanders, which is not correct. Nor has the organisation itself made an endorsement. I would add Ryan Deitsch and leave out the rest. 110.32.196.149 (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement on video should suffice

Dick Van Dyke is on video endorsing. Obviously, that indicates endorsement. Shouldn't we go straight to posting such as endorsements?Dogru144 (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I see he's listed now. In general, a video endorsement by an individual is not sufficient as it does not pass the second criterion of WP:ERFC, coverage in a reliable independent source ("independent" meaning "independent of Dick Van Dyke and of the Sanders campaign"). However, since Dick Van Dyke's endorsement is a huge deal, there are tons of reliable secondary sources allowing it to meet that criterion (two of which are cited in the article). — Bilorv (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the thing is people who discussed the Endorsement policy for Wikipedia concluded that for endorsements to included they must be notable endorsements by notable people/groups. It is the reporting of an endorsement in reliable independent sources which is deemed to make it a notable endorsement and their having a Wikipedia page is the most common means of proving they are a notable person/group. 110.32.121.99 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)