Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 4) (bot |
Arglebargle79 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,544: | Line 1,544: | ||
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" [[Paul Romero]] (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in [[Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles]] while the FEC filing is coming from [[Fresno, California]]. Can't find any other sources. [[User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords|IOnlyKnowFiveWords]] ([[User talk:IOnlyKnowFiveWords|talk]]) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" [[Paul Romero]] (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in [[Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles]] while the FEC filing is coming from [[Fresno, California]]. Can't find any other sources. [[User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords|IOnlyKnowFiveWords]] ([[User talk:IOnlyKnowFiveWords|talk]]) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
*[[WP:FRANKIE|We shouldn't assume it is the same person without specific confirmation.]] There are about 20 people on Twitter named Paul Romero, so it's not necessarily the same person. If it is the same person, presumably he will confirm that on his campaign website. If it's not the same person, then he won't mention in a biography on his campaign website that he is a composer. And if the candidate never puts up a campaign website at all, then his campaign is non-notable and we shouldn't bother mentioning it (unless, of course, it somehow becomes clearly notable for other reasons). --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 01:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
*[[WP:FRANKIE|We shouldn't assume it is the same person without specific confirmation.]] There are about 20 people on Twitter named Paul Romero, so it's not necessarily the same person. If it is the same person, presumably he will confirm that on his campaign website. If it's not the same person, then he won't mention in a biography on his campaign website that he is a composer. And if the candidate never puts up a campaign website at all, then his campaign is non-notable and we shouldn't bother mentioning it (unless, of course, it somehow becomes clearly notable for other reasons). --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 01:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
==Revision suggestions == |
|||
Okay, the announcement as to who is going to be in the debates is less than a week away, and in anticipation of that, may I make some suggestions as to what to do when that time comes... |
|||
*'''First:''' Restart the separate Candidates page. (I know I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it, but my point still holds). |
|||
*'''Second:''' Divide the list of candidates into those who were invited to the debates and those who weren't. If by some miracle one of those excluded manages to get into a later debate it shouldn't be hard to put him/her back. There should be three categories: Debate participants, elected officials, and everyone else. That should stand for the rest of the year. |
|||
*'''Third:''' Make the list chart smaller in size. There still may be 20 candidates by Labor day so the chart should be easier to read than it is now. |
|||
*Fourth: Start adding more narrative. The [[invisible primary]] phase ends on the 12th, that's five days away. A decent summary of the ups and downs of that part of the race can be done NOW. Debate season is a totally different animal. We'll get to that part when it comes. |
|||
While the actual voting isn't for another eight months, we should get ready for it. It's not too early.[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:21, 7 June 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Debate Qualifiers
Could the primary debate section be expanded to note who has qualified for the first debate?
A search only produced results for articles from mid-March. Ballotopedia has a chart on who has qualified: [1]
AusJeb (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- As discussed previously, such a table constitutes WP:SYNTH, which is why it was previously removed (see also #Qualification table), and it is impossible for us to actually verify campaign's claims to have qualified based on fundraising. I've also been keeping track of this in a sandbox. Mélencron (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- @AusJeb: Yes, a table like the one on ballotpedia would be useful. It's not WP:SYNTH to use information taken directly from a reliable source. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Ballotpedia table is WP:OR; we won't know who is officially in the debates until the DNC announces. Besides, the donor threshold is subject to verification. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- A table in a reliable source cannot be WP:OR. By definition, only Wikipedia editors can engage in WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 20:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia would fall under WP:UGC, no? In addition to that, my point re: fundraising stands – it's not something we're able to verify. Mélencron (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think so. "Ballotpedia's articles are 100 percent written by our professional staff of more than 50 writers and researchers." The site used to be an open wiki, but is no longer.- MrX 🖋 21:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ballotpedia would fall under WP:UGC, no? In addition to that, my point re: fundraising stands – it's not something we're able to verify. Mélencron (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- A table in a reliable source cannot be WP:OR. By definition, only Wikipedia editors can engage in WP:OR. - MrX 🖋 20:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Use of the 538 source?
- 538 created a table of all the major candidates and whether or not they have qualified for the debates. It's a reliable source, it's not original research, and it's not something Wikipedia editors synthesized from multiple other sources, so I propose we could use it. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/who-might-make-the-democratic-debate-stage/ AaronCanton (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- oppose using the 538 source, because it would violate the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. In a couple of months we will however have a perfect usable source, when DNC will publish the official and final list of qualified candidates for the first debate in June (most likely listing more than 20 candidates to have met either one of the two qualification criteria - followed by data how this list has been further cooked down to 20). Until June 12, the list of qualified debaters for the first debate is subject to change pending future developments. Therefore the Wikipedia article must await how the final list of qualified debaters has turned out to be on June 12, before it reports this info. Danish Expert (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is a 'crystal ball' scenario. Rather, the DNC published the rules for how a candidate qualifies for the debate, and the secondary source 538 wrote up a table listing which candidates have satisfied which rule. No unverifiable predictions or crystal balls are required. AaronCanton (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @AaronCanton: Quality of the 538 source is OK, as long as all its underlying method assumptions and explaining text is included (see below for two of them):
- 538 assumes that the DNC contribution criteria "verified data for unique contributions shall meet both the threshold of 65,000 unique donors AND at least 200 unique donors per state in at least 20 states", can be simplified and assumed to have been fully met if just "an unverified claim is posted by the candidate to have received contributions from min. 65,000 unique donors").
- 538 also admits DNC did not publish sufficient method info in regards of how to calculate and interpretate poling results (ie. 538 do not know how exactly to correct poling percentage for candidates participating in previous polls, if some of the polled candidates - like Biden as an example - subsequently decided not to run).
- I understand the 538 source is updated more or less on a daily basis until June 12, so that we in theory could use it as a "current source" to display data "as of today" (ie. the number of candidates having pre-qualified by at least one criteria grew according to 538 from 12 on March 24 - to 15 on April 16, if Biden is included). Yet the 538 source still admit its qualification data table only has considered potential qualification data for the 17 candidates having met its pre-selection criteria for being "major candidates" and has not considered potential qualification by some of the other 202 non-major candidates (which the source due to resource restraints has chosen not to collect unverified data for).
To say it short, using the 538 sources will come with so many shortfalls, that attempts to make it fit all Wikipedia policies will be difficult and not worth the effort. Danish Expert (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @AaronCanton: Quality of the 538 source is OK, as long as all its underlying method assumptions and explaining text is included (see below for two of them):
- I disagree that this is a 'crystal ball' scenario. Rather, the DNC published the rules for how a candidate qualifies for the debate, and the secondary source 538 wrote up a table listing which candidates have satisfied which rule. No unverifiable predictions or crystal balls are required. AaronCanton (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- No shortfalls at all. As far as polling is concerned, none of the other 202 "candidates" are in any of the required polls, so so whether or not some have tried to qualify on the other method is irrelevant. All the candidates 538 says have qualified HAVE qualified. If for some reason, the DNC says that a major candidate with good poll numbers (say 5% and up) should be excluded, there will be hell to pay and the DNC will be trashed by the media—as happened the last couple of times. Therefore we should list those who have qualified, as Wikipedia is supposed to provide as much information as possible on the topic in the article. Our readership wants to know these things so we should provide it. Plus we need separate candidates and debate articles. Its long past time. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- Did you read all the footnotes of the 538 source? This source can only be regarded as a "qualification forecast". Its many underlying assumptions (above I only mentioned a few), mean that no final qualification info can be extracted. Even whether or not candidates have met the polling criteria (in the eyes of DNC), is not something we can conclude with certainty just from the work reported by 538. The problem is, that DNC still as of April 12, did not publish any sufficiently detailed verifiable method for how it exactly in all details will conduct its qualification criteria calculations.
- Therefore its still completely uncertain how DNC will: (1) Handle rounding of the raw polling data (i.e. whether meeting the 1.0% threshold in a poll will be satisfied if the raw data for the candidate display a support percentage at 0.6% - which pollsters tend to round up to 1%), (2) Adjust and recalculate raw poling results percentage wise - in order to remove the "polluting names" who got polled but later decided not to run (i.e. DNC might or might not choose to conduct such polling adjustments).
- If the wikipedia article at some point theoretically decides to use the 538 source, all these unknown assumptions and uncertainties needs to be reflected. And if so, the published info results in burdening the majority of readers by more than it helps. In example we need to make it clear, that candidates might still not have qualified for the first debate even if they claim (through the published 538 sources) to have met both criteria 1 and criteria 2, because we might (despite the risk for this is probably low) end up with a situation where more than 20 candidates meet both criteria by June 12 - and we still don't know how exactly DNC then will calculate its tiebreaking methodology beyond from that point. Therefore I still oppose using the 538 source. Danish Expert (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- according to the media, there are ALREADY over 20 candidates out there. The rules were announced long ago. The "rounding up" problem is not going to happen unless three or four more candidates enter the race. 1% is 1%. The published numbers must suffice. If Marianne Williamson or Tulsi Gabbard, for example, are excluded even though they qualify via method two, then they'll scream bloody murder. We know this because this happens every cycle and the excluded candidates always do. Besides, when the official list comes out and it's substantially different from the one on 538 and Ballotpedia, we can always change it. (do y'all realize how many edits we do per day on this article? It's huge!) The readership wants to know who has qualified and who hasn't. Wikipedia should be inclusive. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policies forbid us to upload unverifiable original research. This also applies for the situation should we choose to source it by the Ballotpedia and 538 source. IF DNC had published some criteria calculation rules that were 100% specific with all details explained in full, then using the 538 source could be allowed to a certain degree (if followed by a disclaimer note of only delivering some unofficial and preliminary qualification data based on the source's logic simple observations that no one can possibly question whether or not being correct - with the final confirmation pending the DNC published qualification announcement on June 13).
- As a minimum DNC first need to clarify the below unanswered questions, before we can even start to consider to include the "tracking observations" published by 538:
- How do you check if the candidate reached min.1% in a given poll?
Will you i.e. before you conduct the check adjust all percentage calculation scores by the scientifically well recognized "adjustment method", meaning that those polls having opted to report their results whith a percantage also dedicated to the category "undecided vote percentage" all first needs to be adjusted (by applying the assumption this undecided percentage of those being polled, after additional consideration probably would have reached the same intended voting decisions as the group of the already decided individuals). To rephrase the question in a more simple way: Do candidates need to reach min.1% intended vote support among those who have made up their mind in a surveyed poll (meaning a candidate being polled to have scored 0.8% by a poll in which the remaining 20% were reported to be "undecided", would then have its score technically adjusted upwards to actually be: 0,8%*1,25 adjustment factor =1.0%), or do the candidate need to reach min.1% among everybody being polled (after a special percentage has also been dedicated to show the percantage of the undecided)? - What is the deadline for candidates to submit their verified data about unique financial contributors? Will it also be "2 weeks before the debate", or perhaps just 1 day before the debate? Or because it also needs to be verified by third party companies, does this perhaps mean the candidate deadline to submit financial contribution data for criteria verification needs to be submitted to these third party companies 1 month before the debate (in order to make it possible for them to conduct all their verification work in ample time)?
- Finally we also need you to clarify how the "tiebreaking rule" will be operated?
- The first tiebreak rule is sufficiently clear (preference to candidates meeting both the polling criteria and contribution criteria).
- The Second tiebreak rule "the highest polling average" however needs to be clarified:
- (A) Was it supposed to say "the highest polling average among all candidates only having met the polling criteria and not the financial contribution criteria" OR "the highest polling average among all candidates only having met 1 of the 2 criteria"?
- (B) As for how to calculate the polling average, we again need to know if polls with a category percentage for "undecided voters" first will have their results adjusted before being put into the calculated "polling support average", AND if it still applies that maximum 1 poll from the same pollster in each "approved region" can be considered as part of the calculated polling average - how do you then choose which one to input (do you i.e. choose the "latest one" or "the one with the highest percentage" or "do you simply calculate the average of multiple polls by the same pollster in each region before it enters as 1 regional pollster average value as 1 input for the subsequent polling average calculation)?
- 3. As for the Third tiebreak rule "The most unique donors", this also needs to be clarified. Was it supposed to mean: "The most unique donors among those who only met the polling qualification criteria and got polled to have equal support after rounding up their support percentage to the nearest undevided percentage point?"Or was it supposed to mean: "The most unique donors among those who only met 1 of the 2 qualification criteria - without preference given to those who met the polling criteria?" AND does it mean, that the subcriteria "min.200 contributions per state in each of a minimum of 20 states" is supposedly still also required to be met in order to pre-qualify for potential qualification via the third tiebreak rule?
- For as long as all those above questions remain unanswered, we are all really left with uncertainty (and being forced to make unverifiable asumptions about it). Therefore we can not publish preliminary qualification results in the wikipedia article (despite being sourced by the 538 source).
- Looking at all available data, I think the likelihood for min.20 candidates qualifying one way or another to the first debate, is as high as 99.9%. The 20 qualified candidates will by a 99% likelihood also all exclusively be found among those 23-24 names we have listed as major candidates in the Wikipedia article. So all this fuss, is really only about, which of the remaining 3-4 major candidates wont make the qualifying cut for the first debate. Although it for sure has my attention, it is really not of any major importance to have this question answered ASAP. So I think its perfectly fine and preferable if the article now awaits the DNC announcemet about who has qualified on June 13, before we report further info about this question. Danish Expert (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- How do you check if the candidate reached min.1% in a given poll?
- oppose using the 538 source, because it would violate the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. In a couple of months we will however have a perfect usable source, when DNC will publish the official and final list of qualified candidates for the first debate in June (most likely listing more than 20 candidates to have met either one of the two qualification criteria - followed by data how this list has been further cooked down to 20). Until June 12, the list of qualified debaters for the first debate is subject to change pending future developments. Therefore the Wikipedia article must await how the final list of qualified debaters has turned out to be on June 12, before it reports this info. Danish Expert (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Compromise
Today I reluctantly uploaded this compromise line, in order to include the preliminary findings of the 538 source to our wikipedia article, that 50% of you have been pushing so strongly for.
A mention of specific names on who has qualified as of today, would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policies, as neither 538 nor any other source can know this for sure, until DNC provide us with additional info.
The compromise I have written goes straight to the borders of what the policies can allow, but I guess could perhaps be argued not to be a direct violation (due to how careful it has been formulated). Personally I would have prefered not to write anything about the 538 source, and instead stayed silent about this matter until June 13. But I can also understand the strong desire expressed from 50% of you in this debate, that this tracking info about how far candidates have come to meet the criteria for participation in the first debate, also is of great interest for our readers of the article to follow. Danish Expert (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Mélencron: Today you removed my added and very needed disclaimer line, highlighting the existing uncertainty about the accuracy of all those published newspaper articles attempting to conduct a "DNC debate criteria check". The disclaimer line was a part of my proposed compromise in this debate (see above), as I argued any candidate debate quallifier info should be followed by this disclaimer line, and if this line was absent, there should really be no preliminary data added to the article about which candidates as of today appear to have qualified for the first debate.
- DNC, at no time communicated "May 15" to be the fundraising deadline. Your provided source did not in anyway contradict what I wrote in my disclaimer line, and no other sources can be found to support that DNC has communicated a May 15 deadline to apply for the fundraising criteria. As per the result of my own google search, Yang at first set May 15 as his own private target date for reaching the 65,000 threshold, which resulted in Gravel+Williamson shortly thereafter making statements to the media and their twitter followers, that they needed to comply with this fundraising criteria by May 15. Williamson however in the past 4 weeks, suddenly stopped tweeting about "May 15" being the deadline. Most likely it never was a deadline. Nobody knows when the exact fundraising deadline will be, as DNC so far has stayed completely silent on this! If you keep believing otherwise, I challenge you to find a source that can verify your claim.
- As for the existing "criteria check uncertainty" mentioned by my disclaimer liner, relating to how the "1% polling check" will be carried out, DNC so far also stayed completely silent on this. Politico+538 has several times asked for clarifications about certain issues (your source only list a couple of them), and DNC never provided any clarifications yet. Whether or not DNC will look at "printed polling results", or perform adjusted calculations on raw data from published polls - before they conduct their 1% threshold check, is still an open question. 538+NYT obviously assumes, that DNC will just look at "printed polling results" without performing any sorts of adjusted calculations on raw data from published polls. But this is something we can not know, because nobody actually knows! DNC has not decided if the 1% support threshold needs to be:
- (A) Among all democratic-leaning decided poll responders, choosing their support between only actively running candidates.
- (B) Among all democratic-leaning decided poll responders, choosing their support between a list of potential and actively running candidates.
- (C) Among all democratic-leaning poll responders, choosing their support between only actively running candidates (in which the "undecided" will also have a percentage printed that takes away a fraction of the support percentages from the candidates).
- (D) Among all democratic-leaning poll responders, choosing their support between a list of potential and actively running candidates (in which the "undecided" will also have a percentage printed that takes away a fraction of the support percentages from the candidates).
- (E) And as your May 1 Politico source highlights, it is also unclear if polls conducted only as an "open" candidate support question (abstaining from mentioning a list of all available actively running major candidates to choose from), also will qualify as good enough polls towards meeting the polling criteria.
- Uncertainy issues about how DNC will conduct their criteria check, both on the fundraising criteria (in regards of when they set the deadline) and the polling criteria (in regards of how they will conduct their "1% threshold check), remain unanswered and are so huge, that we need to feature my short disclaimer line about it. This is why, I will insist this line shall be kept. Danish Expert (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- You're missing the point: your additions aren't substantiated by the sources you're using, so don't add them unless you can identify a source that does. (In any case, I don't think I or other editors are interested in constant walls of text and micro-bumping of the talk page for non-serious issues, so... please do stop bumping this talk page with edits that aren't discussion-related – you can keep the donation statistics/stipulations on a sandbox page, for example.) Mélencron (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mélencron: You're missing my point. WP:CK allow for "logical truisms" to be posted without adding a source for such reported observations (which no one can dispute the correctness of). My disclaimer line (see below) was only based on neutral observations directly deduced from the main DNC source:
- The DNC so far did not provide any details about: (1) when the deadline is for candidates to reach the fundraising criteria, and (2) how they will check if polls met the 1% threshold. DNC serve as the ultimate arbiter to decide how the criteria checking procedure shall be operated in all details.
- I am perfectly OK to remove the "example parenthesis" (which seem to be the main point you really objected against), and if you insist we can also add your Politico source for the above point 2 along with the DNC source for the remaining WP:CK part. I see no valid argument for a complete removal of the needed disclaimer line. On the contrary, even your Politico source admits the Raison d'être for my disclaimer line, as they have admitted that the unclarified DNC method uncertainties could result in two more candidates having met the polling criteria as of May 1. Danish Expert (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just re-instated my above disclaimer line, as no one objected to the above May 6 argument. FYI, a new Intelligenzer source has now also been added, which verify by an explicit comment exactly what I based on WP:CK deduced from the primary DNC source: "No deadline has so far been set for when to meet the fundraising criteria". Danish Expert (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Danish Expert:: Sorry to be a bit nitpicky. But the proper term is "Democratic," not Democrat. The term "Democrat party" is a pejorative created, by of all people, Joe McCarthy as a slur on the party of Roosevelt and JFK. Please only use the word "Democrat" as a singular noun, not as an adjective. Thank you.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: Now corrected my hasty talkpage typo above from "democrat-leaning" to "democratic-leaning". That aside, the "uncertainty" argument about who shall be polled when DNC conduct their 1% test, is nevertheless still true. Nobody knows, and all media and webpage researchers make their own private WP:OR assumptions about it (which we then now rely on as sources for our data in the article). It would be helpfull if DNC clarified all this uncertainty away (i.e. who is polled and how - when the 1% test is conducted), but I suspect they wont publish these further details before after they have selected the quallified candidates. My own private WP:OR speculated assumption, is that absent further publication of the remaining method details for the polling criteria check, then DNC will have to accept the topline results of all existing polling methods (meaning that all of the below polling methods will count):
- "Openended surveys".
- "Online surveys".
- "Polled support percentage for all interviewed adults (including those who were not registered voters)".
- "Polled support percentage for all registered voters who answered they were likely to vote in the Democratic primaries" (regardless if they previously were registered as democratic/indpendant/republican).
- "Polled support percentage for democratic/independant registered voters who answered they were likely to vote in the Democratic primaries".
- "Polled support percentage for democratic registered voters who answered they were likely to vote in the Democratic primaries".
- Plus I do not expect DNC to conduct the scientifically most correct procedure (always made in Europe when polling results are compared or calculated together as average), where the result polluting group of "undecided responders" is taken out of the polling percentage calculation, so that each candidates' support percentage results only is computed for the group of "decided responders" and not the "entire group of responders". If DNC conducted this more scientifically correct recalculation of the polling results, it would as a rule of thumb mean, that all published percentages should be 1.25 times higher compared to the published values (which would mean that a few more of those candidates polling just below the 1% mark, would sneak up above it).
- However, without further clarification from DNC, basically all sorts of method choices could still be applied by DNC on June 13, and my above method assumptions could be prooven wrong. I have only compromised to include the preliminary criteria data in the article before June 13, because we have so many media sources now engaged in this publication of their own private WP:OR speculations, while we can then still highlight with a yellow "maybe color" whenever we as editors find out that these sources reached different conclusions (because they applied different method assumptions). Danish Expert (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Arglebargle79: Now corrected my hasty talkpage typo above from "democrat-leaning" to "democratic-leaning". That aside, the "uncertainty" argument about who shall be polled when DNC conduct their 1% test, is nevertheless still true. Nobody knows, and all media and webpage researchers make their own private WP:OR assumptions about it (which we then now rely on as sources for our data in the article). It would be helpfull if DNC clarified all this uncertainty away (i.e. who is polled and how - when the 1% test is conducted), but I suspect they wont publish these further details before after they have selected the quallified candidates. My own private WP:OR speculated assumption, is that absent further publication of the remaining method details for the polling criteria check, then DNC will have to accept the topline results of all existing polling methods (meaning that all of the below polling methods will count):
- @Mélencron: You're missing my point. WP:CK allow for "logical truisms" to be posted without adding a source for such reported observations (which no one can dispute the correctness of). My disclaimer line (see below) was only based on neutral observations directly deduced from the main DNC source:
- You're missing the point: your additions aren't substantiated by the sources you're using, so don't add them unless you can identify a source that does. (In any case, I don't think I or other editors are interested in constant walls of text and micro-bumping of the talk page for non-serious issues, so... please do stop bumping this talk page with edits that aren't discussion-related – you can keep the donation statistics/stipulations on a sandbox page, for example.) Mélencron (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Use of the Politico source?
Up until today, I visited Mélencron's sandbox to keep track of all the daily published polling criteria results. Today Politico's election analyst however also via Twitter published his detailed polling criteria checking excel sheet. This mean, that we now fully understand which method assumptions Politico applied when evaluating the polling criteria compliance.
I.e. they approved the scored results from all openended pollings (which CNN apparently did not), but only reported the polling results from Reuters for the "vote registered responders" and not for "all adults" (which is why they believe - contrary to 538+CNN, that De Blasio still did not meet the polling criteria).
I do not know to which degree we should use the provided source in our Wikipedia article (due to the previously above debated WP:OR concerns)? But it greatly helps understand, why Politico reaches the polling criteria compliance findings they publish from time to time, which is why I opted to share it with all of you here at the talkpage. If some of you have ideas on how this source could be used to further strengthen our data reports in the Wikipedia article, then please chime in with your proposals. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleting expressed interest category
De Blasio and Abrams unlikely to run, an no one knows who Joe Sandberg is. I say knock that section out. The field is largely settled, especially with Bullock's announcement on the horizon. SAC California (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue against removing the category. Saying the field is settled is WP:CRYSTAL, anyways. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sanberg is not a major candidate, whilst a potential candidate who says she will make a decision in September cannot be taken seriously, when qualification for the June debates will be decided in the early part of that month. The expressed interest section should be deleted either when de Blasio states his intentions (unless someone else comes along in the next few weeks) or at the end of the month, whichever comes first . Off course, anyone can still enter the race at a late stage, including those who have publicly declared their intention not to run. --Mrodowicz (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- keep - This section is relevant and should be kept until: (A) Its empty from notable potential candidates with a decision still pending, or (B) The date of the first primary primary in Iowa (Feb.3, 2020). New potential candidates might arise, even after the first DNC debate. Danish Expert (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Remove"
- Keep. There's no requirement that a candidate enter the race in time for the June debates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep but it absolutely should be removed by October, because thats when ballot deadlines start coming around. Also, I'd say we put in a source time limit on the potentials, just like we did in the speculated section, just so that list remains fresh. Maybe say, two months before another source is required.
- Keep, but hear this. De Blasio has scheduled an announcement, which leaves Abrams and Joseph Sandberg. Once Abrams comes to a descision, are we seriously going to have that entire section dedicated to Sandberg? Quvuq0737 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Keep though if it came down to only Sanberg (or other minor candidates), I would suggest deleting it. It should also be noted that this discussion was started by SAC California, a confirmed sockpuppet of AndInFirstPlace, a pervasive WP:UNCIVIL editor and sockpuppeteer who seems to be now be using variations of my username, so I am not sure of the sincerity of the suggestion. SCC California (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- keep - This section is relevant and should be kept until: (A) Its empty from notable potential candidates with a decision still pending, or (B) The date of the first primary primary in Iowa (Feb.3, 2020). New potential candidates might arise, even after the first DNC debate. Danish Expert (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sanberg is not a major candidate, whilst a potential candidate who says she will make a decision in September cannot be taken seriously, when qualification for the June debates will be decided in the early part of that month. The expressed interest section should be deleted either when de Blasio states his intentions (unless someone else comes along in the next few weeks) or at the end of the month, whichever comes first . Off course, anyone can still enter the race at a late stage, including those who have publicly declared their intention not to run. --Mrodowicz (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Timeline loses data
The timeline uses separate colors for "Active campaign" and "Exploratory committee". That is great, except that the info is getting destroyed as soon as a candidate withdraws. When that happens, the "Withdrawn candidate" color gets used. This is clearly wrong; the coloration implies that the candidate was withdrawn for the entire length of their campaign and is no longer withdrawn.
So far this only affects Ojeda. The data loss could get far worse as time goes by.
A correct rendition of that chart is in the page history:
97.104.70.92 (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- But that version has the candidate's bar continue going after dropping out, which seems pointless. Perhaps rather than changing the candidate's color entirely, a marker should be placed showing where they dropped out and have the bar end there? Here's a little mock-up, but frankly I'm unfamiliar with how to really edit these charts: https://imgur.com/a/q5pna0s Thoughts? Cookieo131 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that a candidate's time bar should stop at the point where they drop out of the race. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Cookieo131 and Metropolitan90. From a scientific point of view, it is incorrect to display the lightblue color for the entire period from a withdrawn candidates campaign launch and up until today. The dark blue color for active candidates is therefor more correct to maintain as such to illustrate the historic time period in which the withdrawn candidate was still active. Best solution is simply that the dark blue color stops ticking forward on the very day the candidate has withdrawn (without any color change). If an additional markup is needed to highlight which of the candidates have withdrawn, I support we use the red mark proposed by Cookieo131, or as another alternative that we simply just color all withdrawn candidate names (only the letters of the name, and not the time bar code) to be presented as red text instead of the current dark blue text (which we then only use for the still active candidates). Danish Expert (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that a candidate's time bar should stop at the point where they drop out of the race. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Ojeda Timeline
his whole timeline should not just be one color. In fact, if his timeline must stop at the moment he drops, that withdrawn color shouldn't even be there since Ojeda isn't continuing with the rest of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:790B:CCC4:3319:A7C6 (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's been customary on these timelines to de-emphasize the color of withdrawn candidates. Current setup is fine. When another candidate gives up, their strong blue bar will become a light blue bar. To be discussed whether we'd leave the yellow part of the bar as is or make it a lighter shade as well. — JFG talk 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Alternate Debate Table
Hey all. Below is a table I've been working on for the primary debates that's akin to the ones found on other primary pages, and I wanted to consult with other editors here before adding it in. It's a little big and maybe a bit difficult to manage, but it'd be consistent with the election articles from previous years. Perhaps there's a way to make it smaller?
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participants | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 Participant, first debate. P2 Participant, second debate. I1 Invitee, first debate. I2 Invitee, second debate. N Non-invitee. A1 Absent invitee, first debate. A2 Absent invitee, second debate. O Out of race (withdrawn). |
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||
1 | June 26–27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT (for both) |
The Arsht Center Miami, FL |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | July 30–31, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, MI |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | August 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | September 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | October 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | November/December 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | January 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | January/February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | March 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | April 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Any comments or suggestions are appreciated! - EditDude (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here's my proposal: reduced line-heights, abbreviated months, don't set widths where not necessary and just use the defaults; I don't think abbreviating states to postal codes really saves space, and it's against MoS anyway. (Also, made the table itself scrollable if necessary rather than having overflow on smaller resolutions.)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | |||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT | Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/Telemundo |
P | I | * | NI | A | |||||||||||||||||
Jun 27, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT | NI | A | P | I | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Feb 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Mar 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Mélencron (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- This looks good. I'd make the place column a bit wider by adding some sort of nowrap function, especially since the table is scrollable regardless. Maybe add a period after every abbreviated month if that's not against WP:MOS. Otherwise, it's good for me! - EditDude (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't something I was previously aware of, but the MoS apparently suggests this:
Abbreviations for months, such as Feb, are used only where space is extremely limited. Such abbreviations should use three letters only, and should not be followed by a period (full point) except at the end of a sentence.
I've stuck a couple non-breaking spaces in now as well. Mélencron (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
- It wasn't something I was previously aware of, but the MoS apparently suggests this:
- This looks good. I'd make the place column a bit wider by adding some sort of nowrap function, especially since the table is scrollable regardless. Maybe add a period after every abbreviated month if that's not against WP:MOS. Otherwise, it's good for me! - EditDude (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have created some cell templates dedicated to debates, and simplified the markup, so the table will be easier to update. See how it will look. — JFG talk 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Bullock | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/Telemundo |
TBA | I | I | O | O | P | W | TBA | TBA | O | P | TBA | TBA | P | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | TBA | O | O | A | I | O | W | TBA | TBA | P | O | TBA | TBA | O | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
- ^ Seitz-Wald, Alex (May 10, 2019). "First Democratic presidential debate set for Miami's Arsht Center, host NBC News announces". NBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ Cole, Devan (April 2, 2019). "CNN's 2020 Democratic debate set for July 30-31 in Detroit". CNN. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- It looks good, except for the horror show horizontal scroll bar on smaller screens. Also, is there a reason for all the TBDs? Why not just leave those cells blank, or color code them? We should abbreviate state names to save horizontal space. I would prefer that we not use slashes to separate sponsors, per MOS:SLASH.- MrX 🖋 20:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MrX: Agree with you that we should still limit table width - despite of the scroll bar feature. For this reason I rendered and added the below smaller table on May 14, in which I intruduced abbreviation of candidate names. Main idea was, that all candidates name and participation status for each debate hereby could be viewed at single unscrolled view for those using big screens, and that scrolling would be more limited for the smaller screens. Mélencron immediately reverted my suggestion, but perhaps now could give my bold idea about abbreviating candidate names a second thought? In any case, if my version below gather talkpage support from you or other editors it might eventually reach approval from some sort of majority? So for giving it a second try, here you have it below. I will now await further feedback from all of you. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm flat-out opposed to the abbreviation of candidate names, as they're meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with every single candidate's surname. Mélencron (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above argument from Mélencron, that readers will have harder to understand who is hiding beneath the abbreviated candidate names, is IMHO only a minor trade off. Most readers of the article will first have visited the first "declared candidates" section of the article before reading the later "debates" section, and hereby already have learned the surname of all the 24 candidates before they get presented to the later debate table. Plus readers who do not remember all surnames exactly upon their first time watch of the abbreviated candidate names, can then just place the mouse pointer on the abbreviated wiki-linked names (which then prompts wikipedia to show their entire name as a tooltip next to the abbreviated letters). Danish Expert (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is an extremely basic violation of MOS:ABBR#Use sourceable abbreviations. Don't arbitrarily make up abbreviations. (Also, re. an earlier suggestion – no, postal abbreviations for states should also not be used.) Mélencron (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Re your second concern (postal abbreviations), that same link says "They can be used in tables when space is tight, but should be marked up with template on first occurrence." SCC California (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also, what do you think about excluding candidates from the table who don't make it into any debates (there should be at least three). We could use the simple version of the table until the debate lineup is announced and then switch to the limited one with only participants. SCC California (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is an extremely basic violation of MOS:ABBR#Use sourceable abbreviations. Don't arbitrarily make up abbreviations. (Also, re. an earlier suggestion – no, postal abbreviations for states should also not be used.) Mélencron (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- The above argument from Mélencron, that readers will have harder to understand who is hiding beneath the abbreviated candidate names, is IMHO only a minor trade off. Most readers of the article will first have visited the first "declared candidates" section of the article before reading the later "debates" section, and hereby already have learned the surname of all the 24 candidates before they get presented to the later debate table. Plus readers who do not remember all surnames exactly upon their first time watch of the abbreviated candidate names, can then just place the mouse pointer on the abbreviated wiki-linked names (which then prompts wikipedia to show their entire name as a tooltip next to the abbreviated letters). Danish Expert (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm flat-out opposed to the abbreviation of candidate names, as they're meaningless to anyone unfamiliar with every single candidate's surname. Mélencron (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- @MrX: Agree with you that we should still limit table width - despite of the scroll bar feature. For this reason I rendered and added the below smaller table on May 14, in which I intruduced abbreviation of candidate names. Main idea was, that all candidates name and participation status for each debate hereby could be viewed at single unscrolled view for those using big screens, and that scrolling would be more limited for the smaller screens. Mélencron immediately reverted my suggestion, but perhaps now could give my bold idea about abbreviating candidate names a second thought? In any case, if my version below gather talkpage support from you or other editors it might eventually reach approval from some sort of majority? So for giving it a second try, here you have it below. I will now await further feedback from all of you. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Alternative smaller table version
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Be. | Bi. | Bo. | Bul. | But. | Ca. | de B. | De. | Ga. | Gi. | Gr. | Ha. | Hi. | In. | Kl. | Me. | Mo. | O'R. | Ry. | Sa. | Sw. | Wa. | Wi. | Ya. | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET | Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News MSNBC Telemundo |
TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | To be announced after qualification deadline on July 16, 2019 | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan‑Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
- ^ Seitz-Wald, Alex (May 10, 2019). "First Democratic presidential debate set for Miami's Arsht Center, host NBC News announces". NBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ Cole, Devan (April 2, 2019). "CNN's 2020 Democratic debate set for July 30-31 in Detroit". CNN. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Update: Also just added an alternative TBA layout for the July debates. Danish Expert (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely support this table more. The abbreviated candidates' names are not ideal, but I'd rather that than the horror show of scrolling. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't agree with a policy that suggests that we can't use postal abbreviations for states (like FL for Florida and MI for Michigan), but we can abbreviate people's names as "Ha." or "Bi." and expect users to understand them. These two- or three-letter surname abbreviations are not used anywhere else that I have ever seen. I'd rather have the table scroll, as hard as that is to use, than to abbreviate the candidates' names like this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Invert table?
Given that there are more candidates than debates, perhaps the solution to people's frustration with the wide table may be to swap rows and columns. Candidates would be rows, and debates would be columns. Anybody want to try that? — JFG talk 19:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I had that thought as well but forgot to actually suggest it here – I'll give it a try, but in that case I think it might be more advisable to have separate tables for details of each debates and invitees. Mélencron (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Debate schedule
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/Telemundo |
[1] |
1B | Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | |||
2A | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] |
2B | Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
- Participating candidates
Candidate | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | 1B | 2A | 2B | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
Bennet | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Biden | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Booker | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Bullock | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Buttigieg | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Castro | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
de Blasio | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Delaney | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gabbard | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gillibrand | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gravel | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Harris | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Hickenlooper | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Inslee | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Klobuchar | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Messam | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Moulton | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
O'Rourke | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ryan | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Sanders | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Swalwell | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Warren | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Williamson | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Yang | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ref(s) | [1] |
References
- ^ a b Seitz-Wald, Alex (May 10, 2019). "First Democratic presidential debate set for Miami's Arsht Center, host NBC News announces". NBC News. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ Cole, Devan (April 2, 2019). "CNN's 2020 Democratic debate set for July 30-31 in Detroit". CNN. Retrieved May 13, 2019.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Cite error: The named reference
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Mélencron (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- That looks much better, thanks. Meanwhile I have relaxed the tight formatting and simplified the markup. — JFG talk 17:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Widespread MOS:SPECIFICLINK issues
I've been meaning to bring this up for a little while – on this and the endorsement articles, there are widespread MOS:SPECIFICLINK issues (as well as overlinking in general of U.S. states) where states and cities are repeatedly being linked separately when they shouldn't be – this is mostly one user's doing (and I've merely been following it for consistency), but these link issues should seriously be addressed and fixed. If others agree to it, I can do a quick run through this and related articles to target specific links where possible. Mélencron (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree.- MrX 🖋 20:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, I also prefer this issue to be fixed. But its not an urgent matter, so feel free to take your time fixing this section by section, at times when you feel most of the other to do work has been done. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
removal
deleted some superfluous content. please keep it off this page. --130.132.173.57 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why is that superfluous? It's a section that is featured on pretty much any election page. It seems pretty sensible to include a section about potential candidates. I'm going to add it back to the article until you can provide a valid reason for this removal.--ACbreezy (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, basically no one left in that section is gonna run. I am gonna revert your edit. --130.132.173.57 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- @130.132.173.57 See the Deleting expressed interest category section above with an overwhelming keep consensus and feel free to add your opinion there. SCC California (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, basically no one left in that section is gonna run. I am gonna revert your edit. --130.132.173.57 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Cenk Uygur
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/422163006038736906/578779934315773955/image0-36.jpg thoughts? Quvuq0737 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- That shouldn't affect this article. Cenk Uygur is a naturalized U.S. citizen (born in Turkey) and thus is ineligible to become president himself. If he says he's going to go to Iowa on June 8 and make an announcement about the presidential race, my first guess would be that he is going to endorse one of the candidates. If it turns out that I'm wrong, so be it. If there is anything in his actual announcement that we ought to cover in Wikipedia, we can deal with that information once he makes the actual announcement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. The section about his announcement should be removed from here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:cb:8000:8efd:790b:ccc4:3319:a7c6 (talk • contribs)
- Agreed. A vague announcement from an individual who has never expressed interest in running for president, has not been the subject of speculation that he would ever run for president, and is constitutionally ineligible to serve as president, seems weak. I'd change my mind if independent sources started speculating about this announcement. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. He is not eligible to become president and there has been no coverage from outlets listing him as a potential candidate. People need to stop adding him to the article as no one here is arguing for his inclusion. It seems clear that the consensus is against his inclusion. AWiseishGuy (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Disagree He can get the Constitution amended. --2020primaryenthusiast (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with @Metropolitan90, @Vrivasfl, and others. Given today's edit, which I reverted, it's worth reopening this conversation to make sure we're all on the same page. Uygur is not eligible to become president. I searched the Internet and could not find any source suggesting that he is even considering a run. For every other candidate listed in the Announcement Pending section, there was speculation from major media outlets that they would run. Putting Cenk Uygur in that section, however, is unsourced and probably WP:CRYSTAL. Also, saying that he can single-handedly get the Constitution amended is highly speculative at best. Even ignoring political considerations, it would be practically impossible for an amendment to be ratified and to go into effect before November of 2020. I firmly believe that there is no basis to include Uygur in the Announcement Pending section. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
^ The Constitution can be amended. See Article V. --2020primaryenthusiast (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- sure. Come back on the day that such a constitutional amendment is proposed. Since the 2016 election, and probably earlier (2000?), many people have argued that the Electoral College should be abolished, but nobody has yet made an amendment proposal that I'm aware of. — JFG talk 10:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Satch Candidacy
I know that Mayor Satch's candidacy could be considered non-notable, but he's a small town Mayor just like Buttigieg or Wayne Messam, so if those guys count, shouldn't he count as a major candidate? And it's not a hoax, here's the link to his Twitter announcement https://twitter.com/MayorSatch/status/1130920475012554752 —SeanByrne95 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Twitter is not a reliable source, and there appears to be no other evidence of the existence of Irville Satch, or the town of Hansbay, Vermont for that matter. --Bob from the Beltway (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
guest I did some research and found his profile pic and the other supposed former mayors are all stock images. This means that this is some large long-running conspiracy of some...sort. By who not sure, maybe a multi-year prank. However I can confirm, no evidence of Hansbay's existence exists.
Yep, this is a parody account. Messam and Buttigieg are real people. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is a joke. Satch literally called de Blasio (Mayor of NYC) a mayor of a "small town" and called the US "the United Americas". This is a parody account. Hansbay, VT is not a real place and Satch is not a real person. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Splitting debate section into standalone article
Hi,
When should we split the Debates section into its own article? Looking at the 2016 election, there was already a standalone article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums&oldid=668493104) by this point in time.
Thanks! David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- IMO, there's enough content there to create a standalone article, so why not go ahead and start it?--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yea, perfectly fine to split now, I think. Mélencron (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's done. Here it is: 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Paul Romero
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" Paul Romero (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles while the FEC filing is coming from Fresno, California. Can't find any other sources. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- We shouldn't assume it is the same person without specific confirmation. There are about 20 people on Twitter named Paul Romero, so it's not necessarily the same person. If it is the same person, presumably he will confirm that on his campaign website. If it's not the same person, then he won't mention in a biography on his campaign website that he is a composer. And if the candidate never puts up a campaign website at all, then his campaign is non-notable and we shouldn't bother mentioning it (unless, of course, it somehow becomes clearly notable for other reasons). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Revision suggestions
Okay, the announcement as to who is going to be in the debates is less than a week away, and in anticipation of that, may I make some suggestions as to what to do when that time comes...
- First: Restart the separate Candidates page. (I know I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it, but my point still holds).
- Second: Divide the list of candidates into those who were invited to the debates and those who weren't. If by some miracle one of those excluded manages to get into a later debate it shouldn't be hard to put him/her back. There should be three categories: Debate participants, elected officials, and everyone else. That should stand for the rest of the year.
- Third: Make the list chart smaller in size. There still may be 20 candidates by Labor day so the chart should be easier to read than it is now.
- Fourth: Start adding more narrative. The invisible primary phase ends on the 12th, that's five days away. A decent summary of the ups and downs of that part of the race can be done NOW. Debate season is a totally different animal. We'll get to that part when it comes.
While the actual voting isn't for another eight months, we should get ready for it. It's not too early.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)