Talk:Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

Is it necessary for an endorsement to be accepted for it to be notable?

Specifically regarding Richard B. Spencer. If the Yang campaign denounces him or otherwise refuses to accept his endorsement, should it be included here on a list of endorsers?

As a secondary point, while the Twitter account @RichardBSpencer is not verified, there's mainstream media coverage of it being his account [1]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

We've already had a similar situation with Tulsi Gabbard and David Duke - [2]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Duke denied that it was an endorsement, so it's not a parallel situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Power~enwiki, Perhaps we should just be sure to note when endorsements are not accepted. I'd say both the endorsement and the denouncement are noteworthy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

OK. I'm using my WP:CRYSTAL ball here quite a bit, secondary coverage will likely exist soon but is currently absent. The primary source (Spencer's Twitter feed) is fairly clear here, and we've got quite a few reversions of this material. Based on the edit history, I think there is consensus to leave this material here until secondary sources come out. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Miserlou: do you have any comments on this discussion? power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I think we should remove anything that a) is Tweeted by the candidate b) isn't an explicit endorsement (ex, "random" people on Twitter showing interest or support). One person showing support or interest isn't an endorsement, I think it should be when a notable figure or leader is explicitly encouraging _others_ to support the candidate. It seems like gatekeeping a little bit, but I don't see how a DJ's random tweet is relevant in an encyclopedia. In an age when everybody on Earth is Twitter-famous, where is the line drawn? Miserlou (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I also think that Richard Spencer's should be removed, as he is a professional troll. Why would a white supremacist endorse an Asian American candidate other than to create attention for himself? Miserlou (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Spencer's a white nationalist, not a white supremacist, and there's no contradiction at all in him supporting Yang, whose economically populist policies will be friendlier to non-millionaires, whether white or non-white, than those of the Republicans. 2601:282:1180:1209:4953:37D6:F817:FD1D (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It's also quite possible that he simply doesn't have any endorsements at all yet and the section should be removed entirely. A donation is not an endorsement, so even the tech figures listed on his website should probably be removed as well, as I bet those were just rich people who happened to be at a fund raiser and gave the amount for the plate. It's not the same as an endorsement, which are exclusive by definition. Donations aren't, and it's very common to donate to multiple candidates. Miserlou (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of people are going to re-endorse when their favourite candidate drops out of the race. Oppose treating endorsements as exclusive. However, I agree with your other reasons for wanting to remove most of these. Connor Behan (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• New article from The Verge on the Meme Wars: [3]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@The2020machine: power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Any reason a single out-of-date poll has been highlighted?

The "Campaign" section includes a CNN poll from Dec 2018 on how Yang was polling in Iowa. Given Yang has been included in dozens of polls by now, why should that one be singled out (even if Iowa is a strategically important state)? If there are no objections I will take that out. More relevant would be his polling average. The Economist and The Washington Post have both more recently reported that he's consistently polling at 1% nationally, as can be seen on RealClearPolitics too, but since that's liable to change I am on the fence about adding it. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Massive list of media appearances in lead

Howdy. Firstly, I'd like to say that it's great to see that the article has been substantially expanded in the past few weeks. However, I think that the huge list of media appearances in the first paragraph is somewhat unnecessary. IMO, the list looks out of place in the lead and bombards the reader with lots of links. I just don't think that listing a ton of his notable media appearances really contributes to the lead at all if they weren't crucial to his campaign. They'd better fit in the Campaign section, in my view. The only media appearance that I could see belonging in the lead is the JRE one because of how important it was for Yang's campaign. Silver181 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you that having a lengthy list can be distracting or even problematic. However, the current list contains 7 items, which isn't a "huge list" in my opinion. Plus, the lead is already pretty short to begin with. However, do you think reducing it to 5 items would be better? Which two items would you remove? Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the list. I agree JRE should definitely be on there since the sources credit it as the major turning point. The other items could reasonably fit where they are, but i dont see it as problematic to remove them either. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not so much about the number of items as the amount of space it takes up. A substantial number of the first paragraph of the article is dedicated to just listing his media appearances. All of those links lined up like that looks garish and disrupts the flow of the lead IMO. I personally think this is unnecessary; if Yang is to be treated as a "major" candidate, listing his appearances in the lead sort of infantilizes his campaign by making it seem like otherwise "unimportant" (in the grand scheme of a presidential campaign) appearances are crucial for his campaign. He's a major presidential candidate; of course he's going to appear on a bunch of late night shows and the like. I simply think that the lead should be reserved for absolutely crucial info about his campaign, and I don't think all of those appearances are crucial. They absolutely could go in the Campaign section, but I don't think they belong in the lead (besides, perhaps, the JRE one).

Not trying to be combative here btw lol; like I said, I think it's good to see that the article is being improved upon. You've gone a long way in making the article feel more comprehensive. Silver181 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate having a discussion on the talk page so there’s no room for edit ambiguity. I don’t have time to edit the main article right now, but I’ll look into this later. My concern that the lead would be too short still stands, but I’ll come up with some stuff to add. Bobbychan193 (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Silver makes a good point. Now that i think of it, listing a bunch of appearances in the intro makes it seem like he's only known for those appearances. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Just finished editing the lead. Courtesy pinging @Wikiman5676 and @Silver181. Let me know what you think. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response! I think that the lead looks pretty good. Not perfect, but I definitely think that it's an improvement. Silver181 (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Is "That's the math, baby" an official Yang slogan?

In the infobox on this article, it lists "That's the math, baby" as one of Yang's slogans along with the three better-known ones. From a Google search it appears this is just something found on a merchandise item, not an official campaign slogan. In my opinion it should be removed but I wanted to consult with other editors. Thanks! Gazelle55 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gazelle55: I agree. Bobbychan193 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Great, I removed it. If people disagree they can post here and put if back if appropriate. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris Asian

I think there should be some mention of Kalama Harris running for President as an Asian candidate in the historical significance section of this article. She is Indian which is mentioned on her Wikipedia page Kamala Harris and an "Indian American" is considered to be an Asian American as you can see in the definition of Asian American. Snakebite21 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Harris is Asian, yes, but Yang announced his run before hers. Yang is probably the fourth "notable" Asian to run, while Harris is probably the fifth (depending on how one defines "notable"). Regardless, this historical significance section really doesn't add much to the article and probably will get deleted eventually, judging by recent edits on numerous other articles about presidential campaigns. Silver181 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Silver181: But it is a fact that he is not the first Asian American to run for president as a Democrat. Patsy Mink ran for president in 1972. The MSM got it wrong. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding these two images?

• 
  The image is from a New Hampshire convention, which would help balance out the over-representation of Iowa photos. My main concern is that it's a little dim. The watermark would also have to be cropped before adding. (If anyone with experience in photo-editing could help, that'd be swell.)
• 
  Thinking about putting this near the LGBT policies section. On one hand, it will help break up the text at the bottom of the page. On the other, I'm not sure how appropriate it would be for this section.

I've just finished adding a few images and moving a ton of images around to improve the layout of the article. It's a big improvement over the state the article was in two months ago.

I've found two more relevant images from Wikimedia Commons, but I'm not sure if they should be added. Bobbychan193 (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The image of the badges would be a bit too promotional. I checked other articles 2016 Hillary/Bernie/Trump but wasn't able to find similar usage of merchandise. Trump's mentions the MAGA hat, but that's it. Yang's already has the MATH hat.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for the feedback. I'll add in the other image. Bobbychan193 (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Key people

The infobox field for Key people has a long list of non-notable people. Should this be trimmed down to just the most important roles? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rephrasing

Howdy. Sorry to bother y'all again, but I was considering rephrasing the part about Yang's "support" from the alt-right. That paragraph currently starts off with this:

According to the media, Yang has a large following on /pol/, a forum on 4chan that is notorious for its alt-right politics, though Yang himself has denounced any support from the alt-right.

I was considering changing it to this:

Following his sudden rise in notability, Yang attracted the interest of some prominent alt-right figures and many users of /pol/, a forum on 4chan that is notorious for its alt-right politics.

This is for several reasons:

1. First of all, the "according to the media" line sorta gives the impression that Yang attracting the interest of some of the alt-right might be a disputable assertion. In the articles cited in that paragraph, it clearly seems that the fact that Yang did attract some attention from the alt-right is pretty undeniable; Richard Spencer and Nick Fuentes both tweeted about him and he gained a lot of traction on /pol/.
2. The original version solely mentions /pol/ without mentioning that some notable alt-right individuals also expressed interest in Yang.
3. I feel that "attracted interest" is a little more neutral than "has a large following". It's hard to say how much of Yang's alt-right "support" is/was genuine and how much of it is/was just casual memeing or outright trolling.
4. Yang's alt-right "controversy" largely seems to be behind him; Googling "andrew yang alt right" mostly yields results from March and April. The original seems to imply that the media continues to accuse Yang of having alt-right support, but it seems that most media sources stopped publishing articles about the "controversy" months ago.

The "Yang himself has denounced any support from the alt-right" should be made into its own sentence, I think. I was also considering adding this article as a source.

I know this probably seems minor, but because it's a potentially touchy subject, I wanted to discuss it with some of y'all first. Silver181 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a suitable change. Your reasoning seems sound to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:28, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, seems fine. Bobbychan193 (talk) 07:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, good observation and thank you for your contribution to improve WikipediaEruditess (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Public option

Yang's policy does not contain a public option. The sources provided do not confirm that, and it also seems to be a case of WP:SYNTH. There are however plenty of sources stating that indeed his policy does not contain a public option. I will rephrase that so that it's factual, unless someone can point me in the direction of a source that confirms that. BeŻet (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now changed that section to reflect what sources are really saying (after he released his plan in December 2019). BeŻet (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)