Talk:List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign endorsements/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tip for avoiding browser hang when editing source

I switched off the "Syntax Highlighter" in Preferences:Gadgets:Editing, and now editing is much smoother for me on immense files like this one. -hugeTim ^(talk) 02:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Stonewall Dems. of AZ

To she, he, or they who keep adding the Stonewall Dems. of AZ: We have a page requirement in place for all those below the level of State Legislator (excepting DNC members because they vote at the nominating convention). By way of example, Equality California and LPAC retain their place on this list because they have their own pages. If the Stonewall Democrats of Arizona are a sufficiently noteworthy organization per the Wikipedia guidelines, please consider creating an article. Failing that, they cannot be included in this list. Ultimately this is because we have a size constraint - this article is almost twice the size past which the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that articles be broken up, it is rapidly approaching halfway toward the maximum capacity that Wikipedia will allow, and all of this is even after being given its own page (separate from the general List of Dem. Primary Endorsements). It is again growing toward the point that it freezes up when users attempt to edit it. The amount of individuals or organizations that have endorsed Hillary Clinton in this primary and are "worth listing" in some greater philosophical sense is truly vast; they simply cannot all be included.PotvinSux (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh

Seriously people? There's no way in hell that Rush Limbaugh would ever endorse her campaign; funny thing is that there is no reliable source that is referenced anyway! On that basis it should, with much obviousness, be removed from the article. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrong or Outdated Information

The page frequently refers to news articles back from 2012 when citing celebrity support for Clinton. I think they should be removed as they are obviously outdated, also give the unfair impression that those people endorsed Clinton over current contenders -which is not the case as almost none of them had made their bid for presidency known in 2012.

This is relevant in a handful of cases. If an individual went on record as supporting her for the presidency in 2016 and there is no record of them supporting anyone else since, their statement of support should stand. For example, the Buffalo Times endorsed her for the 2016 presidency in 2012. Surely they [and others] were aware that other people could run (and actively chose to indicate that didn't matter). PotvinSux (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition of Endorsement

Based on discussion from when this page was a part of Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and for consistency with the other candidates' pages, the definition of endorsement we have been working with is roughly: an act or statement from which one can interpret exclusive support for a given candidate. Such evidence must be interpret holistically, but can include speaking in the affirmative about someone's presidency: "as president x will" (as opposed to the conditional: "as president x would"), posting a candidate's slogan unironically on social media, attending someone's fundraiser, joining someone's "Leadership Council," etc. The general guiding principle is that in a competitive election individuals who perform these actions do so in the knowledge that they will be interpreted as support for the given candidate (and go out of their way to make it clear when this is not the case [recent examples being Joni Earnst or Nancy Pelosi]).PotvinSux (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's Florida Leadership Council

I just noticed that Alan Grayson is listed as having endorsed Secretary Clinton. I saw this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXpBhTmuv8&ab_channel=thomhartmann in which Rep. Grayson denied having officially endorsed Secretary Clinton, instead saying he simply attended her conference, along with a boatload of other representatives. This means that potentially EVERY representative citing #85 (looks like someone copied ALL 88 of them) could not have officially endorsed Ms. Clinton. What I've done is removed Rep. Grayson's name, but someone needs to go through and make sure she doesn't have 88 people who didn't endorse her.71.107.52.89 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Membership on these Leadership Councils has been treated as an official endorsement by every outlet to have done a write-up about them. The likelihood that Grayson would have been included on the list if he did not make a positive representation to the campaign (other than merely attending the conference) is very small - out of the hundreds of individuals to have been included on her various State Leadership Councils only two have ever protested, a Texas mayor and city councilor who stated that they had been misunderstood. They spoke up immediately and unambiguously and were removed from the list; Grayson for some reason waited until a month later to say something (his endorsement was reported by Florida media at the time and it is simply implausible that no one in his office caught wind of that). Given that no one else on this particular list has said anything publicly, it is safe to conclude that barring further evidence this is a problem with Alan Grayson rather than with the list. Either way, thank you for taking note of this and removing him.PotvinSux (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Just wanted to make sure we didn't misrepresent 88 people. 71.107.57.73 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Jared Stine (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)== Walter Mondale ==

Shouldn't Walter Mondale be listed in the Vice Presidents category?

There is no VP category; VP is considered a cabinet-level post.PotvinSux (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

it is on Jeb Bush's pageJared Stine (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Dem. pages are intended to be consistent with each other - the GOP pages had a state-based schema.73.163.27.190 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Bulleted lists

It does not make sense to use numbered lists for the endorsements; it makes even less sense to restart the numbering in every section. I propose we swap these numbered lists for bulleted lists (like on the Sanders endorsements page). Thoughts? —LLarson (said & done) 01:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that it makes any more or less sense to do either. Someone converted them a few weeks ago without discussing it (naturally), but I don't find them particularly objectionable. Why are bullets preferable in your view?PotvinSux (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think bullets make more sense semantically: while this page is a collection of lists, it is not a census. There is nothing on the page that is being enumerated; an endorsement from my garage band is might show up as number one in its subsection, but so does Bill Clinton’s. —LLarson (said & done) 13:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a census of people who meet the criteria for inclusion or can be I guess. I don't think it's misleading in any way. On your second point, A) your garage band wouldn't be on this list (unless you have a sick garage band [in which case I want tickets]) and B) I don't think there's any implication that the person listed as first in a sub-section is the "best" or something - they're all pretty clearly in alphabetical order. To me, the upside is that it quantifies support by notable individuals in a way that people might theoretically find useful (e.g., you can compare size of groups/constituencies) and the downside is that it makes some people's listings break onto a second line when they otherwise wouldn't. On that score, I'm slightly for it.PotvinSux (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I re-checked the list criteria - it looks like you're right. "A need to refer to the elements by number may arise" is kind of fuzzy. I mean someone could theoretically have such a need, but it's not exceedingly likely.PotvinSux (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

 Resolved^[1] —LLarson (said & done) 15:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Lindsay Lohan

So Lindsay Lohan instagrammed a bunch of words that I can't really parse but there are a number of sources [2][3][4][5] that conclude that this was an endorsement or an attempt at one. I don't think one can divine any exclusivity of support from this so unless someone objects, let's keep this off of the list pending her further elaboration.PotvinSux (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What information about endorsers is included

Politicians are listed by office; former politicians by office and years held. A ranking system for executive-branch officials is included - the # in historical order they've held the position, which helps distinguish between different people who have held position and endorsed Clinton. Not entirely sure why we don't do that with leg-branch officials. For state-level leg-branch the listings also include a ranking system; if they hold a leadership position they are listed as such. The municipal officials are not as consistently listed - we don't have historical rank for all positions where that would be relevant. DNC officials also have a ranking system - if they hold a leadership position that is mentioned.

The famous-people descriptors don't follow any particularly consistent pattern ; some are listed with specific affiliations, some are listed only with professional descriptors.

The "Activists, humanitarians, and labor leaders" section is kind of a catch-all mishmash. Frankly, basically all of the non-political categories have some bleed and reflect personal judgment which category people belong to. I personally think that's totally fine but we shouldn't pretend we have a perfectly platonic categorization scheme here. There are socialite humanitarian businesspeople who are former sports figures, for example.

Given the use of objective ranking systems in other categories, I hope it is non-controversial to include the Forbes 400 ranking for endorsers where relevant. It is NPOV, verifiable information that is consistent with current practice. And I've already done the work to find the ranking for the endorsers for all the current candidates (at the moment deleted). --The Cunctator (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think consistent criteria are necessary from the standpoint of neutrality. I see two broad categories:

(1)Most of the brief descriptors throughout this list provide information about the holding of a particular office. The rationale for including #'s for sitting officials was that it is a part of the ceremonial title and shorter than the word "former." Leadership positions for legislators and DNC members are included because these are offices that they hold or held. This fits the categorization by occupation scheme (sorted by current post occupied, "highest" post previously occupied for retired officials, and what position(s) they are primarily known for for all others). The same can be said for businesspeople, government officials, and activists. These are all cases where individuals have held a particular role within a corporate body (I use corporate in the broader sense) and we provide specifics about that role. Here, I think we have consistency of principle.

(2)We do have some categories where we give supplementary information unrelated to describing a position held. The examples are athletes, where we include Hall-of-Famers and labor unions for which we include membership. The idea here being to indicate significance. A ranking on the Forbes list would follow the same principle, however it seems that we should then include things like circulation figures for newspapers, album sales for musicians, and professional awards for actors and artists. My worry is that this will take up space and we are already flirting with technological constraints. One way to mitigate this issue is to use named references to create footnotes.

• Warren Buffett, investor and philanthropist
• Helen Mirren, actress
• The New York Times.

An alternative is to just not include supplementary information that does not specify occupation or position within a corporate body (i.e., Hall-of-Fame status or labor union membership)PotvinSux (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Billionaires

The billionaire supporters of the presidential candidates are not vandalism or editorialism; please note that I have included the billionaire supporters of every active candidate - Cruz, Kasich, Trump, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders. The candidates themselves have taken different positions on the role of billionaires in the race; one of them (Sanders) excoriates them, one of them (Trump) is a billionaire. The participation of billionaires in the presidential election is a major, newsworthy topic that may deserve its own article. Wikipedia should take no position, other than being encyclopedic. The inclusion is neutral and verifiable. --The Cunctator (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint here, and it is definitely wrong, and uncivil, to call your good-faith additions "vandalism". However, this page is already too big and takes too long to load. We may be close to the point where it needs to be split to "endorsements by federal officials", "endorsements by state officials", "endorsements by celebrities", etc. Care should be taken not to selectively mention any particular characteristic of an endorser; note that in this version, you missed one – they're listed right above your section. It would be interesting to see a comprehensive list of endorsements by the Forbes 400, but I'm not sure I should encourage you to write that on Wikipedia. Would be great to see some reliable-source media publish such a list though, or even a blogger's list of them. wbm1058 (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to help break up the page; that seems like a good project. Wikipedia has the most comprehensive listing of endorsements for the candidates already; it's a little unclear to me what harm there is in making the list more comprehensive. It's a little troubling that PotvinSux went to the trouble to delete the hours of work I put into adding these listings to *every candidate running* instead of editing them for style or figuring out a way of presenting this knowledge that fits their comfort level. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, apologies for my terminology, as you are an editor in good standing. While one way of organizing this list would be separating the very, very, very rich from the very, very rich from the very rich, from the reasonably well off, from the poor, this is a quite different system of classification than the one we have developed - that by occupation and sphere of competence. Maintaining the current schema and including a "Billionaires" section would amount to an editorial comment. Conversely, including a special "billionaires" section could only be neutral if this page were reorganized by net worth. That would be problematic for a host of reasons.PotvinSux (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly am concerned that these objections reflect a personal bias -- it is not simply one candidate that is talking about billionaires and the election, but the press itself. Please note that the references for the endorsements note that these endorsers are billionaires - it is not editorializing to call Warren Buffett a billionaire; that is how he is normally described by reliable sources. Furthermore, it is NPOV to list billionaires and not other asset classes - there are not reliable sources that rank non-billionaires by wealth, but there are (both Forbes and Bloomberg) for billionaires. Every system of classification is an "editorial comment" -- I am concerned that you are imposing a personal POV in your censorship of this perspective, which is well-reflected in the media. I am happy to work with you towards a consensus. I apologize for not introducing or explaining my contribution in the Talk section; but please recognize that you have the upper hand in that it is much easier to delete than it is to contribute. --The Cunctator (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• The POLITICO 100: Billionaires dominate 2016 Politico
• From Fracking to Finance, a Torrent of Campaign Cash New York Times
• The Baggage, the Gaffes and the Billionaires Rolling Stone
• Vegas billionaire donor keeps GOP candidates guessing The Hill
• Republican rivals race to win Bush's billionaires CNN
• 2016 contenders battle for billionaire support MSNBC
• A Guide to the Billionaires Bankrolling the GOP Candidates The Atlantic
• Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President New York Times
• Exclusive: Billionaire green activist Steyer not ready to back Clinton, open to Sanders Reuters

I replied on my talk page, but I will copy the meat of my comment here:

Per WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST: "The criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit. If a list of Australians in international prisons contains the headings Argentina and Cambodia (organization by country), it would be inappropriate for an editor to add the heading Drug trafficking (organization by offense)." The system of categorization that we have developed over time is occupation/sphere of competence. Including a "Billionaires" category would require sorting by wealth instead of occupation. Yes, you can provide me with a listing of articles that describe donors/supporters as billionaires, and I can provide you with a list of articles that describe donors/supporters as, say, "feminists" (e.g. 'candidate Y endorsed by feminist X') or, say, "African Americans" (e.g. 'Candidate X picks up important African American supporter') - I am not advocating, though, that we create a "feminist" category or an "African American" category because that would be inconsistent with the system of categorization, nor do I think we should reorganize the list by ideology or race (because either would be problematic, in ways similar and ways different to a categorization based on wealth). I don't think the role of the wealthy in our politics is any more or less worth covering than the role of ideology or minority communities. These endorsement lists are not the place for parsing these things. I think a much more apt place to touch on the issue would be a stand-alone article (which I really encourage you to create because I think it would be fascinating) or, if you don't have the time or desire, to add a paragraph or two at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Campaign finance comparing different candidates' fundraising models.PotvinSux (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Per discussion, I've added the Forbes 400 info in listings; I have no objection to having them made into footnotes. --The Cunctator (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ben Parr

That reddit post is Ben Parr. Who would pretend to be Ben Parr?

Further proof - his AMA using the same account: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2xt4kw/ben_parr_former_coeditor_of_mashable_tech/ MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Navbox

Please excuse me, but the navbox on this page appears to broken. -xbony2 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Page too long

The page is too long, so Wikipedia will not transclude some of the templates, most importantly the reflist template. The issue was raised here, but I figured this is the best place to alert people who can fix it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The solution is to probably replace {{cite web}} with square braces. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

PAGE OVERFLOW

The best thing with page overflow is that no more references are needed, since they will not be printed. Pldx1 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The solution is to probably replace {{cite web}} with square braces. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I used a shortcut (moving sources to section headings where they only apply to the content of a given section), to solve the issue for the time being. I'm all for the bracket fix - why do you think this would work?PotvinSux (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous citations of endorsements/bad faith editing

For example, this joke Tweet from Paula Cole was cited as an endorsement: https://twitter.com/paulacolemusic/status/66632813369668403 It is extremely unlikely that this addition to the page was made in good faith.

Also, numerous times politicalpartytime.org is used as an endorsement citation, but hosting or attending events is not the same as actually endorsing a candidate. One might attend a fundraiser just to meet a candidate, for example.

I actually attempted to clean up many of these issues, but people undid the edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Underdog456 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog456 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for the page was developed over the fall when it was still possible to have one page for all candidates. The decision was made to take a definition of endorsement consistent with the dictionary definition of the word, "an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something." There is no reason that someone must utter the words "I endorse x" to do that. A tentative consensus was established that public approval can take the form of effusive praise, attending a fundraiser, or even a tweet. This consensus has, for the most part, held.PotvinSux (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Problematic article

This list, and the other 2016 presidential campaign endorsement listings, is problematic. Consider, only a few previous election cycle have such listings on WP. Each list is prone to WP:UNDUE because it only presents the endorsements. E.g., what about people (party and non-party) who have not endorsed a candidate or refused to endorse the candidate of their party or come out against the nominee? And how about the inherent WP:SOAPBOX nature of the listings? IMO all of these endorsement listing articles should go to WP:AFD. – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the fact that only recent electoral cycles have had these is an argument for deletion. WP:UNDUE would only apply in the case that there were conflicting opinions about individual endorsements - for example, if there is a disagreement in the public record about whether a governor has "really" endorsed someone. As far as WP:SOAPBOX, I would point to the very first bullet point on that list: "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." These lists are essentially articles about advocacy/propaganda. There is no editorial commentary whatsoever about the endorsements, suggesting the POV is in fact neutral.PotvinSux (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Candidates typically list their supporters in ads and on their websites. Such listings are not, per se, neutral. These WP listings are simply an extension of candidate posted listings. "Conflicting opinions about individual endorsements" cannot apply, because each endorsement is purely the opinion of each individual; the whole article becomes unbalanced when only endorsements are listed. To balance the article would require a listing of those who condemn the candidate. (Besides, the only important endorsements will be those cast at the polling places by the citizens.) If there was conflicting information as to whether a particular person had made an endorsement, then editors would evaluate the RS and make an editing decision as to what sources to use. Other problems with these articles (for Bernie, Hillary, and Donald), they rely heavily on self-published sources such as Twitter, Facebook; because each source involves a third-party (that is, the subject of the endorser's affection) they are not acceptable references. Finally, these listings are WP:TOOLONG; Donald is a 128 kB, Bernie is at 196 kB, and Hillary is at 435 kB. The only workable solution is to delete these lists and rely on Secondary Sources so that the basic articles about the campaigns can be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. (An example would be "According the the Accurate News, candidate X received endorsements from a majority of the state Y legislators."^[1]) – S. Rich (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to note that your heavy skepticism about the very premise of these articles conflicts with the impulses of the majority of those who have come across them in this course of this cycle as well as in previous cycles (that does not automatically disqualify your reasoning, of course). This is not an article about the merits of Hillary Clinton - this is an article listing people who have endorsed Hillary Clinton; it is specifically an article about her supporters in this race. There are many reasons such an article could be of use to a person who wants to know more about the trajectory of the campaign and the composition of the candidate's supporters. You are welcome to create a series of articles titled "List of people who hate Candidate X" or whatnot if you can make a compelling argument that has encyclopedic value. However, you would be creating a new category, an "anti-endorsement," that does not really have much precedent or currency in our discourse. These articles have no editorial content whatsoever and are naturally balanced by the fact that certain supporters of the candidate will be unsavory to the reader depending on his or her own political preferences. The fact that secondary sources commonly deal with a candidates' supporters of note is a sign that the "endorsements" made at the voting booth are not the only important ones (indeed, they are by definition not endorsements because they occur in a private setting).

The question of the self-published sources let us separate and discuss in the thread I have opened below. As far as the over-reliance on primary sources, I agree with you. I've investigated a random sample of 100 citations and found that the sources are about 50/50 primary and secondary whereas individual citations are about 60/40 primary (because primary sources more commonly have multiple citations). Part of the reason this occurs is a development of concern for brevity's sake - tweet URL's are shorter than full article citations. This brings us to the next topic:

The length issue is, yes, an issue. I am waiting for the primary phase to be over to move this article to a page called "List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016," which I can then reorganize to utilize fewer citations. This should cut down the size by about 10%. For the time being, it is worth pointing out that this article's size is not nearly unprecedented.PotvinSux (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose WP:AFD This article is not of the Clinton campaign (that article can be found here). It is a list of the endorsements of the Clinton campaign. Endorsements of political campaigns are, and have always been, a large part of the political process, and this article neutrally documents the phenomenon. An added list of those who oppose the campaign would be fundamentally off topic to the article. Non-endorsements and/or opposition to a campaign are, generally, not as notable of a phenomenon as endorsements are, because a campaign's opposition is usually represented via the support for a different campaign. Too, unless you can make the argument that opposition to a campaign is notable enough of a phenomenon (Ex: Stop Trump movement), there shouldn't be an additional article that lists people who simply oppose a campaign. MrVenaCava (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Gen. Election

There have been some concerns about whether it is too early for a General Election endorsement section. I argue that it is appropriate to have one because individuals are already making such endorsements irrespective of whether Clinton is technically the presumptive nominee according to media, and this article would not be as complete as possible if it did not include such endorsements of the Clinton campaign. In the cases currently in that section, individuals make the endorsement in the context of the Trump rather than Sanders alternative. Generic endorsements are still listed in the primary section. As a side note, because of the unsustainability of this large and growing article, if and when Clinton is labeled the presumptive nominee by media, I plan to move the primary section to "List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016." I then plan to recreate "List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016" to include the present list minus Democratic Party figures, who can be assumed to support the nominee in a general election.PotvinSux (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. She's now being called the presumptive nominee, too. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36466228 MrVenaCava (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources

@Srich32977:, You are misapplying the twitter/social media policy. Whether someone supports Candidate X is a piece of information about the given person - not about Candidate X. There is no reason a person would be an unreliable source for their own preference. The distinction is with a scenario where an individual says "I and my friends Bob and Sally" support candidate X - a person cannot be a reliable source for information about the beliefs or actions of the friends Bob and Sally. That is what the twitter policy is clearly intended to foreclose.PotvinSux (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you misunderstand. The policy applies when the article about person X says "Person X supported candidate Y in the 20xx election", and then uses Twitter or other social media as the reference. But this is an article about "Candidate X"; e.g., about Hillary Clinton and the endorsements she has received. – S. Rich (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

While your response and enthusiasm are certainly well taken, it is still important to make use of the policy as it is written:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Your concern is with the second point. "I love pie" or "I support having pie for dinner" is not a claim about pie. It is a claim about myself. It is irrelevant whether this statement is included in a given article about pie-lovers; this does not somehow turn it into a claim about pie. "I love pie" is always a claim about me. Moving on, and just as importantly, my saying "pie rocks!" is good evidence for me liking pie and bad evidence for whether or not pie rocks. If we have an article about pie, and perhaps its merits, this is would be weak and even inappropriate evidence. If we have an article about pie-lovers on the other hand, this would be very good evidence that I am one of them. In our given case, this article (list) is about pie-lovers. This is the "them" that the article is about; their activity is "pie-loving." There is also an article about pie: it is found here. PotvinSux (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

No. When A says "I love this third party (B)" the article about A can use the SPS which quotes A because it describes A's loves. But we cannot go to B's article and use a source from A that says "A loves B." And that is what we have in these endorsement lists. We need secondary sources (e.g., other than Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and blogs) which say "So-and-so came out and published their support of such-and-such candidate." Please note that I am deleting these SPS references from the Trump and Sanders endorsement lists. Clinton will be cleaned up too in accordance with WP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, in terms of A and B. A = Endorser; B = Candidate; Σ(A)= The collective endorsements.

The topic of this article is Σ(A), what the policy calls "themselves or their activities:" those making the endorsements and their act of endorsement are the topic of this article. I don't think it is remotely contentious that what a list article lists is what it is about. This should not be confused with an article about the individual candidates: those articles exist and can be found at Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Deleting the self-published statements of fact by endorsers themselves in a list article about them would not be cleaning anything up per policy; it would be removing a high volume of topical and validly sourced information. This would be as problematic on either of the other two pages as it would on this page.PotvinSux (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

As you and I are the only ones discussing the social media question, we might submit the discussion for a third opinion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

MrVenaCava in his response to the thread above this appears to agree with my general contention about how to understand the topic of the article. I am not opposed to a fourth opinion, though.PotvinSux (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina Mayors

New endorsements have been released of mayors in North Carolina: http://myfox8.com/2016/07/21/greensboro-mayor-nancy-vaughan-winston-salem-mayor-allen-joines-endorse-hillary-clinton/

Some higher profile mayors don't have pages yet -- stubs can easily be made so we can include them here. They are listed below:

• Esther Manheimer, Asheville, North Carolina
• Pam Hemminger (draft), Chapel Hill, North Carolina
• Ian Baltutis, Burlington, North Carolina

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVenaCava (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Splitting page into primary and general

Attention collaborators (MrVenaCava—Landingdude13—MelbourneStar—Nick.mon—Nick2crosby—Srich32977—Purplebackpack89), now that general election endorsements are beginning to abound, I think it would make sense to split a separate article for the sake of managability, and to remain within technical constraints. I would propose the following:

1. Creating a new article at List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016 and copying all information currently in the Primary section as-is to that page. (and adding a "see also" to the top of the present page)
2. Creating a brief section at the head of the present article to generally summarize primary endorsements (there are plenty of secondary sources available that speak about the endorsements as a group).
3. Removing all Democratic Party officials from this page with the note that Democratic Party officials are typically assumed to support the presumptive Democratic nominee, perhaps also with a list in the form of a "Notes" section of any Democratic official who is on record as not endorsing the presumptive nominee.
4. Removing all newspaper endorsements from this page unless they explicitly write that Hillary Clinton should be the president (as opposed to deserves the nomination or whatnot)
5. Merging the "General Election Endorsements" section into whatever remains in the "Primary Endorsements" section

If you have thoughts on such a series of maneuvers, please weigh in. Please weigh in also on Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016#Sources and/or Talk:List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016#Problematic article if you have not done so already.PotvinSux (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• PotvinSux I agree there should be two articles. Although I think the general election section shouldn't exclude any category of endorsement, regardless. From an objectivity and neutrality basis, I think we should continue to list endorsement in the general election page as we've been doing for the primaries. Regarding the newspapers, don't they run another round of general election endorsements? Unless we come across missed endorsements in the primary section (and have to add), I think we shouldn't edit the primary section too much. MrVenaCava (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• PotvinSux I agree, we should should split the two articles. I usually update the page with new endorsements and format issues, and when I edit, the page takes a long time to load due amount of text on there. Nick2crosby (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support a split of some sort: I'm not sure why I'm marked as a major collaborator to this; a lot of other editors have done a lot more than I. But it's worth noting the last time I tried to edit the article was to try and get Template:United States presidential election, 2016 to work on this page. I failed, probably because the page is just too big. It needs to be split into at least two pages. pbp 00:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I back splitting the article into primary and general election endorsements, mainly because it's going to get very long, especially as more endorsements start rolling in.

Another suggestion: isn't it a bit pointless to include Democratic elected officials who endorse Clinton for the general election? We can expect that all but a few of them will agree with the party line, so the article would be turned into a very long directory of the party's politicians. I'd argue that instead it would be better to list the exceptions on other pages: the Democratic politicians who are endorsing someone else or explicitly refusing to make an endorsement, if there are any. Ditto for the Republican side. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC) [edited once]

I think so as well and I tried making that point above. MrVenaCava disagreed suggesting that this might present an issue of balance.PotvinSux (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Landingdude13:, @MrVenaCava: - putting aside for the moment the question of whether we should be including Dem Party officials here, would you support combining the General and Primary sections on this page provided that I have created an article at List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016 to "freeze"/document the endorsements from the primary phase specifically. Because we would be less tied to the business of the primary here, we could remove the DNC Member section (and move the few folks therein who have pages to Dem. party officials) and possibly also remove the Newspaper and Magazine endorsements (except in those very few instances where the endorsement is explicitly for the presidency rather than just the the primary) with a note and a link to Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016.PotvinSux (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@PotvinSux Yes, I support combining the two sections to now reflect the presidential campaign. I agree the DNC Member section was important for the primaries and should be removed from this list, although DNC members who are notable otherwise should be recategorized here, as you've suggested. I agree complete re: the newspaper endorsements. MrVenaCava (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@PotvinSux When you're ready, I can begin the work of merging the two sections. I recently reorganized the gen. election endorsements the same way the primary endorsements are categorized, so that's straight forward. Other tasks include going through the newspapers section, and identifying/reorganizing the few notable DNC members (the ones with wikipedia pages, I assume). MrVenaCava (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrVenaCava Thank you for offering to do that - I can go through the DNC members and Newspapers if you'd be willing to merge the other folks.PotvinSux (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do it tonight (June 15th) MrVenaCava (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

MrVenaCava alerted me to this, and this is perhaps one of the most unnecessary things I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The primary list is almost entirely duplicated on the general list, with only a handful of additions so far - as there is no "split", with this article even bigger than the other, it does not save any space to have the material copied, so the original "sake of manageability" makes no sense at all. With the exception of newspapers, any endorsements for the primary are also for the general, so the contents are nearly the same. It seems terribly incongruous to have a different format from the Trump article and prior years, and it would be incredibly simply to either have the later endorsers in a separate section or marked with an asterisk. I'd much rather have an RFC or AFD on the topic because the repetitiveness is absurd. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Although there was previously a consensus to split the primary and general election sections into two articles, I would support having one article WITH some sort of indicator that the endorsement was made after Clinton's presumptive nomination (an asterisk, or some other form of highlight). However, I do not support reintroducing a single article with two separate sections. It should also be noted that the "primary election" article includes DNC and newspaper endorsements, while the "general election" article only includes newspaper endorsements written for the general election. We would have to reintroduce those two parts if we were to have a single article again. It should finally be noted that great work has been done on the "general election" article regarding references. Many were able to shorten the article by 10s of thousands of bytes by standardizing the citations and combining sources. MrVenaCava (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that since few of the DNC members even have articles and they are listed in the superdelegates article, they don't even need to be listed here at all; they don't have any sort of constituency or people who listen to them. It also doesn't matter that someone was the 12th State Attorney General if you want to shave off a few numbers, and we don't need to footnote award winners. It does make sense not to have separate sections though - keep like with like - but a denotation is simple enough for those few for whom timing matters. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm copying PotvinSux for his/her input. Let's see if we can come to a consensus with simplifying these articles, as I think that is a common goal that we all share. I would be supportive of having a single article if these are the changes:

1. having a single article that includes both primary and general election endorsements under ONE section. The general election endorsements would get a special indicator or highlight. The difficult task here is to locate all of the general election endorsements, which I believe are quite a few.
2. primary election newspaper endorsements are properly represented. Maybe we can have two back-to-back sub-sections for newspapers specifically, where one section is "primary elections endorsements" with simply a link to Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016, and the second section is "general election endorsements", which will remain as is/added on to. It should be made sure that all of the primary newspaper endorsements listed in List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016 are transferred to Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential primaries, 2016.
3. DNC member endorsements are properly represented, as they are intrinsic to the primary elections. We can have a section for them with simply "See: List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016". MrVenaCava (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added asterisks to individuals who endorsed since July 11. Please include them on any further additions - Can we add a notice that appears on the edit screen? The newspaper link will have to be added, but the primary list can be redirected now. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have completed MrVenaCava's suggestions and redirected the primary list with no loss of information. Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@MrVenaCava:; @Reywas92: Sorry all, I had no idea this conversation was taking place - I personally prefer how we had originally resolved this issue, but I don't feel especially strongly about it. What you have done here is perfectly reasonable.PotvinSux (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2016

Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by the swedish minister of Foreign Affairs Margot Wallström in february and I would like to add that in the section 1.2.2 (National and supranational ministers and secretaries).

Code:

• Margot Wallström, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs (Swedish Social Democratic Party) Minister for Foreign Affairs (Sweden)

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-sweden/

RaisinGrams (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. GAB^gab 16:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Page load time

Not sure if it's only me, but this page takes almost three minutes to fully load. It could be due to it's length. I'm not proposing separate articles, but there is likely details we might not necessarily need. For example, in the celebrities section do we really need to make notations that they are award winners? Rusted AutoParts 16:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I crashed almost ten times trying to add ONE entry onto the list. I really feel some cuts have to be made. Do we need pictures? Do we need accolade notations? Rusted AutoParts 05:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rusted. I don't think removing those things is going to solve the problem, IMHO. The length of the article comes from the endorsements, of course. I think what needs to be done is an article split. Have one article for public officials/politicians and a second article for non-politicians. The challenge here is that the references overlap. Would there be a way for two articles to share a single reference list? I also want to see PotvinSux weigh in on this. MrVenaCava (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It could be length, but I feel that pictures add to the load time as they need additional time to come up. Anything on the page that adds to the load time could be a factor. So in my mind at least trim some of the pictures. As I said as well, I don't feel noting awards (minus Nobel laureates) is necessary either. Considering editing out entries defeats the purpose of the page (though I feel redlinks sohuldn't be included), we will need to accommodate the 1000+ references. So that's why I point to the pictures and notations. Rusted AutoParts 18:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi folks. So what I had originally done was create a separate "List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016" page. (This has since been eliminated and part of the purpose it served replaced by asterisks for those who indicated support for Clinton after June 11th). Other than to differentiate between the primary and general election, one of the reasons I did this was because in a general election it is generally the case that elected officials of a given party support their nominee, and it is not really notable when they do (as opposed to when they do not). Given this, I had planned to suggest (or suggested at the time, I don't recall) that we remove all the sitting Dems. from this page, which would go a very long way toward resolving the loading issue. The same objective could be achieved by splitting the article into three pieces: Public officials, Notable individuals (which I think should include celebrities - and I would actually suggest that we merge those categories here regardless), and Organizations. (Also, the reason the accolade citations exist is because a user suggested we mark all the billionaires, and I felt that would be an undue weight issue unless we also marked exceptional accomplishments in other fields. I do think that these citations are useful in the sense that they make digesting the product a bit easier, and I do not think removing them would go a long way toward resolving the page loading issue. The portraits are, I think, a bigger issue from a loading standpoint, but I think they are also a valuable addition to the page [they give a useful and informative cross-section of the candidate's support in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, etc. in a way that is hard to achieve otherwise], and I would above all prefer to keep them.)

One thing I would ask before we do anything is that whoever is having a loading issue look at some of the other mega articles on Wikipedia - Special:LongPages and Wikipedia:Articles with the most references and see if they're having a similar issue. That will give us an idea as to whether the issue stems primarily from size itself or the number of citations, or, potentially neither. If the issue is specific to this article we could probably kill the portraits or find a way to use them more sparingly. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that the issue may be the volume of links.PotvinSux (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I use a tablet alot of the time. On laptop its a sluggish load, but is fully loaded within a minute. Mobile users however will have a difficult time navigating the page. Rusted AutoParts 21:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

International politicians

Attention (PotvinSux—Landingdude13):

Question: Should we be moving international politicians to reflect their current political office? There are a number of people that have ended their tenure as minister/secretary, but are still Members of Parliaments. In other words, should we be categorizing by their highest currently held office, or by their highest political office whether or not its currently held? MrVenaCava (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, for some reason the ping didn't work for me. The practice we have followed in the public officials section was to list people who have held "higher" office but now hold "lower" office in their current office. An example would be Rahm Emanuel or Hilda Solis, both of whom are former federal cabinet secretaries but now hold office at the municipal level. The more common scenario, though, would be Senators who are former governors. This seems a bit less logical to do given a parliamentary system where it is far more common for an official to continue serving once his or her party is voted out of office or where he or she continues serving after they are shuffled out of a cabinet post. I think that is a significant enough distinction to justify taking a different approach with the international politicians and leaving them how they are. I can't say I feel strongly one way or the other however. PotvinSux (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, upon further examination everyone in that category is an MP - I just merged the two categories. That took care of the issue.PotvinSux (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your decision. Thank you. MrVenaCava (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper surveys (international)

Some user seem to insist that there be an extensive list of "endorsement" from a single country (Norway), which is based solely on a newspaper survey asking all MPs who they'd support in the election. While it might count as endorsements, due to the nature of this (not being due to any independent initiative on the part of MPs themselves) I have tried to change this into a summary of number of MPs from the respective parties. Even the source for Sweden lists a wide number of MPs in the same manner, but has more appropriatly decided not to name everyone individually. The use of the survey for a single country (even reverting my adding the survey for Sweden) makes it seem that there is some sort of extraordinary support here when it's simply not the case. I'm sure similar surveys could be found for most countries with most MPs saying they'd vote for Hillary over Trump. User2534 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I think this is a good point. That said, I am not sure how to resolve it other than to seek out statements of support from other countries to give a more balanced representation. We can only go by the sources we have.PotvinSux (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

What about limiting endorsements to at least somewhat independent initiatives from politicians, i.e. individual articles. Politicians being requested by a journalist at gunpoint if they support Trump or Hillary seems very undue to me. User2534 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What gunpoint? They're perfectly capable of saying "I don't know" or "no comment" ("ingen kommentar," apparently) - they're politicians, I'm sure they do it all the time. The response rate happens to have been surprisingly high, actually, but it's not as if everyone in parliament responded, so clearly there was no actual duress. All an endorsement is, in the dictionary definition, is a public indication of support; in this regard, I don't see how it matters whether an exchange leading to an endorsement was initiated by an individual or not. As a parallel, the surveys of congressional and gubernatorial endorsements in the primary tracked by 538 included the products of e-mail surveys by The Hill to form their core. Ditto AP surveys of superdelegate endorsements.PotvinSux (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Tip: Avoiding Relisting Endorsements

Here's a tip to avoid repetitive listings of endorsements on the page: Before you're about to push the "Edit" button, press Ctrl+F then type in the person/organization that has endorsed Hillary Clinton (with credible source), and it's pretty straightforward from there. Hope this helps! Nick2crosby (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Though I sort of feel pictures are exactly necessary here, if we're going to have them I think there are some who should be featured over others. It's not to incite favoritism, but there are some whose endorsements are fairly more notable than others. Take Bernie Sanders. His campaign gave Clinton's a tough battle, and his endorsement was a highly sought after one. So a picture of Sanders I feel should be placed in the article. Rusted AutoParts 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed

Cantab1985 (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The general principle we maintain in order to avoid subjective judgments about the worth of particular individuals' support is to go alphabetically by last name for however many indivudals will fit wherever a portrait is available on the given person's page and reasonably presentable (i.e. reasonably cropped to include just the head and body of the individual). We already make one exception: Julia Gillard, because a user felt strongly that she was more personally involved in the race (which is true - she appeared in a video for the campaign). I think we could stand to make another for Sanders. Personally, I would prefer to make neither exception, but it is not the most important thing of the world.PotvinSux (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

So is it fine if I swap it out now? It's been about a week or two now and so far haven't got anyone saying no. Rusted AutoParts 19:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Separate page for Repubs

I know "Republican and conservative support for Hillary Clinton in 2016" redirects here, here given that the number of mid-to-high-level Republican endorsers is now somewhere over 30 (that's mostly just counting notables with Wikipedia articles), the equivalent page for Obama-2008 has fewer names than that, and the general number of disavowals of Trump from his own party is unprecedented even compared to Reagan Democrats, shouldn't it become it own page? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. I support. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear – is the proposal to list those who've come out and said "I'm voting for/endorsing Hillary" or those who say "I'm not voting for the Donald". – S. Rich (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Eventually people will suggest spin-off pages for celebrities or any other categories that gain a significant number of names. One page to list all endorsements is more than sufficient. Rusted AutoParts 05:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposal is for Republican Clinton endorsers. I think this is hardly comparable to celebrities. 50+ Republican notables endorsing the Democratic nominee is an unprecedented phenomenon and is receiving specific media coverage. This isn't just a lot of people in a certain category, this is a massive opposition crossover. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The "Stop/Never Trump" page already covers Repubs who draw the first line against Trump. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A page on the Republican opposition of Trump, which includes those who've come out to support Clinton, can be found here: List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 -- MrVenaCava (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Will Quigg

Regarding this revert, I am not a strong supporter of keeping the Will Quigg material in. I note the link goes to Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which suggests that Quigg himself does not meet WP:NOTABILITY standards. – S. Rich (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. If the entry is not notable, or the endorsement was either retracted or disavowed, then we should not add them onto the list. Rusted AutoParts 19:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but with the qualification that other disavowed or retracted endorsements be listed as such. The criteria for inclusion is WP:NOTEWORTHY. Excluding any such endorsements (supported by RS) would not comport with WP:NOTCENSORED. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I now agree with S. Rich, after reviewing WP:NOTCENSORED, that removal based on campaign disavowal would interfere with policy. However, removal of Will Quigg is clearly warranted via WP:NOTEWORTHY. There is no personal page on the individual, and therefore, Quigg, like anybody else who is below the level of state legislator in the community, should be removed. For the record, removal is warranted if an endorsee withdraws their support. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with user:MrVenaCava, and those above him. He doesn't have noteworthy status and doesn't have his own Wikipedia page. I've seen endorsements that have been removed, even though they come from Republicans, but have been removed due to their noteworthy status lack thereof, as well as no Wikipedia pages, either. Nick2crosby (talk) 07:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Does this qualify as an endorsement? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/paul-mccartney-hillary-clinton-tweet-slogan-im-with-her-shes-with-me-a7196646.html MrVenaCava (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

1. MrVenaCava, yes that counts as an endorsement. Nick2crosby (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Added. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fashion as media personality

Why are models and fashion designers under media personalities and socialites? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Since you brought this up, I think the Voice artists and musicians section is not clear. There are overlapping categories such as Singer-songwriters and vocalists, Rock stars and bands, and DJs and instrumentalists. For example, a vocalist/guitarist would fit into all three categories. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is to the first question in this thread is that models and and fashion designers are commonly socialites. I would, though, support renaming the category to just "Media personalities" (which would include models) and moving the fashion designers to "Visual artists."

@MrVenaCava: I'm not sure where "Rock stars and bands" came from - it's way under-inclusive and has too much overlap with the last category in the section. I am going to mix those back into the other groups and if whoever made the change wants to defend it they can do so here. Next, I do share your concern about overlap, but plenty of multi-talented people on the whole list at large belong in multiple categories. Yes, this is marginally more of an issue now that I've begun subdividing the huge sections (in order to make the list more manageable for the user), but it's been a problem from the outset: Streisand, Cher, Ice T, etc., etc. The principle we've followed all along is to put individuals with whatever they would be best known for (with the exception of the handful of politicians who currently hold a post lower than the one they previously held [e.g. Hilda Solis]). In your hypothetical case, very many singer-songwriters play their own instruments, but, say, Alicia Keys is not a concert pianist - it's the songwriting and the vocals that she is known for. Ditto Elton John despite his great talent, and I'd probably even say the same about the Piano Man (who gets that name because of a persona he has cultivated [why is John not the Piano Man? Why is Keys not the Piano Woman?]. Generally speaking, the leads of bands known for their vocals are weaker instrumentalists (as opposed to their first and second guitar and/or bass players and drummers). To be more concrete, I think it makes sense to put Ringo with instrumentalists (even though he added vocals here and there and wrote a song or two), whereas George, Paul, and John would better fit in the vocalists section because it is their voices and songs that are iconic - that they happened to write songs for guitar and play guitar [perfectly capably] while they did it seems less important. .... Anyway, as you can see, this all makes a lot of sense in my head, but that means less if it is confusing to others. Is there some other way that this section should be subdivided?PotvinSux (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@PotvinSux: I see the dilemma more clearly now. Your methodology appears best and remains true to how everybody else has been organized. I think removing Rock stars and bands would help, too. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

@Srich32977, Volunteer Marek, and PotvinSux:

Facebook and Twitter posts can, in fact, be used as primary sources, WP:FACEBOOK states. Posts can be used if the person has been verified/authenticated. Self-published sources have been discussed in length previously: (Talk:List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016/Archive_1#Sources). -- MrVenaCava (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you misread. Since the various WP:SPS posts involve another person (H. Clinton), they cannot be used. Both Facebook and Twitter have verification procedures, but Facebook does not show whether or not a particular person is verified. – S. Rich (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Umm, yes it does. Here's Olivia Wilde's Facebook. Note the checkmark. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. My info was based on the old verification process and I do not use Facebook enough to have caught the checkmarks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@ Srich32977, You would be correct if the subject of the article is of Hillary Clinton or her campaign. In my eyes, the subject of the article is about the public endorsements, in the format of a list (WP:SAL), of Hillary Clinton's campaign, not the campaign itself. By my logic, since the article's subject is of the public endorsements by individuals for (cause irrelevant), self-published endorsements are intrinsically of a reliable source (if verifiable/authenticated and abides by WP:FACEBOOK). WP:SOCIALMEDIA reaffirms my logic, assuming the article is of peoples' endorsements for (cause irrelevant). -- MrVenaCava (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The article is every bit about Hillary Clinton and her campaign. These Facebook and Twitter comments (verified or not) are clearly WP:SPS. E.g., each person is saying "I think Hillary Clinton [the third party] should be elected." This HUGE article needs paring, and enforcing WP:NOT policy is one way of cleaning it up. – S. Rich (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's my linguistic understanding that the article is about the endorsements of the Clinton campaign. Remember, endorsements are pledges of support for something -- endorsements don't make up something. An idea has to first be thought before it can be supported, which means the campaign has to exist first before it can be endorsed. Endorsements, intrinsically, can't and aren't the campaign itself. I'm not sure how much longer I can parse this. If your objective is to shorten the article, this debate isn't going to help you very much. All anyone has to do is find secondary sources for primary sources... Aren't you the same guy who suggested deleting all of these endorsement pages? -- MrVenaCava (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me give you a quick example: 10 people each took a slice out of a watermelon. 6 found the watermelon to be yummy, and 4 found the watermelon to be gross. This endorsement list is a list of all the people that found the watermelon to be yummy. These six people don't make up the composition of the watermelon, nor do they have the capacity to represent the watermelon. Additionally, saying the watermelon is yummy says nothing objective about the watermelon. Saying it's yummy is an opinion and gives someone no factual or constructive information about the watermelon. Therefore, the list of people saying it's yummy is merely a list of people that like watermelon -- the only information that is actually available to you is who likes watermelon. Someone can't (and shouldn't) reasonably assume anything about the watermelon based on a list of who like it. There's only one reason Wikipedia doesn't have a list of people that like watermelon: it's not notable. -- MrVenaCava (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

We've had this exact conversation before here; I don't see dramatically new arguments being made here.PotvinSux (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Endorsements for primary and general elections or just general?

Are the endorsements listed here supposed to include those for both primary and general elections or just general? I've seen some that were just primary endorsements.BillVol (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Billvol: please refer to the sentence under "Endorsements" → List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#Endorsements. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to replace newspaper endorsements with pointer

I suggest we remove the list of newspaper endorsements, and instead point to Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016. This will eliminate what will soon be a barrage of synchronization issues.Erniecohen (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I might support setting up a transclusion box.PotvinSux (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Some POV motivated additions/removals from the lists of 2016 presidential campaign endorsements

I note that there has been edit warring to remove some minor leftist endorsers from the article. First User:Volunteer Marek kept removing CPUSA [6], [7], despite the fact it was reliably sourced, and it is also a common fact and the CPUSA has been endorsing Democrat candidates for decades.

Thereafter, I added Angela Davis, a wellknown activist, which was also removed by Volunter Marek and his meatpuppet User:My very best wishes [8].

In contrast, there are numerous far-right fringe figures far less publicly known than Davis represented in List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Such as Aleksandr Dugin, David Duke and Jared Taylor, a completely obscure White nationalist. What is more, this very same Volunteer Marek, kept re-adding Vladimir Zhirinovsky [9] as a Trump endorser despite the source not having sufficient basis.

In short, what I see is an attempt to use double standards concerning Clinton/Trump campaigns here on Wikipedia.--Paul Keller (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Responded on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Paul Keller, I've issued an edit warring warning, plus have notified you about casting aspersions. As you have asked me to steer clear of your talk page, I will reiterate here that your few contributions as an editor up to now have been indicative of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE. Please learn to discuss content civilly, and based on policies and guidelines rather than attack other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have nothing to say about the raised issues of the article content then don't post anything at all. Your comment consists only of ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the contents of the article.Paul Keller (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi friends. I am uninterested in your personal feud. I would though like to point out that the source provided for the CPUSA was inadequate. It did not cite any proclamation by Party leadership, but rather a somewhat ambiguous op-ed in People's World. Per the CPUSA website: "The Communist Party does not endorse candidates from other parties, but we are deeply involved in mobilizing people to participate in the elections."PotvinSux (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Did you also have the time to check and consider what I pointed out about Aleksandr Dugin, David Duke, Jared Taylor, and Vladimir Zhirinovsky? In particular source presented for supposed endorsement by Zhrinovsky simply did not add up, which is why I removed him. Also, I could add ten more sources for the CPUSA endorsement, but the gang seems to be bent on reverting it in any cost and they have the numbers. Paul Keller (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Paul Keller, I'm not sure how much more explicit it gets than the CPUSA site saying "we [do] not endorse candidates from other parties..." As far as Zhirinovsky (I happen to speak Russian), there are endless videos on YouTube of him endorsing Trump's candidacy, e.g., saying a Trump victory "is a victory for America..." fifteen seconds into this video.PotvinSux (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit/Archive. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Bachelet endorsement

Despite she didn't said it explicitly, Michelle Bachelet (current President of Chile) endorsed Clinton in this Buzzfeed interview. Any opinion before adding Bachelet to this list? --Warko ^talk 19:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)