This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theresa Greenfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) on 18 May 2020. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
NOTE: The subject was determined to be notable and this article was authorized for re-creation by the meta-discussion reviewing the "Articles for Creation" and "Deletion Review" discussions, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Theresa Greenfield.
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.
Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?
What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
vexatious litigationis an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its first declension or its second declension, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its third declension. Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
decide ... the future of American democracyis hyperbole and we are better off without it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm so confused, how are we looking at the same topic here? Is this just bias against Iowa? Is their news not important enough? Moboshgu, I'm sorry, but you're totally out of line here. Take a step away from this topic, you're twisting policy and Wikilawyering because you can't admit that the subject's situation has changed, and you're now in the wrong. You're abusing admin privilege here, and I'm not sure you should be active on this page.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.
Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?
What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
vexatious litigationis an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its first declension or its second declension, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its third declension. Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability.
Thanks Peaceray for the historical recap. The article looks quite solid now, though I can see how it was not, in the past). – SJ + 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, okay. If you didn't want me to review the draft again, you didn't need to ping me. You don't need to ping me just to tell me that you disagree and that you want me to go away. I am not reviewing the draft.
It is not true that I kept rejecting the article. I didn't reject the article. I declined it twice, after User:Bkissin declined it once. I didn't reject it, largely because it will need to be accepted if she wins the November election. Declining a draft and rejecting a draft are two different actions.
The redirect is still protected, and if the next reviewer decides that the draft should be accepted, they will still need to go either to Deletion Review a fourth time, or to Requests for Page Unprotection, or to DRV and then to RFPP.
I will allow another reviewer to review it. You didn't need to ping me if you don't want me to review it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I commented at the AN thread about this, but it probably wasn't the right place; maybe WT:N is, for the general case. In any case, the notability criteria for an event are different than for a person, which is why Death of Sandra Bland is notable as a WP:BIO1E, and Sandra Bland is not. For this specific case, I kind of agree that Theresa Greenfield is not notable, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield may be, as a WP:BIO1E. I tried to make this point at AN, and the response there was,
2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question.
which is a fair point. But I think the case can be made that the topic "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" is notable in its own right, however, since WP:AN is not an article-improvement forum, it is not the right place to carry out an investigation into it, and this page is. That said, I am not *that* interested in this topic, so I just want to lay out my train of thought here and hope someone else will pick it up, if interested. I may not be back, so if this helps, great.
From my read of the guideline, I can see some parts that argue against such a new topic, and others in favor of it. In the "against" camp, I'd list this:
In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.
So, given that, and if we assume that she's not notable on her own per previous discussions above, then since we already have an article on the "event" (i.e., the Senate race), we don't need one on the person. But, that portion does not argue specifically against the creation of a new article whose topic is a narrower, more focused event, which may also be notable in its own right. However later, that same section also says this, which has a different focus:
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
Greenfield's role in the 2020 Senate race is very clearly a large one. But, does it argue for the creation of a more narrowly focused one than the existing one, or not? It seems to be mute on that question. The next quotation won't settle the question, but argues that it might be compliant to create one. The illustrative example they use is unfortunate in the context of the present topic, because the example deals with political assassination; but let's try to ignore that and just deal with what the example is trying to tell us about notability criteria, and ignore its macabre domain:
The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
I would say that Greenfield's candidacy fits this category, too, as indicated by voluminous and ubiquitous coverage of the event in reliable sources that devote major attention to Greenfield's role, and not merely to the fact that it's a "2020 Iowa Senate race". Accordingly, I would say that Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield meets the criteria set forth in the WP:BIO1E section of the Notability policy for creation of a BIO1E-style article named after an event and including the person's name, a la Death of Sandra Bland. One more quotation of policy, just to make sure: the BIO1E section goes on to give an example where a separate article may not be necessary:
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King.
This last point, perhaps counterintuitively, is what persuaded me that " Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" *may*, in fact, be a notable topic according to the guideline. Why? Because the analog to "George Holliday" in this case, is "Jordanna Zeigler", Theresa Greenfield's campaign manager. If you search for her, you'll find a decent number of reliable sources mentioning her, including: Politico, TIME, cbs2Iowa, Globe Gazette, Iowa Starting Line, The Guardian, Iola Register, and so on. However, it's not significant coverage, and it all relates to Greenfield's candidacy. This tells me that "Jordanna Zeigler" is not significant enough for an article; she is Theresa Greenfield's "George Holliday". If anyone created a page with that title, clearly it would have to be a redirect.
But there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of Theresa Greenfield's Senate candidacy, with numerous articles where her candidacy is the entire focus of the article and named after her, or a major part of the article. I think therefore that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" meets the bar of WP:BIO1E.
As to how to deal with the overlap with the currently existing article 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, I think standard Summary style guidelines should apply. That is, most of the detail about the *candidacy* should be in the new article, as child, and more focused on Greenfield, and that should be summarized in the existing article, which would be the "parent" article, per Summary style. Thanks, and good luck! Mathglot ( talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"She is not notable, but her candidacy may be" - then the article should stand and all that's left is a dumb argument about naming. Artw ( talk) 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No policy-based opinion on the notability of this subject, but the history of our article, particularly AN's contentious discussion about it ( thread at time of writing), including input from the Founder seat ( 1, 2), has now been reported in Slate [1] and the Washington Post. [2]
- ^ Harrison, Stephen (27 October 2020). "Why Did It Take So Long for the Democratic Senate Candidate in Iowa to Get a Wikipedia Page?". Slate.com. Retrieved 6 November 2020.
- ^ Steinsson, Sverrir (27 October 2020). "Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield finally got her Wikipedia page. Here's why it took so long". Washington Post. Retrieved 6 November 2020.
Not really sure what this means for the article. <3 Folly Mox ( talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the section on her policy positions--and the language used--too in-the-weeds and/or too favorable towards the candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 ( talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Charlie918: A list like this is not very useful or discriminate. Adding to the paragraph that provides a brief summary of the most notable endorsements (or statistics about categories of endorsements) can be fine. For instance, Axne isn't mentioned currently. – SJ + 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theresa Greenfield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This page was proposed for deletion by Muboshgu ( talk · contribs) on 18 May 2020. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
NOTE: The subject was determined to be notable and this article was authorized for re-creation by the meta-discussion reviewing the "Articles for Creation" and "Deletion Review" discussions, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327#Theresa Greenfield.
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.
Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?
What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
vexatious litigationis an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its first declension or its second declension, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its third declension. Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability
If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
decide ... the future of American democracyis hyperbole and we are better off without it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm so confused, how are we looking at the same topic here? Is this just bias against Iowa? Is their news not important enough? Moboshgu, I'm sorry, but you're totally out of line here. Take a step away from this topic, you're twisting policy and Wikilawyering because you can't admit that the subject's situation has changed, and you're now in the wrong. You're abusing admin privilege here, and I'm not sure you should be active on this page.-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.
Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?
What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon ( talk) 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
vexatious litigationis an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its first declension or its second declension, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its third declension. Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability.
Thanks Peaceray for the historical recap. The article looks quite solid now, though I can see how it was not, in the past). – SJ + 01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Okay, okay. If you didn't want me to review the draft again, you didn't need to ping me. You don't need to ping me just to tell me that you disagree and that you want me to go away. I am not reviewing the draft.
It is not true that I kept rejecting the article. I didn't reject the article. I declined it twice, after User:Bkissin declined it once. I didn't reject it, largely because it will need to be accepted if she wins the November election. Declining a draft and rejecting a draft are two different actions.
The redirect is still protected, and if the next reviewer decides that the draft should be accepted, they will still need to go either to Deletion Review a fourth time, or to Requests for Page Unprotection, or to DRV and then to RFPP.
I will allow another reviewer to review it. You didn't need to ping me if you don't want me to review it. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
I commented at the AN thread about this, but it probably wasn't the right place; maybe WT:N is, for the general case. In any case, the notability criteria for an event are different than for a person, which is why Death of Sandra Bland is notable as a WP:BIO1E, and Sandra Bland is not. For this specific case, I kind of agree that Theresa Greenfield is not notable, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield may be, as a WP:BIO1E. I tried to make this point at AN, and the response there was,
2020 United States Senate election in Iowa is the article for the "one event" in question.
which is a fair point. But I think the case can be made that the topic "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" is notable in its own right, however, since WP:AN is not an article-improvement forum, it is not the right place to carry out an investigation into it, and this page is. That said, I am not *that* interested in this topic, so I just want to lay out my train of thought here and hope someone else will pick it up, if interested. I may not be back, so if this helps, great.
From my read of the guideline, I can see some parts that argue against such a new topic, and others in favor of it. In the "against" camp, I'd list this:
In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person.
So, given that, and if we assume that she's not notable on her own per previous discussions above, then since we already have an article on the "event" (i.e., the Senate race), we don't need one on the person. But, that portion does not argue specifically against the creation of a new article whose topic is a narrower, more focused event, which may also be notable in its own right. However later, that same section also says this, which has a different focus:
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
Greenfield's role in the 2020 Senate race is very clearly a large one. But, does it argue for the creation of a more narrowly focused one than the existing one, or not? It seems to be mute on that question. The next quotation won't settle the question, but argues that it might be compliant to create one. The illustrative example they use is unfortunate in the context of the present topic, because the example deals with political assassination; but let's try to ignore that and just deal with what the example is trying to tell us about notability criteria, and ignore its macabre domain:
The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
I would say that Greenfield's candidacy fits this category, too, as indicated by voluminous and ubiquitous coverage of the event in reliable sources that devote major attention to Greenfield's role, and not merely to the fact that it's a "2020 Iowa Senate race". Accordingly, I would say that Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield meets the criteria set forth in the WP:BIO1E section of the Notability policy for creation of a BIO1E-style article named after an event and including the person's name, a la Death of Sandra Bland. One more quotation of policy, just to make sure: the BIO1E section goes on to give an example where a separate article may not be necessary:
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King.
This last point, perhaps counterintuitively, is what persuaded me that " Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" *may*, in fact, be a notable topic according to the guideline. Why? Because the analog to "George Holliday" in this case, is "Jordanna Zeigler", Theresa Greenfield's campaign manager. If you search for her, you'll find a decent number of reliable sources mentioning her, including: Politico, TIME, cbs2Iowa, Globe Gazette, Iowa Starting Line, The Guardian, Iola Register, and so on. However, it's not significant coverage, and it all relates to Greenfield's candidacy. This tells me that "Jordanna Zeigler" is not significant enough for an article; she is Theresa Greenfield's "George Holliday". If anyone created a page with that title, clearly it would have to be a redirect.
But there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of Theresa Greenfield's Senate candidacy, with numerous articles where her candidacy is the entire focus of the article and named after her, or a major part of the article. I think therefore that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" meets the bar of WP:BIO1E.
As to how to deal with the overlap with the currently existing article 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, I think standard Summary style guidelines should apply. That is, most of the detail about the *candidacy* should be in the new article, as child, and more focused on Greenfield, and that should be summarized in the existing article, which would be the "parent" article, per Summary style. Thanks, and good luck! Mathglot ( talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
"She is not notable, but her candidacy may be" - then the article should stand and all that's left is a dumb argument about naming. Artw ( talk) 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No policy-based opinion on the notability of this subject, but the history of our article, particularly AN's contentious discussion about it ( thread at time of writing), including input from the Founder seat ( 1, 2), has now been reported in Slate [1] and the Washington Post. [2]
- ^ Harrison, Stephen (27 October 2020). "Why Did It Take So Long for the Democratic Senate Candidate in Iowa to Get a Wikipedia Page?". Slate.com. Retrieved 6 November 2020.
- ^ Steinsson, Sverrir (27 October 2020). "Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield finally got her Wikipedia page. Here's why it took so long". Washington Post. Retrieved 6 November 2020.
Not really sure what this means for the article. <3 Folly Mox ( talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Is the section on her policy positions--and the language used--too in-the-weeds and/or too favorable towards the candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 ( talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
@ Charlie918: A list like this is not very useful or discriminate. Adding to the paragraph that provides a brief summary of the most notable endorsements (or statistics about categories of endorsements) can be fine. For instance, Axne isn't mentioned currently. – SJ + 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)