Talk:Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

United States: Presidential elections / 50,000 Challenge Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
	This article was created or improved during this WikiProject's 50,000 Challenge, which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help!

Rephrasing[edit]

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

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

I was considering changing it to this:

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

This is for several reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public option[edit]

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

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

"Intricate detail"[edit]

Greetings. I was just curious about what people's thoughts were about the continued presence of the "excessive amount of intricate detail" template message at the top of the page. It seems to me that most of the minutiae about random rallies and interviews and such has already been gutted. What more should be trimmed down for the template to be removed? The only thing that I can think of is *maybe* the debate section? But none of the debates are described in particularly "excessive" detail in my opinion. Silver181 (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying five months too late, I agree that the article is no longer particularly overdetailed, and you were right to remove the template as you did. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]