Jump to content

Talk:Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cannabis prohibition

[edit]

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The announcement

[edit]

I would like to add the following citation for the 1 Feb announcement WITHOUT THE QUOTATION <ref>{{cite web|title=President Trump tells CBS News’ Margaret Brennan that Cory Booker “has no chance”|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtBbc5zGBc|website=YouTube|publisher=Face the Nation|date=2019-02-01|accessdate=2019-02-09}}</ref> If the reader want to verify the source and click further, they can watch the neutral video. If the reader does not watch the video, the citation simply supports that the announcement did in fact happen on 1 Feb. Look forward to hearing the objection and counter-argument. I am definitely not joking. Tony85poon (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony85poon, I regret my initial edit summary. That was a mistake on my part. However, that snippet has no place in this article. It's not a neutral video, because Trump is not a neutral party in the 2020 presidential election. Of course, Trump will say Booker has no chance of beating him. Putting the video in the article seems to have no purpose but to provide some anti-Booker propaganda, which is not WP:NPOV. Also, WP:YOUTUBE says that sourcing with YouTube videos is frowned upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, Sir. The Chinese and Spanish wikipedia-readers are loving that citation. Tony85poon (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political Positions

[edit]

Take a look at Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign#Political positions, her article has so much substance, we got to expand the Cory section with substance fast! Tony85poon (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of fairness, readers should feel free to read the following too,

Tony85poon (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where can this citation [1] fit? It is relevant to the education issue. Cheers. Tony85poon (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, none of those entries - at least not the Yang and Buttigieg ones that I visited, have such rampant full quotes. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Whereabouts" section

[edit]

Over at the Kirsten Gillibrand 2020 presidential campaign talk page, there's an ongoing discussion about the "Whereabouts" section, which has been removed from the article. Should we remove the section from here as well? What purpose does this section serve? ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Readers like to know about where he campaigned. When they click the citation numbers, readers can further read the reactions he gets over there significantly. I mean, if it is only an airport (the campaign activity does require him to take the aeroplane), he stops and talks with supporters for a brief moment, then the airport-name does not go into the article. I remember some Tweet showing that it was a "Manchester Airport" by the way.

I believe in freedom of speech, so your counter-argument is welcomed. Tony85poon (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign&oldid=883064759

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign&oldid=883067811

What's also useful? Compare old versions. I simplified the last sentence in the "Background" section to "That year and in early 2019, he began making trips early in the campaign schedule" so that readers benefit from efficiency (faster understanding of political concepts). Tony85poon (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't jump the gun. I used the "Request for Comment" function at the Gillibrand article Talk Page, and that dispute hasn't reached a consensus yet. In this page, I hope editors understand "Recentism as a positive". Tony85poon (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the part where Cory Booker walks into a cafe to buy coffee (coz campaigning is physically demanding) is routine. Where Cory Booker live temporarily is routine (but some sources say that a supporter offered her own house for Cory Booker to stay overnight). What's NOT routine is the reaction of the people. Tony85poon (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I would add that the campaign will visit so many locations that the work to track it all will be absurd and this list would probably not be exhaustive because of the sheer number of campaign stops. After 7 months of campaigning, would it really make sense to have tracked all that data? I think not. TwoEvenPrimes (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense to track the notable reactions of the people across the country with an emphasis on strategic important locations (also known as "battleground states"). The inconvenient truth should also be told. If Cory Booker runs into Donald Trump / whoever supporters and is not welcomed / booed, track that too. Tony85poon (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You bring up an interesting point. Since this is about a campaign, I would assume that notable encounters and events could be recorded? I know this opens the door to interpretation about what is "notable" but it could have merit. Wouldn't have to be a list nor even a narrative story. Would notable encounters be an example of trivial trivia or impactful events worth noting? I would say that the benchmark could be if it is something that becomes a "thing" about the campaign, as some experience that is still getting talked about weeks later and that has become synonymous with the Booker campaign, would probably be worth incorporating. Now all that being said, I think it should be incorporated well after the fact, after it has become ubiquitous. I stand by my opinion that trying to discern big events in real time ought not be attempted. We should wait and see and simply record here what is born out over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoEvenPrimes (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights

[edit]

This edit summary caught my attention

thanks for using my image, but this doesn't really have anything to do with surrounding content

Let me elaborate:

  • The last time a US presidential election (at the general level, not the primary level) had a female was Hillary Clinton in 2016. Before that, Sarah Palin in 2008.
  • In the file, there is Elizabeth Warren as well.
  • The significance is that 2020 US presidential politics should not be dominated by males. Females also have good chances to be president and vice - president.
  • Anything can happen. It could be Elizabeth Warren (wins nomination) and then pick Cory Booker as running mate. It could be Cory Booker (wins nomination) and then pick Elizabeth Warren as running mate. If could be Kamala Harris being nominated and then pick who-ever as running mate. Tony85poon (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony85poon, you're clearly editing Wikipedia from a point of view. If you're not able to edit neutrally on this subject, an administrator can block you from editing on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Healthcare issue. In the Dutch version, the "Cory Booker Backs Off Medicare For All In Interview" is still there. In that video, the YouTuber ended the video with

    fuck the host for defending power viciously and fuck Cory Booker for not knowing how to answer these easy questions.

    Actually I do hope to see this video somewhere in this article or the Political positions of Cory Booker. That video can help to maintain a neutral point of view. Tony85poon (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign&oldid=882833894 This is your version immediately after mine. God bless. Tony85poon (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese. 布克宣佈參選後一星期，有評論指 他不是真的相信美國全民醫保（English: Medicare for All）。[1]

I dont think Tony85poon is biased. I think they're used to using social media for their source of news. That is certainly a way to get info but its not the wiki way. Wikipedia has a set of guidelines on what is considered good types of information and good places to get that information. what constitutes sources of information on wikipedia is largely based on a system of trust. When a news reporter gets to a certain point in their career they have a lot to lose. it can take years to get a post at a news agency like the Guardian. Similarly, it takes almost a decade of hard work at university to publish a doctoral thesis. So people dont throw that away, embarrass themselves and discredit themselves by publishing nonsense. Some do and that can be the end of their career. There are different types of journalism. There is investigative journalism which is +++very good. then there is the gossip rag, sensational yellow journalism trying to generate ad revenue. this is why referencing can be confusing at first. people assume, oh it needs to be from one of these sources but then that source publishes two types of news: tabloid journalism and serious investigation. Editors need to identify which one they are looking at. In your recent edit you posted a lot of bad references. post it to the talk page and ask for comment first. you will get tagged for disruptive editing if you keep it up.

Wikipedia is about providing a summary of information. its for people who dont want to go and read 100 articles about a subject for hours, we the editors do that for them then try to condense it into a short boring blurb. what you need to do is find reliable sources and keep it short. in your recent post you posted about his popularity with Hispanic Americans but you did it in a way that constitutes WP:OR. You need to find articles from big news agencies that have a reputation to uphold and find them discussing how his attitude and policies towards Hispanic Americans affects that demographics attitudes towards him. you shouldn't just post videos of him speaking Spanish. Until you're familiar with what editors regard as high-quality sources, its a good idea to stick to the list and follow the simple guidelines. try to pack huge amounts of information into tiny little packets of sentences. WP:CSWP:USEPRIMARY

If elected, Booker would be the second African-American elected president after Obama; the fourth sitting Senator elected president after Harding, Kennedy, and Obama;[citation needed] the second New Jersey office-holder elected president after Wilson; and the second New Jersey native elected president after Cleveland.

this part you added is bad. its not interesting or informative, its just a bunch of numbers. its actually really painful to read something like that. it also tells you nothing about the campaign. try to consider why someone would read the page. they're going to go to the polling station and read this on their mobile while standing in line. the purpose of the article is just to tell people what they're campaigning about and why they want people to vote for them and what they promise to do once elected. Verify references (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony85poon you can copy this reference. [2] This is an example of good journalism. you can make the same point using this source. "Booker is fluent in Spanish." this provides all the same information you previously posted. This sentence conveys a great deal of meaning to many voters. It means that he at least is familiar with Hispanic/Latino culture and values because it's implicit. its impossible to learn a language without familiarising yourself with the culture. but you dont type that, just, "Booker is fluent in Spanish," is enough to convey all that. Verify references (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony85poon compare that to the previously posted swiss joke article. in this toilet rag, they try to portray him as an ignorant culturally insensitive moronic klansman and you can understand why we have these rules.

Washington times: "Mr. Booker first mangled Spanish grammar when asking the reporter “Tu hablo espanol, Si?” When the reporter replied “No, Swiss radio,” the senator and 2020 Democratic presidential hopeful fumbled his facts about the world even further in an effort to claim unsophistication in a sophisticated-sounding way."

The Guardian's version: "The senator memorably lashed out at homeland security secretary Kristjen Nielsen over reports that the president questioned the need to accept immigrants from “shithole countries” in reference to Haiti, El Salvador and certain African countries. A visibly emotional Booker said he cried “tears of rage” upon learning of Trump’s comments."

Verify references (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "..." Secular Talk.
  2. ^ Siddiqui, Sabrina; Walters, Joanna (February 1, 2019). "Cory Booker: Democratic senator announces presidential bid". The Guardian.

What does any of this have to do with the image I removed (which happens to be my photograph)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

[edit]

This edit summary caught my attention,

Remove section on jokes as more undue coverage per WP:NOTNEWS

Back to the basic. Is there a policy in Wikipedia that articles cannot contain jokes? I mean, when I read Place names considered unusual, I laughed a lot. What if the news itself is funny? Tony85poon (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about whether the following can be the article, what do you guys think? Tony85poon (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Booker joked about the non-existent "Swiss language".[1] Booker does use the Spanish language while campaigning.[2][3] Similarly, Castro's campaign and Sanders' embrace the Spanish language too.[4]

Most of this is terrible and nobody will accept it as an edit. From my perspective it seems like he tried to save a bad situation by making a joke about it. The joke about the 'swiss language' seems obviously intended to reflect on his own ignorance as a self-referential self-humiliating joke. its sort of like he was saying, 'oh look at me i'm stupid for making that assumption.' I find it encouraging that you are enquiring. I would suggest moving away from politics as these are often fiercely debated topics. Verify references (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cory Booker invents Swiss language in Iowa interview". The Washington Times. Retrieved February 15, 2019.
  2. ^ "Cory Booker speaks to press in Newark after announcing presidential bid, live stream ... 7:20". CBS News. Retrieved 2019-02-09.
  3. ^ Booker, Cory (2019-02-01). "Lo que nos une es mucho más de lo que nos divide. Cuando nos unimos y trabajamos juntos - progresamos juntos". Twitter. Retrieved 2019-02-15.
  4. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTi9zJtFwK4

I agree, and I have decided to no longer pursue the "Swiss joke". Tony85poon (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions by Tony85poon

[edit]

Tony85poon, please respect the WP:BRD process and do not restore material that another editor objects to, without obtaining talk page consensus first. While the material you recently added may be verifiable, I do not believe it has encyclopedic value. You have been repeatedly asked to review WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and material should not be added just because you find it interesting. Nor do we include include random trivia or statistics or the recent tit-for-tat of the day that might make it into the newspapers. Please explain why you believe this content is worthy of inclusion. R2 (bleep) 19:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony85poon:, you're really on thin ice. You really think we should be listing that the first three letters of Pacman are "PAC" as in Political Action Committee? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because that is relevant to both the gaming-joke and campaign finance. Splinter News started reporting it more than 4 months ago. Tony85poon (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Now that you have provided your justification, let other editors weigh in, do not disrupt the discussion, do not reply to every single person with whom you disagree, and do not restore the content unless/until there is a consensus to do so. R2 (bleep) 20:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pacman is in no way relevant to Cory Booker's 2020 campaign. Not every WP:FART gets documented. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes are meant to be funny (and liable to criminal prosecution such as the Meechan case coz the Jewish-UK community did not find Meechan to be funny). In encyclopedia, if we raise the standard of relevance very high, the joke loses its funniness. Tony85poon (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...And our goal is to convey humor? R2 (bleep) 20:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To convey that Cory Booker has sense of humor. Tim Kaine (2016 running mate) did not have a sense of humor when he ran the campaign. George W. Bush had a sense of humor too, so this is a bipartisan point. Tony85poon (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tony85poon, that right there is just your opinion. And not one I agree with, FWIW, which is not much. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Wikipedia:Neutrality_does_not_mean_relativism#Due_and_undue_weight. Correct, my opinion does not count. The Associated Post counts. Tony85poon (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong policy. Muboshgu and I are referring to WP:NOT. R2 (bleep) 05:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I have decided to no longer pursue the "Pac-man joke". Tony85poon (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

President statistics

[edit]

If elected president, Booker would be the 4th sitting Senator after [[Warren G. Harding|Harding]], [[John F. Kennedy|Kennedy]], and [[Barack Obama|Obama]];{{Citation needed|date=March 2019}} the 2nd New Jersey office-holder after [[Woodrow Wilson|Wilson]]; and the 2nd NJ native after [[Grover Cleveland|Cleveland]].<ref>{{cite web |title=NJ U.S. Presidents |url=https://www.state.nj.us/nj/about/famous/presidents.html |website=NJ.gov |accessdate=7 March 2019}}</ref>

If you want to delete "Harding, Kennedy, and Obama" too and only keep Wilson and Cleveland, I am okay. New Jersey is a key feature of Cory Booker. The campaign Headquarters is located at NJ. That's where he gets the first wave of Political endorsements. The only one outside NJ that I know of is Amy Nielsen. Tony85poon (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source makes literally no mention of Booker. And even if it did, this is random trivia in my view. R2 (bleep) 20:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this: I suggest you let the discussion run its course before starting an RfC. And when you do start an RfC, do it in a new, separate discussion thread, not partway through an existing one. R2 (bleep) 21:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War on people

[edit]

"war on people"<ref>{{cite web |last1=Booker |first1=Cory |title=It’s not enough to just legalize marijuana at the federal level—we should also expunge records of those who have served their time, and reinvest in communities hardest hit by the failed War on Drugs—which has really been a war on people |url=https://twitter.com/CoryBooker/status/1099398812865576961 |website=Twitter |accessdate=24 February 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Buck |first1=Rebecca |title=Cory Booker to re-introduce marijuana legalization bill, highlighting issue's importance for 2020 Democrats |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/28/politics/booker-marijuana-legalization-bill/index.html |website=CNN |accessdate=7 March 2019|date=2019-02-28}}</ref>

CNN is reliable source. Tony85poon (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point, but in general we don't add every reliable source we can find that supports any given point. That's known as citation overkill. This is non-controversial stuff; a single source is perfectly adequate. R2 (bleep) 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Readers deserve to click the link to further read an interesting point. In case the existing citations become Link rot, editors might need to fix it with an Internet Archive. Therefore, it is for the benefit of efficiency to have a "backup" in case the "single source" go broken/dead in the future. Tony85poon (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what references are there for, and linkrot is readily addressed in other ways. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous force

[edit]

Booker regarded Trump as a "dangerous force"<ref>{{cite web |title=Cory Booker blasts Republicans for amnesia over Trump's 'shithole' remark |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/17/cory-booker-blasts-republicans-for-amnesia-over-trumps-shithole-remark |website=The Guardian |publisher=Associated Press |accessdate=7 March 2019|date=2018-01-17|}}</ref> for giving the [[racial views of Donald Trump#"Shithole countries"|shit-hole]]/[[outhouse|shit-house]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Prokop |first1=Andrew |title=The “shithouse defense,” explained: how Trump’s allies are trying to dig him out of his “shithole” |url=https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897016/trump-shithole-shithouse-countries |website=Vox |accessdate=7 March 2019|date=2018-01-16}}</ref> comment on [[Immigration_to_the_United_States#Origin|immigration figures]].

I watched the 1:52 video at the Guardian website and Booker actually said the relevant "dangerous force" words. Tony85poon (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning whether it's true. Again, clearly, you haven't read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and it's getting tiresome. The problem is that politicans like Booker say all kinds of stuff. We don't include all of it. Case in point -- the Guardian source doesn't even mention "dangerous force." You had to dig through the video to find that. Evidently the Guardian believes that line wasn't particularly noteworthy. R2 (bleep) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, the Guardian believes WHICH LINE was particularly noteworthy? Thanks for your help. Tony85poon (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I haven't looked closely. R2 (bleep) 21:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony85poon: How is this at all relevant to Booker's presidential campaign? You continue to make these kinds of additions to campaign articles despite other editors' having raised concerns about these kinds of edits, and it's not clear that you're capable of demonstrating good judgment in terms of what's pertinent and what's not. Mélencron (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is because US Immigration is broadly divided into 4 areas:
  1. Immigration from African countries;
  2. Asian and white immigration such as Norway;
  3. Latino immigration;
  4. Immigration from the Middle East (Father of Steve Jobs).

After covering Latino and Middle East, I am trying to cover the other 2 areas too. When the presidential debate (within the democratic party for the primary election) happens in June, immigration is likely to be a subject of debate. This article allows easy fact-checking of his immigration position. Tony85poon (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

moving on to other immigration points

[edit]

I am not sure about whether the following can be the article, what do you guys think? Tony85poon (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(below the Trump travel ban) Regarding the report on "Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry..." dated January 2018, Booker's criticized that as erroneous and misleading via a letter 1 year later.

Not relying on that source. Stick to secondary sources. R2 (bleep) 05:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the report on "Executive Order 13780: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry..." dated January 2018, Booker criticized that as misleading 1 year later.[1] ? Tony85poon (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/09/politics/cory-booker-doj-dhs/index.html
No apparent connection to Booker's presidential campaign. R2 (bleep) 08:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great feedback, thumbs up. I will first see whether Political positions of Cory Booker has that point then add. Tony85poon (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should propose it and see what people say before you add. R2 (bleep) 16:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opioid addiction

[edit]

There is an [[Opioid epidemic|opioid addiction]] drug

I guess this one is the least contentious. The wiki-link encourages further reading. Tony85poon (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but opioid addiction isn't the same thing as the opioid epidemic. Also, in general we try to avoid putting links within quotes. R2 (bleep) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish

[edit]

Booker is fluent in the Spanish language.[1] Tim Kaine (fluent)[2] and Castro speak Spanish too, but it is reported that Castro (who studied Latin and Japanese language in school)[3] is not fluent.[4]

Alternatively,

Booker is fluent in the Spanish language. Similarly, Castro's campaign and Sanders' also use Spanish.[5][6] Other notable U. S. politicians who use Spanish include Beto O'Rourke[7] and Tim Kaine (2016 running mate).

References

  1. ^ Siddiqui, Sabrina; Walters, Joanna (2019-02-01). "Democratic senator announces presidential bid". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  2. ^ Jessica Weiss, Tim Kaine, fluent Spanish speaker, is Clinton's VP pick, Univision News (July 22, 2016).
  3. ^ Wise, Hannah. "15 things to know about Julián Castro: Texan, twin and potential 2020 presidential candidate". Dallas News. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  4. ^ Fernández, Francisco. "Julián Castro, first Hispanic President?". Observatory of the Spanish Language and Hispanic Cultures in the United States. Retrieved 8 March 2019.
  5. ^ Svitek, Patrick (2019-01-15). "Why Julián Castro's first trip in his 2020 campaign was to Puerto Rico, not Iowa". The Texas Tribune. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
  6. ^ "Bernie Sanders "Progress"/ "Progreso" (Spanish Subtitles / Subtitulos en Español)". YouTube.com. Bernie 2016 Español. 2015-08-20.
  7. ^ Navarrette, Ruben (2019-02-22). "Beto Tries to Trick Hispanics Into Thinking He's One of Them". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 7 March 2019.

Because 12.4% people speak Spanish. That has reached a critical mass. Tony85poon (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the dispute? R2 (bleep) 23:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding that to the "Historical significance". I tried around 10 old-versions ago. I greatly appreciate if you give feedback on "Okay this is acceptable" or "NO this is irrelevant" or "Here's how to improve it", Gracias. Tony85poon (talk) 02:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem appropriate to say that Booker speaks Spanish in this article. Maybe at Cory Booker. R2 (bleep) 05:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

separate discussion thread for RfC

[edit]

Is the "If elected president, the 2nd New Jersey office-holder after Woodrow Wilson; and the 2nd NJ native after Grover Cleveland" random trivia? Tony85poon (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the best way to phrase this. I'd suggest you let the discussion above run its course. However, if you insist on running an RfC, I'd suggest it should be more like, "Should we include the following sentence? ..." That way the scope of the discussion isn't limited to trivia. I also mentioned that the source you wish to use says nothing about Booker, so there's a verifiability issue as well. And perhaps an editor might raise a neutrality concern. Etc. etc. R2 (bleep) 23:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: moratorium on article edits by Tony85poon

[edit]

I propose that Tony85poon be asked by the local community to stop editing this article while the ANI thread is pending. I don't think it's intentional, but he's completely disrupting healthy article development. I don't know if such a moratorium would be enforceable, but it would provide a clear signal that the other editors of this page would like him to figure out how to edit constructively before he continues to try to do so. R2 (bleep) 00:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Extended discussion

[edit]

Endorse

[edit]

Regarding Brady Quirk-Garvan, where can [3] and [4] fit please? CNN is reliable source. Tony85poon (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed "Brian Hughes, County Executive of Mercer County, New Jersey" from this section? Why the removal? [5]. This citation is a good one. Tony85poon (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed Arlene Quinones Perez? Why? Tony85poon (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

efficiency-concern

[edit]

[6] in that edit summary, I said "rearrange the picture to the left, as the endorsement is reduced to a box, faster scrolling". Let me repeat that point and make that point clearer for fellow editors to consider, cheers.

In the old version, the "Endorsements" is the second section. I felt that readers prefer to read the substance, that is, the Political positions. It was not-efficient to require readers to scroll-down a lot before reading the substance. Therefore, I reduced it to a box (which is "hidden" by default and requires clicking "show" button at the right to reveal the information in it). But as the article develops, and other editors chime in, the "Endorsements" is now the SECOND LAST section (the last one is "References"). If we now make the readers scroll-down AND click "show" at the right before reading the endorsers' information, that is crazy man. That is plain-simple-inefficiency. That is letting redundant wikitext stay in the source-code for a wrong reason. Tony85poon (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Issues (offer to help)

[edit]

If you have an example that a certain quotation is too lengthy, and would explain how to shorten it so that the essential message is still conveyed, I can help with that. I already used many "dot dot dot"s to make those quotations shorter. Sometimes, the shorter the better but don't quote something out of context. The principle that I applied:-

  1. the meaning should not be twisted;
  2. the wikilink should be as accurate as possible. Example Addiction#United_States;
  3. stick to simple English, 's 've 're gonna should'a (quick spoken English style) be replaced with complete English.
  4. American English is sometimes really hard to understand, especially so in a fast speech.

Tony85poon (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the secondary sources. There's no reason to be transcribing any quotes from a recording. Also, try to follow MOS:QUOTE. R2 (bleep) 05:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your point. The fox news article dated February 16 links to a Tweet too. The fox news article missed an important point that Cory Booker conveyed, that is, "people are trying to twist your words". A Transcript_(law) of the recording (in plain-English, the word-for-word version) is actually better than the fox news. A relevant Tweet is good to go SO LONG AS the audio quality is good (not too much background noise). God bless. Tony85poon (talk) 02:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then get consensus, and you can add it. I'll note, however, that our preference for secondary sources isn't just my personal view. It's built into our community standards, specifically WP:OR. R2 (bleep) 16:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Economy

[edit]

What's wrong with this point? It is supported by WGBH News. I am not putting words into Trump's mouth. It is actually an important point raised by Trump himself via a Tweet. Tony85poon (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "President Trump...would probably say... low unemployment ... stock markets on a tear,[1] the economy is growing ...",

... working Americans would tell you that the dignity of work is being stripped ... they are working harder than their parents and falling further behind ... while their salaries may moderately have gone up, what has gone up more is the cost of prescription drugs ... child care ... college ...[2]

References

  1. ^ Trump, Donald (February 25, 2019). "Since my election as President the Dow Jones is up 43% and the NASDAQ Composite almost 50%. Great news for your 401(k)s as they continue to grow. We are bringing back America faster than anyone thought possible!". Twitter. Retrieved February 26, 2019.
  2. ^ Marshall, Karen; Deady, Brendan. "Cory Booker Tests Message Of Collaboration And Economic Equality In First Visit To New Hampshire". WGBH News. Retrieved 21 February 2019.

Would someone please help with the following, as it got chopped off. Tony85poon (talk) 02:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Booker spoke about the positive impact of veterans on the economy,

... They open up businesses at higher rates than the rest of us who have not served… I am going to make sure that ... we have programs of loan forgiveness, programs that have access to capital, so that we can help our veterans start businesses ... Every single day in America ... will be Veterans Day[1]

References

  1. ^ Booker, Cory. "We spend trillions of dollars to put the best fighting force on the field abroad, but when those men and women come home—often their bodies broken and with invisible scars—we suddenly don't have the resources or will to give them what they deserve". Twitter. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
  • Exclude. In general we shouldn't include anything that's cherry-picked from primary sources such as recordings or interview transcripts. Also, both the use of quotations and ellipses are both excessive. It reads as if we're trying to manufacture something, but it's not clear what or why. Very awkward. R2 (bleep) 16:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

[edit]

Why can't the whole damn quote be added? Reverted by User talk:Mélencron. Ribenderen (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted by User_talk:Muboshgu too. Ribenderen (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Booker says that planet Earth cannot sustain First World meat-eating habits as prosperity spreads worldwide,[1][2][3] and has drawn criticism.[4][5][6] He responds to the criticism,

We are a part of this take-down culture[7] where people are trying to twist your words. I think that whatever you eat is a very personal decision and everybody should eat what they want to eat. That is America. That is what we believe in freedom. Here is - live free or die. The last thing we want is - government telling us what to eat.[8] The reality is, I do have a problem. Like, farmers have a problem. Like, cattle ranches have a problem with these massive corporate companies. Many of them Chinese-owned like the Smithfield company. They are coming in here polluting our water and creating unsustainable practices. You can raise cows and pigs like we used to in our heritage in our country without doing the things these big corporate conglomerate farms are doing. So, I have no problem with what Americans eat and the decisions we make. But, whether it is farming, whether it is drilling for natural resources, all these should be done in a way that affirms our environment that sustainable.[9][non-primary source needed]

References

  1. ^ Morton, Victoria. "Vegan Cory Booker says meat-eating will destroy planet". The Washington Times. Retrieved 13 February 2019.
  2. ^ Ciandella, Mike. "Vegan presidential candidate Cory Booker says Earth 'can't sustain' people eating meat". The Blaze. Retrieved 13 February 2019.
  3. ^ Hammer, Josh. "Cory Booker Claims Earth 'Can't Sustain' People Eating Meat". The Daily Wire. Retrieved 13 February 2019.
  4. ^ Gingrich, Newt (February 12, 2019). "Democrats are getting weirder and weirder". Twitter.
  5. ^ Thompson, Claude. "Liz Cheney mocks Cory Booker's meat comments". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 15 February 2019.
  6. ^ Calicchio, Dom (2019-02-13). "Cory Booker says meat-centric 'Standard American Diet' not sustainable". Fox News. Retrieved 2019-02-18.
  7. ^ "Takedown Culture". Meredith Soleau. 2014-09-04. Retrieved 2019-02-19.
  8. ^ Mccaskill, Nolan D. "Democrats don't bite on Booker vegan flap". POLITICO. Retrieved February 17, 2019.
  9. ^ Steinhauser, Paul. "55-second video". Twitter. Retrieved 16 February 2019.
I don't think "has attracted criticism" should be deleted. Criticism from Liz Cheney and the Washington Times is not inherently significant unless reported in secondary sources. Furthermore, it does not say what the criticism is or who made it, which is weasel-wording. I don't think there is any question in reliable sources that people in the first world eat too much meat. Also, I don't see why a lengthy quote from Booker is needed. TFD (talk) 03:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan

[edit]

Please add: "Booker is vegan. [1]" after the sencentence "He says that planet Earth cannot sustain First World meat-eating habits as prosperity spreads worldwide." of the Environment section of the article. Jan Vlug (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Cory Booker could be our first vegan president. How very 2020". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 25 August 2019.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

[edit]

Need to replace the side image with a suitable one. you can do it by your own. here it is: Cory Booker (39677447154).jpg AbDaryaee (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

quotes

[edit]

Came in here to see what discussion there has been about the extensive, whole paragraphs quotes used in this entry. looks like it comes down to one editor? Someone should really go into the text with a machete. Also I am inclined to delete all the pdfs embedded. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Democratic Party Base"

[edit]

The opening says "black people, women, and LGBT people (groups who tend to belong to the Democratic Party's base)" -- this is not true of women overall; just minority women. Perhaps just delete the parenthetic phrase? --Quark1005 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions

[edit]

The section on Booker's political positions is problematic for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary because there is already a section on his positions on the Cory Booker page. Second, if there is to be a section on his positions here, it should not contain content about things he said and did years before he ever ran for president.

I propose to remove the content from the political positions section that relates to positions Booker took before February 1, 2019 (when he announced his presidential bid) and after January 13, 2020 (when he ended his campaign). Thoughts? 74.67.6.88 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cory_Booker_2020_presidential_campaign&oldid=1255171504"