Trichome

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Msalt (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,763 edits
Msalt (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,763 edits
→‎Cuba: thoughts on Cuba comments
Line 279: Line 279:


:Context is everything. [[User:Zloyvolsheb|Zloyvolsheb]] ([[User talk:Zloyvolsheb|talk]]) 04:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
:Context is everything. [[User:Zloyvolsheb|Zloyvolsheb]] ([[User talk:Zloyvolsheb|talk]]) 04:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I agree on the need for context, though I'm not sure what TFD means by "Cuban Missile Crisis" or "repeating what Obama said." (Maybe referring to an earlier version of the section than Zloyvolsheb's recent deletion? That's all I saw.) It's important to include a discussion of the controversy over Sen. Sanders' comments on Cuba, I believe, since the controversy over the comment was a significant turning point in the current campaign. Perhaps it should be included in the 2020 campaign narrative? [[User:Msalt|Msalt]] ([[User talk:Msalt|talk]]) 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:33, 23 March 2020

Former good article nomineeBernie Sanders was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

RfC: "news coverage" section

This interesting request for comment concerns the proposed addition of text to Wikipedia's article about polarizing US politician Bernie Sanders. As this is a high-profile article on a controversial topic, it is likely that this close may be read by people who are less familiar with Wikipedian practices, so I will try to explain the outcome in a way that's intelligible to the general public.

It may be surprising to some people that I, a non-American, appear to be deciding this matter. This is a red herring. As a discussion closer, my role is not to decide, but to determine what the community has decided in the discussion below. I determine this in the way set out at Wikipedia:Closing discussions, and my role is to evaluate what we call the "consensus", which on Wikipedia is not unanimity but "rough consensus". In this case, a simple majority of editors are in favour of the proposed addition. A majority is not a consensus.

This matter is complex, involving as it does concerns about Wikipedia's core policies. We are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, prefer the most reliable sources wherever possible, and be especially careful where the article concerns the biography of a living person. Where there is tension between these policies, our rules on closing discussions say that if the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it.

After some thought, I conclude that the rough consensus is to include the disputed paragraphs, and I will implement this with my next edit. Questions, comments and complaints should be directed to my talk page in the first instance. I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the text in bold be added to the section "Polls and news coverage"?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some supporters raised concerns that publications such as The New York Times minimized coverage of the Sanders campaign in favor of other candidates, especially Trump and Clinton. The Timess ombudsman reviewed her paper's coverage of the Sanders campaign and found that as of September 2015 the Times "hasn't always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say." She also found that the Times's coverage of Sanders's campaign was much scanter than its coverage of Trump's, though Trump's was also initially considered a long shot at that time, with 63 articles covering the Trump campaign and 14 covering Sanders's.[1][2] A December 2015 report found that the three major networks—CBS, NBC, and ABC—had spent 234 minutes reporting on Trump and 10 minutes on Sanders, despite their similar polling results. The report noted that ABC World News Tonight had spent 81 minutes on Trump and less than one minute on Sanders during 2015.[3]

A study of media coverage in the 2016 election concluded that while Sanders received less coverage than his rival Hillary Clinton, the amount of coverage of Sanders during the election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that far exceeded his standing in the polls.[4] Studies concluded that the tone of media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage of any candidate.[5][4] All 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.[4][5][6]

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! noted that on March 15, Super Tuesday III, the speeches of Trump, Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz were broadcast in full. Sanders was in Phoenix, Arizona, on that date, speaking to a rally larger than any of the others, yet his speech was not mentioned, let alone broadcast.[7] However, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer wrote in her 2018 book about the 2016 election that the Democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, but that the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was "heating up" at that time.[6]

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, Margaret (September 9, 2015). "Public Editor's Journal: Has The Times Dismissed Bernie Sanders?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 23, 2015.
  2. ^ Debenedetti, Gabriel; Gass, Nick (September 10, 2015). "Bernie Sanders overtakes Hillary Clinton in Iowa". Politico. Retrieved September 11, 2015.
  3. ^ "Report: Top News Shows Give Trump 234 Minutes, Sanders 10 Minutes". Democracy Now. December 15, 2015. 6:06. Archived from the original on December 16, 2015. Retrieved December 15, 2015.
  4. ^ a b c John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 99, 104–107. ISBN 978-0-691-17419-8. Archived from the original on November 14, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2019. Sanders's media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated... At this point in time [2015], Sanders's share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls.
  5. ^ a b Thomas E. Patterson, Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump's Rise, Sanders' Emergence, Clinton's Struggle, archived from the original on November 27, 2019, retrieved December 1, 2019
  6. ^ a b Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61976-7. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  7. ^ Goodman, Amy (November 29, 2016). "Bernie Sanders: "I Was Stunned" by Corporate Media Blackout During Democratic Primary". Democracy Now. Retrieved December 18, 2019.

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Yes. Per NPOV, content should seek to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It's not NPOV to only have content in the article that supports the pro-Bernie POV that the media is biased against him when RS paint a far more complicated picture. The section used to be balanced until 21 January when the editor Gandydancer removed all the long-standing content that failed to support the pro-Bernie POV.[1] The editor defended this edit by claiming that she was trimming content, but it's obviously not NPOV to remove all content that supports one POV while keeping all the content that supports a different POV. In particular, when the highest quality sources (academic research) are culled, whereas the lowest quality sources and minutiae are kept in the article. If anything, priority should be given to peer-reviewed research and wholistic academic assessments over time-specific commentary by the NY Times ombudsperson and Democracy Now! Whether you agree or disagree with the "media is biased against Sanders" thesis is besides the point. Per NPOV, we are supposed to cover the thesis in a balanced manner. The four sentences above, which are exclusively sourced to peer-reviewed research and academic assessments would add that balance and make the existing text NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. There is a striking lack of verifiable facts in politics articles of late, and the proposed additions add what is sorely needed. --WMSR (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Don’t include. Burrobert (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional yes If the first paragraph is there, then the bold-face additions need to be there for balance of viewpoints. However, there is an argument for moving all the text shown to Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign with a short summary left behind, since this is a biography, not an analysis of his campaign. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the proposed addition doesn’t add any value, and seems a bit incoherent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC). (Continued later said) No - putting a dismissive end to each item is more a POV violation than a good, especially as these seem like improper junk. The prominent DemocracyNow having a count of coverage is not well responded to by a two years later obscure book passage side note that the media was portraying Clinton-Bernie contest as heating up. The NYT omsbudsman conclusions are contradictory to a study remarks. Plus the part about Hillary having the worst coverage of all Candidates doesn’t seem credible - worse than Donald ? The line is dubious who was considered and how they were counting. If you want a response to Bernie supporter concerns, get a response explicitly to them and don’t just tack any old thing there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^This editor has voted twice. The editor is claiming that peer-reviewed research is wrong for no other reason than dislike for the findings, and the closer should judge (i.e. completely dismiss) this editor's two votes accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops, sorry for my confusion in entry ... thanks, I will shift that down to form one bullet. Otherwise I would discourage imputing motives as that doesn’t address the edit or change the material being a poor addition and just looks bad. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I'm not sure this is actually a study, in terms of peer-reviewed. It's actually a book. Also, this seems to present the findings of a single work on a complex issue as fact, and I don't think we can do that based upon a single source even were it peer-reviewed. If this information is presented, it should be presented in an "attributed" fashion, and if any reliable sources provided contrary findings, also should include what those say. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphimblade, Princeton University Press books are absolutely peer-reviewed, so you should strike part of your comment. It's also the second-most esteemed publishing press in political science.[2] If peer-reviewed research in the best outlets is not going to be allowed in the article, do you hold the opinion that the vastly inferior content sourced to the "Tyndall Report", and commentary by the NYT ombudsperson and Democracy Now belongs? How is that in any way defensible? That's why it's such an egregious NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It was not my intent to keep only favorable content. A new split article had opened up and we are in a process of trying to cut this article back, especially right now considering that he may be soon getting a lot more media coverage. Keep in mind that we've got one House and two Mayor and Senate's worth of info here. The info from Patterson and Sinks, was, IMO, complicated and hard to understand by presenting just a few lines and would be best presented in the media split. I still feel that way. For example, one of the sources said that while he wasn't getting any media coverage to speak of during his his early campaigning it picked up during the second of three periods (of a certain number of months) and it stressed how important the early media coverage is as compared to the second period of time - I believe the book/article said it is almost impossible to catch up without that early coverage. Snooganssnoogans has added some wording from a book written by Rachel Bitecofer - I haven't looked it up yet but I can't see where it adds much to our understanding of this issue with what I see written here - I'm more just puzzled by it. As for adding the copy about how Sanders' "tone", etc., was reported as more favorable than Clinton's, well that's no surprise. A lot of people just did not like Hillary Clinton starting with when she said she was not going to stay home and bake cookies, etc. And then she was dealing with the Benghazi and email problems as well. So we don't need to cram that info into this short bio, IMO. And finally, there is no need to mention Trump's vastly larger amount of coverage a second time when it's already in the first para. Gandydancer (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, why should the text talk about how Sanders received more favorable coverage in a section about purported media bias? Getting the best coverage of any candidate is clearly irrelevant to the subject, whereas random commentary by Democracy Now is perfectly pertinent /s Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed edit is talking about Hillary’s coverage being the worst, which yes seems irrelevant when the article is supposed to be about Bernie and the thread was amount of coverage. It’s also not very understandable what was measured nor is it credible compared to Trumps coverage which other studies had at 80 to 90 percent negative yet the Shorenstein cite says Trump got far more “good press” than “bad press”. The comparing of Trump to the entire Democratic field is also not about Bernie and this section thread about whether Hillary got more coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This^ editor knows better (and has cited nothing in support of anything he's said) than peer-reviewed and academic assessments on the topic, and thus the peer-reviewed research can't be included, because the editor's preconceived notions are contrary to the findings of actual research. Egregious NPOV violations should be left to stand because editors agree that one POV published in the lowest quality sources is correct and that a POV published in peer-reviewed research is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you only oppose mentioning that Bernie's main opponent got the worst coverage, and that the Democratic primary got substantially less coverage than the Republican primary (which are all things that obviously relate to questions of media bias for Sanders), then you should argue that, and argue for the inclusion of content which explicitly mentions Sanders. Instead the argument is that anything that diverges from a particular POV ("the media was against Sanders") should be scrubbed, even though that POV is obviously disputed in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The section is Polls and News Coverage, hence, reports that provide evidence concerning these areas are pertinent. Moreover, this section, as mentioned by another poster, requires balance. It currently has one point of view. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Seems perfectly relevant and appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Yes. The statements are relevant, noteworthy, and are from reliable sources. When reliable sources of ~equal weight contradict each other, it's important to present both sides. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request

To include this information:

"The documents from the Sanders archives include a letter from Soviet Embassy First Secretary Vadim Kuznetsov in March 1983, congratulating Sanders on his reelection as mayor and thanking Sanders for receiving him in Sanders’s office. Kuznetsov had been in Burlington to attend a conference on nuclear disarmament at the University of Vermont a few days earlier. Neither Sanders nor conference organizers appear to have read a 1976 Time magazine article that identified Kuznetsov as a member of a “Soviet intelligence squad” posing as diplomats to infiltrate U.S. politics."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/bernie-sanderss-foreign-policy-is-risk-democrats-against-trump/

MaineCrab (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:UNDUE However, the article cited could be part of summarizing various critiques of Sanders' political views—in this case on foreign policy. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Minutiae sourced to an op-ed. Every politician has met countless foreign intel operatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - an opinion piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, speculation from an op-ed is not significant enough to be in the article. If it in fact becomes a major issue in the campaign, rather than one op-ed writer speculating it maybe could, we can revisit it at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, mainly per Seraphimblade’s rationale. If it becomes relevant, and widely covered, then we’d certainly mention it. But as of now, this is unremarkable, especially for something that happened decades ago, and was not an uncommon occurrence. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree: this should not be included. However, the cited source makes an entirely different point: "If and when the president turns his media machine on Sanders’s record, all of this will be new and relevant for most Americans." "All of this" means not only his connections with the Soviet Union, but other things noticed in the article. However, this is also not the biggest issue. The biggest problem is his age and health. According to doctors [3], he is probably afraid to disclose his low heart ejection fraction. But again, this also needs to be much better known and sourced for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Front-runner status

Look, now that Biden is slipping in the polls and Sanders expands his lead and how he's leading in the popular vote overall and will probably lead in delegates after New Hampshire, could we add his front-runner status to the lead? I mean Joe Biden's lead has "Throughout 2019, [Biden] was seen as the front-runner for the nomination" perhaps Sanders could be "In 2020, Sanders is seen as the front-runner for the nomination" or even add a little Biden like "In 2020, Sanders alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, are seen as the front-runners for the nomination". The fact that Sanders performed well in Iowa should be documented. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't concur. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER tells us, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Week-by-week status of candidates in the polls would require too much juggling among articles. People should look to news outlets for that kind of information. Additionally, this is a biography. Tracking how the polls stood over the course of the campaign is more appropriate in Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, once the campaign is complete. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with HopsonRoad. Things are very much in flux right now as that goes. Once things settle out a bit, then we can see the consensus of sources and decide what the right way to approach that is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ users above. I want to see several major publications, think NYT, CNN, WSJ, calling him the frontrunner before we incorporate that into the article. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Optimistic speculation about his future performance is not what matters here. Status described widely in reliable sources is what we go on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update [The https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/politics/democratic-debate-nevada-recap.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage New York Times] called him the "national frontrunner." I now believe this to be appropriate for inclusion in the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Again, Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, and recording every jot and tittle of a months-long campaign -- especially when it's this early and therefore completely meaningless except as a campaign bandwagon tactic -- is not Wikipedia's role. --Calton | Talk 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't think the fact someone was a front-runner in the Democratic nomintion is not of lasting significance to their biographies?
Ed Muskie: "Before the 1972 election, Muskie was viewed as a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination."
Gary Hart: "He was the front-runner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination...."
Howard Dean: "Dean was the top fundraiser and front runner...."
Why is it significant to all these people but not to Sanders?
TFD (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would help to know how long Sanders has been considered the front-runner. If it's only been for two weeks, then it's premature to describe him as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if tomorrow the polls changed, it would still be of lasting significance to Sanders' biography. TFD (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the examples cited, above, TFD. It is significant that they are written in the past tense in the light of history, not in the present tense in the light of the news. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they are about events that took place in the past. The criterion for adding current events is whether they will be significant in the light of history, when we can change the tense. TFD (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I don't think it should be written in present tense, as in "he is the front-runner" because of the erratic nature of an on-going race (and the fact that some editors will inevitably resist attempts to change the text if he at some later point stops being the front-runner and claim that the status quo version of the text is sacred in the absence of consensus). Maybe "Since date X, he has been considered the front-runner". And if he stops being the front-runner, then we can change it to "Over the period X to Y, he was a front-runner". If he stays being the front-runner for an extended period, then "he is considered the front-runner" in present tense. And it goes without saying that aggregate polls, coupled with RS descriptions of him as the front-runner, should be used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we mention in the present tense that he is a candidate and also that he is a senator. All of these things will be in the past tense at some point. It doesn't mean we can't mention them in the present tense now. TFD (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added "...the press reports..." to the lead. After all, this is really a pretty big deal and the article would certainly be lacking without this mention. While there are always those editors that say "too recent!!!", in truth our political (and other) articles just don't work that way. I've done a lot of work on many articles where we update on a daily basis. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to wait until after Super Tuesday, then come back to this issue. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:GoodDay, there will always be a reason to exclude the information. The policy is that we report stories the way they are reported in mainstream sources which means major news outlets until historians write the story. Maybe mainstream media should not call Sanders the front-runner and at some point historians may correct them at which point we can too. All these time-consuming discussions could be avoided if we only agreed to follow policy. A good approach is to pretend that we don't care about the outcome. You might be right about attributing the description in text. TFD (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do as ya want. It's not something I'm gonna fuss over :) GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the misogyny and racism charges made in the debate in Las Vegas against Bloomberg are in his article already, as one would expect. I don't see us waiting for several weeks before entering current events at other articles. To repeat myself, this is really a big deal. I really just can't imagine that we would not include it in his article. He may indeed drop back, but this (as has been said), will remain noteworthy. Gandydancer (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the sequence of tenses that depend on the duration of front-runner status, described by Snooganssnoogans, above. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this conversation is moot now, isn't it? Additionally, I think that we should just get rid of any mention of which primaries he's won at the beginning of the article. Either we do that, or we do the same for Joe Biden's page, given that it's essentially a two-man race now. I don't think the introduction of the article needs to be a running tally of states won or lost. It should only mention that the candidate has declared for the 2020 race, and is still in it. Thenextprez (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We cite aggregate polls – we don't cherrypick individual polls

There are lots of random individual polls in the article. These do not belong in the article, in particular when there is aggregate polling available on exactly the same topic as the individual polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quinnipiac is considered the best of the best and is just fine to use. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make new rules and then enforce them without group consensus. There is no reason to insist that we use only the poll of your liking. See for example the Elizabeth Warren article where many different polls are used. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not rocket science. Why on Earth would we use individual polls when aggregate polling exists on the same topic? If the Warren page uses individual polls on a topic where aggregate polls exist, then those should be replaced as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a rule or a consensus that says this. As long as they are reliable, we should add them. Don't invent rules for your own preference.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)
But what possible reason would there be for using an individual poll when you can use aggregate polling? Unless the intent is to cherrypick polls to suit a particular narrative? This is just bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires. Considering that the Qunnipiac polls are very highly-rated (please read their article) they are an excellent choice for our readers, and even more so when combined with narrative that offers more info for a reader that wants to dig further into poll information. Here is the article that I used for RS [ https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655] (Also SS, I am very, very sick of your constant stream of suggestions that editors that do not agree with you are a bunch of dopey cheaters and so on. This article has been very fortunate to have had, for years, editors that know how to work with others and it would be nice to go on in that manner.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires." This is a strange comment. The readers do not read the Wikipedia article closely, so we should link to sources on Wikipedia which are easier to read, because the readers do want to read the sources instead? What? And no one is disputing that Quinnipiac is a well-regarded pollster (B+ according to 538)... it is one of many. Again, why can't aggregate polls (which include Quinnipiac) be chosen instead of an individual poll? It is absolutely mind-blowing that there is a controversy over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gandydancer, who is "SS"?. Snooganssnoogans, there is no cheery-picking in the polls.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is Snooganssnoogans. (Sorry, I hadn't noticed that SS could suggest you as well.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregate polling can be cherry-picked as well. There are different aggregators that use different polls and different time frames. Best practice is to cite polls that have received a lot of coverage. The Des Moines Register poll in Iowa for example would have been worth citing because of its high profile. TFD (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Snooganssnoogans has not received support for the instructions about the sort of poll that WP allows. I will return the Qunnipiac poll that they deleted. Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outlier poll results get more coverage than poll results that are consistent with other polls, which makes this a strange way of determining which polls to cover, and this again does not address the point of why we wouldn't use aggregation of polls (which includes those who receive more media coverage). I do not care which aggregate poll is used and I have no idea which one is better for what candidate (538 or RCP are the most commonly used on this encyclopedia), and it's honestly astonishing to see editors defend the use of individual polls on a subject where aggregate polls exist: last time I saw this was years ago when pro-Trump editors picked individual polls to misrepresent the state of the 2016 race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, you make some interesting proposals with good logic behind them. However, SharʿabSalam has a point too about there being no rule on this. It would be a good topic of discussion to develop consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This never seemed to be an issue (because I thought editors could agree that aggregate polling is infinitely better and has more long-term encyclopedic value than randomly picked or cherrypicked individual polls), but it will apparently be one. I had considered proposing it as a manual of style change, but I haven't looked up the proper procedures for doing so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point of concern, Snooganssnoogans. It would be good to have a list of reliable, unbiased polls, something like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. However, this topic is above the "pay grade" of a discussion at one article. That's why I suggest introducing the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want to apply your proposal only in this article and when we remove individual polls from other articles we get problems. It is better to propose a rule or a guideline so we can make sure it is going to be applied in all candidates articles like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary to determine which polls are better. The criterion for inclusion is weight. If a poll receives a lot of coverage we include it, if not we exclude it. Sometimes sources decide that a result from a reputable company is an outlier. That's the nature of statistics. A certain number of polls, as high as 5%, may be inaccurate due to the laws of statistics. 5% of the time you will flip either heads or tails 5 times in a row. TFD (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section re: debate on electability

The entire section I added has been removed with the reason given "remove debate about electability. hard to understand why a sentence devoted to peer-reviewed research is being removed for being undue while several paragraphs are added which are devoted to low-quality content about a 24-hr old dispute over a candidate's electability." In the first place, this editor is apparently referring to a disagreement we had some time ago and is seemingly getting back at me for that. I must again say that until this editor became active in this article we all got along and worked as a team--and it was a joy to be here working together. One did not see this sort of childish, spiteful editing. Now, as for "24-hr old dispute" I have no idea what that might mean. This talk about "anybody but Bernie" has been going on for weeks and needs to be addressed in the article. I will return my edit after 24 hours unless other editors also feel that it was out of place. Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either the page suffers from size constraints or it doesn't. This is about as low-quality and recentist as content can get... it's a temporary debate about electability with some weak arguments thrown in both directions. It doesn't deserve several paragraphs. It might deserve one sentence that goes something along the lines of "During the primary, critics of Sanders's candidacy raised doubts about his electability", but even that seems undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Gandydancer that such a wholesale removal of material should be preceded by respectful discussion, followed by consensus. My feeling about the content in question is that it more properly belongs in Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign than in his biography. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was good removal I think. Yes, this could be included to another page Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, but even there I would rather not as a quickly changing opinion/debate that is probably already in the past. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Still seems to be widely debated in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HopsonRoad. I still see this as worth including. It was discussed on both Face the Nation and Meet the Press this weekend besides a lengthy discussion on PBS News Hour this evening. But with three editors in disagreement and nobody in agreement I will step aside. Gandydancer (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose removal given the attention it's received in reliable sources. Recentism is not a prohibition on information about current events. The lead currently includes information from the last several weeks. There's ample evidence in sources that this is a not just a "changing" or fleeting discussion. It's also not really our job to qualitatively evaluate whether the arguments on either side are "weak" or not. Certainly there is no "right" answer and our subjective opinions, for or against, should not serve as a screen to public discussions/debates that have been covered in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. At any rate, it is constantly discussed by the media. Watching commentators last night during the election returns they noted that every time Sanders was given air time it was discussed that he may (or more often may not) be electable by the pundits. Not so with the others (Biden and Trump). Even the stock market jump today was ascribed to Biden's big wins. Be assured that there is a good plenty of political maneuvering going on... Gandydancer (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikieditor19920, the recent reversion of your "Electability" section suggests that there's not a consensus on inclusion of that material, here. I continue to suggest that material is more suited for Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, since it's not really biographical. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions over electability re: presidential general election were noted in 2016 and 2020. It is not exclusive to either campaign, it is an aspect of the subject's career (i.e. biography). The assertion that it "isn't biographical" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The material is well-sourced, relevant, and there is support for it's inclusion on its page. The arguments for removal are specious, and it seems improper for entire sections of sourced material to be purged from a page absent a compelling explanation. Specific concerns can be raised and addressed but it is absurd to simply delete entire sections. We are required to present the public views of the subject in its entirety. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also am not convinced we need this information, especially in its present form, in an article this size. If the campaign is over, Joe Biden or Donald Trump wins over Bernie Sanders, and the reason is generally cited as electability concerns, than I would be willing to agree. That's not the case now; instead we have speculation on one side that Bernie's socialism is unelectable against Trump and on the other that according to multiple polls Bernie polls better than Biden against Trump, so I see no reason to devote an entire subsection of the article to discussing these views at this specific moment in the campaign. We have dedicated articles for the Bernie Sanders 2016 and 2020 campaigns where inclusion would be OK; putting the electability debate into what is supposed to be a summary of the subject's life bloats the article. Unfortunately this happens not just here - for example this tendency to overwhelm the reader with too much is even worse in the Joe Biden article, where the reader is bombarded with minute details, such as the score of the World Cup soccer game Joe attended as Vice President - yet much information on his legislation during three decades in Congress is never mentioned. We do have to make editorial decisions as to what we keep and what we don't, and since this content can simply be moved to a dedicated subarticle, that's where it should go. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source on medical records

Stopped by to add this info.
Sanders has released more medical information than any other candidate.[1]
The article reports that as of February 24, 2020, candidates had released the following medical records testifying to their health. In order of the amount of documentation from least to most: • Pete Buttigieg has not released any medical records. • Amy Klobuchar has not released any medical records. • Mike Bloomberg has released a one-page letter from his doctor declaring him in “great physical shape.” • Joe Biden has released a three-page letter from his doctor describing him as a “healthy, vigorous 77-year-old male.” • Elizabeth Warren has released five pages of documents revealing her blood pressure (115/57) and thyroid condition, along with a doctor’s letter declaring her in “excellent health.” • Bernie Sanders has released letters from three doctors, including a cardiologist who expressed confidence that the senator from Vermont “has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the presidency.”
Ironically, Buttigieg, who has been demanding transparency regarding medical records, has yet to release his own.

WebMaven2000 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Viser, Matt; Bernstein, Lenny (February 24, 2020). "In a historically old presidential field, candidates refuse to release health records". Washington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2020.

Wealth Section

Why does Bernie Sanders have a section describing his wealth when other candidates with more money such as Elizabeth Warren do not have such sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.134.159 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes no sense. I will remove it. TFD (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Thanks for acting on that, TFD. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The content should not be in its own section. His personal wealth and residences should be in the 'personal life' section. WP:OTHER is a thing, but Obama's personal wealth and residences is in his "Family and personal life". I don't see a reason why such info shouldn't be included. It's certainly been covered by RS and is not factually disputed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added back the info on his residences to the main section of Personal Life since it was there before an editor started inserting this. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is inconsistent with other articles about non-billionaire candidates to include this information. I don't think anyway it is unusual for a senator to own a residence in Washington and one in their home state as well as a cottage. TFD (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has become relevant because it was used as a debate challenge, so users will be searching out this information. This article does not clearly express it, but Sanders' wealth does not originate in any sort of corruption, as would be suggested by the challenge. The majority of his wealth came from sales of Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In which probably sold well as a result of the popularity of his political activities. Yeah he has moved into the 1%, but his wealth is microscopic, .02 percent behind Bloomberg. By omission, or with both ideas placed in separate section to be deceptive, makes this subject of the article misleading. Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be included since his wealth has been brought up what with his run for president. I agree with editors that say it should not have a labeled section but be included under Personal life. Also I agree that it is quite the norm for congressmen/women to have two homes with one in Wash. D.C. and the other their home state. As for summer cottages, in some parts of the nation even people of modest incomes have modest summer cottages, usually on a lake. Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how politically important this issue is, but according to Snopes Sanders' "cottage" is a $575,000 (2016) 4-bedroom house with 500 feet of frontage on Lake Champlain, should that become relevant.—Blanchette (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing significant about that. It is not unusual for two professionals with no kids and one of them inheriting her parents' home. TFD (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bernie Sanders has often discussed the wealth of other candidates. This has, in-turn, caused media attention to scrutinize his own wealth. A number of reliable sources have covered it and the information is out there. Comparisons to other articles, or, even worse, the relative wealth of other candidates, aren't extremely relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a $575,000 cottage represents wealth. Where are you from? TFD (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Wealth" here is used in the sense of personal fortune or net worth, not "wealth" as in abundance. See definition 3 here: [4]. An alternative is "Personal net worth." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't choose words that can have more than one meaning when we are reasonably certain it will convey to readers the wrong meaning. Anyway the current wording seems fine. It mentions and describes Sanders' homes without the Fox News editorializing. TFD (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer we use the NYT or WSJ. [5][6]. And where is the information? Was it removed along with the subection? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate citation

This edit introduced two paragraphs on Israel and Palestine, which are now one part of Bernie_Sanders#Foreign_relations. Checking the quotation with the source, the word 'dramatically' is not there. Can someone please delete the word? I have no right to do so. Thank you. --直蔵 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference that fixes the problem. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing. So he did say that word. I've updated the Japanese page accordingly. --直蔵 (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did, here --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanders was born into a working-class Jewish family and raised in the Brooklyn borough of New York City."

This statement is unsupported and is contradicted by Bernie Sanders' own words, as well as other evidence. I plan to change it to "middle class family" but want to give folks some advanced notice for discussion.

His father was a salesman, widely considered a middle class job. In his only statement on the subject, Bernie told CNN:

"I am not going to tell you that I grew up in a home of desperate poverty. That would not be true. But what I will tell you is that coming from a lower middle class family I will never forget how money – or really lack of money – was always a point of stress in our home, . . ."

Similarly, the Times of Israel's profile quoted that line and added this about his neighborhood of Brooklyn, called Midwood:

"When Sanders was a boy, Midwood was defined by residents’ awareness of their immigrant roots — and their ethos as middle class and striving.

“Our parents for the most part were American-born, but our grandparents weren’t, and we knew what it was to struggle,” says David Sillen, a neighbor and classmate who walked to school with Sanders every day for years. “The fact that our parents were more successful than their parents left us with the family construct that we should be more successful than our parents, and that was pretty pervasive.”

Sillen and others recall that time fondly, with life shaped by the neighborhood’s safety, good schools and middle-class solidity. But Sanders’ memories are decidedly less rosy." Msalt (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these terms mean different things depending on context. Donald Trump's family could be considered middle class too, but obviously the circumstances of the two families were vastly different. TFD (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say more about that, please? I'm not sure Trump's situation is directly relevant, but I also don't understand how the owner of a company that owns a billion dollars of real estate could be considered "middle class" under any definition. In any case, if there is any semantic or factual dispute, wouldn't you agree that in a biography of a living person, the person's self-definition should be accepted as the default, until clear evidence to the contrary is provided? Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This wording should not be changed. It is correct as written. Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any support, sources or analysis by which you came to your conclusion? Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Bernie and what is in his article are not contradictory ("lower middle class" vs "working-class"). David Sillen's opinion is irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that lower middle class is not different from working class? Do you have any support for that position? For that matter, is there any source at all for Bernie Sanders being working class? I'm not able to see any here. Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You did not say that you would like to change it to lower middle class. You said you'd be changing it to "middle class". There is a big difference. Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about "lower middle class" then? Msalt (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should not have gone ahead and made this change with an edit summary that suggested there was TP agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I understood your earlier comment to be suggesting LMC, and everyone seemed to have lost interest. Msalt (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sanders has also referred to his family as "working-class".[7] So, if anything, he seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Given that, I do not think we are inaccurate in saying "working-class". Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's impossible for the average reader to distinguish where the borders between "upper middle class" and "middle class" and "lower middle class" lie, it's clearer to use "working class" in the sense of Working class in the United States as referring to "adults as those lacking a college degree". I recommend "working class" in this context. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like excellent reasoning to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please remove "formidable" from the lead? This is not a WWE magazine

Thanks! Replace it with "recognized" or something.

SarumanTheBlack (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with "strong." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Melanie. You rock.SarumanTheBlack (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all the superlatives entirely and keep this neutral. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler quote should be removed

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter, using IPs from Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hitler lost both elections in 1932 and the rigged election in 1933. The Nazis were never elected. The quote by Sanders is 100% false and misleading so it should be removed. (86.160.101.213 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

"In the federal election of July 1932, the Nazis won 37.3% of the popular vote (13,745,000 votes), an upswing by 19 percent, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag, with 230 out of 608 seats." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed extensively in Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 10#Sanders' Hitler remark and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 14#Hitler did not win an election. The upshot of these discussions is that the quote stays, despite its debatable historical merits. This is an article about Sanders and what he said and did, not an article on the history of Germany. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler lost the election in July 1932, and he lost again by a greater margin in November 1932. Sanders' quote is factually incorrect. (86.160.101.241 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
As is explained in a footnote to that remark in the text. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added, "He said (incorrectly)", to clarify the footnote to that remark and hopefully avoid recurrences of this same conversation. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most people would say that someone who won a plurality of seats and formed a government was elected. Otherwise we would say that David Cameron and Elizabeth May lost the elections of 2010 and 2017. Or maybe we could say that anyone who received less than 50% of the vote lost - so no one has won an election in the UK since 1931. TFD (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary loss and endorsement of Hillary Clinton section - Add short sentence on Sanders supporters supporting Clinton.

Hi - I couldn't add this. It refutes the myth that Sander's supporters didn't vote for Clinton and cost her the election, a prevalent myth. It balances the sentence about the booing. "In the end, Sanders was more effective in getting his supporters to vote for Clinton than Clinton was in getting her supporters to vote for Obama.[1]" WebMaven2000 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sides, John (August 24, 2017). "Did enough Bernie Sanders supporters vote for Trump to cost Clinton the election?". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 9, 2020.
I agree it belongs, although we could discuss the phrasing and the actual figures should be presented in a footnote. It might be better to compare Sanders supporters to candidate supporters in general, rather than just Hillary. TFD (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common partisan argument usually made by supporters of Senator Sanders. I do not believe it is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Msalt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

If we are going to mention this at all, we need to provide context. Sanders was repeating what Obama said and there was a reaction from older Cuban Americans in Florida, who had fled Castro. The phrasing seemed to have been worded as if we were in the middle of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. TFD (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Context is everything. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the need for context, though I'm not sure what TFD means by "Cuban Missile Crisis" or "repeating what Obama said." (Maybe referring to an earlier version of the section than Zloyvolsheb's recent deletion? That's all I saw.) It's important to include a discussion of the controversy over Sen. Sanders' comments on Cuba, I believe, since the controversy over the comment was a significant turning point in the current campaign. Perhaps it should be included in the 2020 campaign narrative? Msalt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABernie_Sanders&type=revision&diff=947030508&oldid=947029329

Leave a Reply