Jump to content

Talk:List of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign endorsements

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.107.74.186 (talk) at 01:31, 4 March 2016 (→Negative space in between endorsements and desc.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconElections and Referendums List‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Should we be editing to this page instead now?

Just curious.

Negative space in between endorsements and desc.

Not sure if we could fix that issue. If so, could someone please get onto it? Book wormed (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone fixed it.

DNC Officials

AP's survey of Superdelegates found eight supporting Bernie. Including Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Troy Jackson, and Sanders himself (per TheGreenPapers he is a superdelegate because he caucuses with the Dems) takes care of four. Any idea who the other four are? They should be on this list. PotvinSux (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Cohen is one ... still need 3 morePotvinSux (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chad Nolan, a Comitteeman from ND seems to be another... still 2 out therePotvinSux (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Cassidy of VT is another... one more out therePotvinSux (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: WaPo says he has 11 now - but this list has only eight. Three DNC members out there... somewhere.PotvinSux (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DNC members maybe in other sections? Should we move them to DNC section or leave them where they are. Needs further discussion. Book wormed (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of VPP at end of state senators.

@PotvinSux Just want to start off by thanking you for all the work, but I feel the addition of VPP is unnecessary for state senators. It just clogs the section up and looks bulky. Motion to remove tag? Book wormed (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The general endorsement page this transcludes to has (and has had possibly since the page's inception) wording in its introductory description to the effect that all listed are members or supporters (in the case of celebrities and the like) of the Democratic Party "unless otherwise noted." These folks are not Democrats and should be noted. I don't think aesthetics are trivial at all, but I do think they have to be a secondary consideration to consistency. (In either case I don't think the notes are particularly bulky or that they clog anything up. For example, Chestnut-Tangerman goes onto a second line with or without the note and I altered Christopher Pearson to Chris Pearson solving the other issue [I did make sure that he sometimes goes by Chris])PotvinSux (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gosling is not endorsing any political candidate until further notice.

Following his tweet about Sanders' response to bigotry and racism, Ryan Gosling announced that he is not endorsing any political candidate: "I'm not endorsing a political candidate btw. It's more the talking and listening I'm a fan of."

Link: https://twitter.com/RyanGosling/status/664960295744335872

Book wormed (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the endorsement by the Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific removed?

I no longer see this endorsement listed under National Labor Organizations. The edit removing it states that there was no page for the union. Howeverr, the union is a division of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, so I will be re-instating this endorsement and specifically mentioning the relation. (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As they are a regional division of a national union, I re-grouped them with the state and local divisions. I do think that in general a subdivision would need its own page but there is this geographical element here that can resolve the page requirement in a way consistent with precedent.PotvinSux (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! 98.169.44.13 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please reverse the two edits I just made

My browser screwed up and literally broke this Wikipedia article. Please undo both my recent edits. 200.98.197.34 (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 already repaired by 166.171.59.76 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(but this comment was added by LLarson (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Leonardo DiCaprio endorsing Bernie?

I found these two articles stating that DiCaprio praises Sanders' response to Climate change and called Bernie inspiring. Should we add his name to endorsements? Sources: [1], [2], and [3]. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A flattering comment followed by 'who knows who the candidate will be'/'we should create a dialogue' is not an endorsement. However, given that he maxed out to the Clinton campaign in July, this newfound ambivalence is notable enough to take him off of the Clinton list for the time being.PotvinSux (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Book wormed (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove Leo from Hillary's list. There's no clear sign he supports Hillary. I'm sure sooner or later it'll be clear his endorsement for Bernie since he supported Obama over Clinton. - TDKR
Done.PotvinSux (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to migrate to endorsements for republican presidential primaries?

The page is very messy, with little consideration of pre-set page requirements. I think I'll work on both pages for a while. Book wormed (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-adding CANY because it fulfilled a page-requirement (USAction's). Further discussion can be held here as to why you believe it shouldn't be incorporated. 2601:14D:8300:7900:9C5D:5178:6246:1606 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine as it stands right now. CANY is not an affiliate of Citizens Action. They just took the name with them after the dissolution of the national faction. Book wormed (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for “endorsement”

Hi Book wormed: Norm Kelly’s tweet says only “Go @SenSanders!”,[4] which your summary said “meet[s] the criteria of an endorsement”.[5] To me, the tweet sounded like support only. Could you help me understand the criteria? Cheers! LLarson (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support is the key word. Book wormed (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! LLarson (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Lessig endorsing Sanders?

Both share the same values. Furthermore after Sanders' data breach incident with the DNC, Lessig urged his followers to sign a petition in support of Bernie on his twitter account. Sources -> [6] and his blog [7]. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lessig and Sanders share a common disdain towards establishment politics. Needs to be more solid than disapproval of DNC's measures. Book wormed (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Fantano?

Not intended as a personal attack on Fantano but my understanding of the term "critic" as it's used on this page is more academic and Fantano has no academic background in his criticism. I understand his placement there but it just seems ludicrous for him to be listed right beside Noam Chomsky. Given his meme-friendly status I feel like if he's going to be listed, he would fit more under celebrities. Anyone agree? Is this too academic-centric a standpoint? — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am the radiohead (talk • contribs) 05:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are similar music critics listed under academics and critics. Critics : one who engages often professionally in the analysis, evaluation, or appreciation of works of art or artistic performances. (Merriam-Webster)Book wormed (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superdelegates vs. regular legislative posts.

Do we move superdelegates from their regular posts as state legislators etc. to the DNC section? Book wormed (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd say list them in both places. These lists aren't meant to flex e-peen with who has a "larger list", it's meant to list who endorsed who. I wouldn't see a problem making an exception and listing DNC / superdelegate people twice if applicable. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We list people at their highest level. I think it would be reasonable to add a DNC tag or asterisk or italicize DNC members.PotvinSux (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reich

So, up until now I had thought Reich would maintain his neutrality - at least openly - due to his links to Common Cause. However, a certain Facebook post of his leaves me to believe that he's gone public with it and endorsed Bernie. Read: https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1131755426837052

Thoughts Book wormed & others? I think Reich should be added now. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not v. explicit. I doubt he's endorsing anyone at this moment. He'll probably do so very soon. Book wormed (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It's fairly obvious he's voting for Bernie but we should wait for a more clear statement of endorsement, especially from somebody of his caliber. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has endorsed Bernie.

Brad Jones

Is the Brad Jones here the same as the Brad Jones here?
The endorsement from “Brad Jones”[8] links to a disambiguation page, Bradley Jones, where one of the entries is a musician. My hunch is that is the same person, but Wikipedia’s pretty anti‑hunch when it comes to living persons. Thanks! —LLarson (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It’s commented out for now to conform with WP:BLP. —LLarson (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved thanks to Book wormed[9]
—LLarson (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

170 experts in support of Bernie Sanders

Does anybody want to take the time to comb through this list? https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf I'm adding Brad Miller and Robert Reich but too busy to add the rest. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got time tomorrow, but after next week, I will not be a regular on the page. Unfortunately, I got other commitments. Book wormed (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. Did not take too long - I could only find 17 of them. My concern is whether an endorsement of a proposal can be equated with an endorsement of a candidate. For example, Paul Krugman has written that "Mrs. Clinton [has] the better case" vis-a-vis this very issue - does that really amount to an endorsement?PotvinSux (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes with the higher education letter. Both were released by the campaign. I'll have a look into it. Book wormed (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably fine as it sits. Look at it this way: To enact the policies they support, they need a Sanders presidency, therefore throwing their support behind Sanders' Wall St. policies can be equated as supporting the candidate. Same applies to the Higher Education for Bernie. Book wormed (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you like 95% - there's just something nagging at me about it... if you're giving your professional opinion as an academician it seems like it should be a nonpartisan judgment. Then again, if you're signing letters on behalf of a candidate, that's a fairly political act. Yes, you're right.PotvinSux (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way, but then again, I always feel a bit off when I list down an 'endorsement' that is not 100%. How many academics would come out and say they're endorsing Bernie? I would imagine only very few academics would do something that is unconventional to say the least. They probably would sign onto something the candidate is proposing that is actually within their field of knowledge, because they're academics afterall... Book wormed (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is astonishing foolishness. A group of economists write a letter endorsing a candidate's economic proposals. And everyone here took that to mean an endorsement of the candidacy? What if any of these economists agreed with Sen. Sanders' economic plans but (a) disagreed with his foreign policy, or (b) considered Mrs Clinton the more electable nominee, or (c) did not want to endorse an entire candidacy as opposed to specific policies. These names must be removed immediately. I can understand the rush, perhaps among Sen. Sanders' supporters, to add as many names as possible to this list, but in doing so you are grossly misrepresenting some eminent Americans. Syek88 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC) And look at the very first line of the page itself: "This is a list of prominent individuals and organizations who have voiced their endorsement of Bernie Sanders as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the 2016 U.S. presidential election." No-one signing the letter is doing that. Obviously... Syek88 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is reasonable and well taken - see my Krugman point above. The distinction I drew with respect to these was based on two of the core underlying principles for these pages - first, that an endorsement is an indication or intimation of exclusive support for a candidate and, second, that individuals are not naive and err on the side of caution in actions that might be interpreted as an endorsement. In this case, these folks willingly contributed to what they understood would be a tool of campaign propaganda. This sort of material aid (lending their credibility in their area of expertise) to the campaign itself would seem to me an in-kind contribution to the campaign. (It would be a different story if this release was a product of the Sanders camp quoting folks' opinions from interviews they gave to a third party.) Either way, I do not feel especially strongly about this and will not defend the status quo beyond what I have just written. If we decide to remove these, I need to remove five or six foreign policy experts from the Clinton page that were the product of a similar scenario.PotvinSux (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. For me it is about fairness to the supposed endorsees. In Robert Reich's case he has said he doesn't feel it appropriate to endorse because of a board position he holds: https://m.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1018299474849315 So we have to be very careful: we should only list people if there is a clear endorsement of the candidacy, as opposed to broadly supportive comments of the candidate or an endorsement of a particular policy. And yes, this means there may very well be deletions that ought to be made in relation to other candidates, which I would support. Syek88 (talk),
We grappled early on with the question of what constitutes a "clear endorsement" and have been operating under the definition I note. To endorse someone means to publicly show a preference for one candidate over the other to be the nominee (this cannot be inferred from a mere statement endorsing a given policy [though I would argue it depends on the circumstances of the statement]). On occasion people perform an action or series of actions that are consistent with an endorsement a candidate and feel it necessary to stipulate that they are not doing so. That they feel the need to make these statements is a sign that those actions are correctly interpreted as an endorsement and warrant inclusion (absent an explicit denial - as in Reich's case... another example would be Nancy Pelosi consistently referring to the next president as "she" but asserting neutrality).PotvinSux (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it , the difficulty with doing that is that it contradicts the (very sensible) guidance at Wikipedia:No original research against reaching or implying conclusions not stated in (secondary) sources. We could accept an endorsement statement. We could also accept a newspaper of record saying "X endorses Y". But we can't interpret and imply things about others' actions. Syek88 (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research does not help us establish the boundaries of the word "endorsement." I've been looking at this for months and months now and I can promise you there is no agreement among secondary sources about what constitutes an endorsement and we are in general agreement that relying on a secondary source to define that term in each individual instance would lead to great inconsistency. Per Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia it is up to us to create the criteria for inclusion (and we have done so). A source can verify a statement or action, but in cannot tell us what that statement or action means in light of our criteria. That is invariably a product of interpretation. That we have had startlingly few major disagreements even though our partisan loyalties as far as I can discern them seem to be over the place tells me our criteria are fairly robust.PotvinSux (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Kaufman

Hey, I'm new to Wikipedia contributing, so would one of you people be able to add Troma founder and film director Lloyd Kaufman to this page? He endorsed Bernie in a recent Youtube video. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.176.175.200 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you provide the link, so that I can add the endorsement. Many Thanks and welcome to the community! Book wormed (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Found link. Thanks for the heads-up! Book wormed (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/101.176.175.200|

New template for the campaign Infobox?

A heads up that on the campaign’s talk page, I’m proposing a new template for the U.S. federal election campaign Infobox, to keep it in sync with the one here. The conversation should be centralized: there, not here. Thank you —LLarson (said & done) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Flores endorses Bernie

Former assemblywoman of Nevada Lucy Flores endorses Sanders. The sources is here -> [10] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Endorsements

Anyone wanna crawl thru? -> http://www.sunjournal.com/news/maine/2016/01/19/maine-state-house-democrats-announce-support-bernie-sanders/1855611 96.244.110.2 (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burning midnight oil over this. ZzZzZz I did part of it, but I'm real tired. Book wormed (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saving block.

http://www.magneticmag.com/2016/01/artists-for-bernie-sanders-present-the-art-of-political-revolution/

(there is no endorsement in link. just reminding myself later on once art is released so we could list endorsements) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Book wormed (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AntVenom (popular YouTuber: 2.3 mil) endorsing Sanders. (comment section) Does anyone have the time to create one? ._. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nwRiuh1Cug Book wormed (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Dean, Democracy For America co-founder is going out to Iowa to campaign for Bernie. You can add him with the Democracy for America link. (http://blog.4president.org/2016/2016/01/democracy-for-america-chair-jim-dean-to-visit-iowa-on-behalf-of-the-bernie-sanders-campaign.html)Book wormed (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding his brother, Larry Sanders, to endorsements

It's his brother and he has said very positive things about his campaign. He was interview by Rollingstones and was very happy with his progress and believes he can win.[11] Jeb Bush has his father, brother and son as endorsements, should we include Bernie's brother? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget about Page Requirement. Book wormed (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Book Wormed: Larry Sanders has its own page --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)- TDKR[reply]
Good to know and thanks for contributing. Book wormed (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting major edits / vandalization by AHC300

AHC300, without posting prior, drastically edited the Organizations section of this article. I'm going to revert their edit and they can make their case here if they wish to.74.107.74.186 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh Factory (comedy club) supports Sanders' presidency. Check their fundraiser: There are some notable listed endorsements. Full performance list has not been published. Saving block.

I just wanted to make clear that Laugh Factory created the fundraiser for Sanders as president. The links below directs to the event page and their official website that indicates so. Please write endorsements up on page.

Quote: If you have purchased tickets to the Kevin Nealon's New Material show at the Laugh Factory on Tuesday, January 26th 8pm. Unfortunately, that is the only night available for a special fundraiser for candidate Bernie Sanders. The Laugh Factory management has lobbied for such a fundraiser since Senator Sanders is the only candidate for President who has been talking about helping the poor. The Sanders campaign was limited to this night and we apologize for any inconvenience this will cause. We also welcome you to purchase a ticket through the Bernie Sanders website. Featuring comedians to be announced.

Event page: https://secure.berniesanders.com/page/contribute/the-stars-come-out-for-bernie Official page w/ quote: http://www.laughfactory.com/clubs/hollywood Tweet: https://twitter.com/TheLaughFactory/status/690692257695924224

Listed Performances by:

Sarah Silverman, Paul Rodriguez, Kevin Nealon, George Lopez, Jeff Garlin

I'll keep an eye to see if the list grows. I'll list them below.

Many Thanks, book_wormed

Edward Snowden endorsement?

@Book wormed: Does this source -> [12] support the claim that Edward Snowden endorses Sanders for president? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's equates to endorsement. BTW, I'm not going to be on this page very often from now on. You can ask the others should you have any questions. Book wormed (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add these endorsements

Book wormed (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

There has recently been edit-warring on the article. I have protected the article from editing for three days, in the hope that doing so will encourage the participants to discuss matters on this talk page, and try to reach an understanding. If any of the editors involved returns to edit-warring after the protection ends, he or she may be blocked from editing. Please note the following two facts.

  1. Being convinced that you are right is no justification for edit-warring, and no defence against being blocked.
  2. "Edit-warring" is not synonymous with breaking the so-called "three-revert rule", and you do not need to break that "rule" to be blocked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, James. As I've said in the section above - and to which no-one has replied - signing a letter of support for a candidates's economic policies is not an endorsement of the candidacy. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Syek88 (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, should be included in the endorsements. 98.30.166.231 (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation? And a citation that states Mr Reich endorses Sanders' presidential candidacy and not just his economic policies? Syek88 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh look: https://m.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1018299474849315 "I don't feel free to endorse any candidate." Syek88 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're very clearly in a bad mood. Hate to break it to you, but: http://www.salon.com/2016/02/03/robert_reich_bernie_sanders_is_the_only_candidate_of_change_partner/ 74.107.74.186 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an endorsement but broadly favourable commentary on the candidacy, entirely consistent with his earlier statement that he would not be giving an endorsement. Syek88 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're pretty biased for somebody who called us partisan hacks. That's very clearly a statement of preference for him over her. I'm sorry your preferred candidate lost yesterday. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand what an endorsement is, do you? I'd suggest not editing this page until you do. Syek88 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please, please, please not devolve into a partisan mess. We have been doing SO SO well for so long and I don't think anything has changed fundamentally to alter that (cf. the GOP endorsement pages which were at each other's throats since the summer). Reich's actions would CLEARLY constitute endorsement except he has chosen (as have others [e.g. Nancy Pelosi on the Clinton side of things]) to plead neutrality. That is his right.PotvinSux (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Will not add uncited information to an article protected for content disputes. — xaosflux Talk 02:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second Protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Under 1.12.4 Voice artists and musicians, please add Freddie Gibbs citing https://twitter.com/FreddieGibbs/status/686668558273650688 68.198.242.202 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A one word "Agreed" that something "could help" is far from a reliable endorsement. — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"in a better way than any other candidate"? 69.12.27.190 (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 February 2016

Wendsler Nosie Sr., leader of Apache Stronghold, has endorsed Bernie in Arizona today (Feb 9 2016). Should be added to the list. He is a notable person as the leader of the Apache Stronghold and chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. About 5:00 in this video https://www.facebook.com/bernie2016tv/videos/221966644814222 Asaturn (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this meets the page requirements:
Officials below the level of State Legislator and all other individuals and entities (excepting Democratic National Committee (DNC) members who vote at the nominating convention) are listed only if they have a Wikipedia page. --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 9 February 2016

I am a member of IBEW 100. We have voted tonight to endorse Bernie Sanders for president. There has been no press release, as of yet, but wish to add this endorsement to the list.

2602:306:3037:1A40:5DF0:5E5D:C07D:920A (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. — xaosflux Talk 12:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Ta-Nehisi Coates, per https://twitter.com/democracynow/status/697443077343023105

A better source would be http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268929-prominent-black-intellectual-backs-sanders. 132.181.172.56 (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

SC Rep. Cezar McKnight, per https://twitter.com/AneesaSM/status/697468996506030081

 Not done No reliable source listed. — xaosflux Talk 18:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tweet is reliable alright. But we can quote http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/10/1482970/-SC-state-rep-Cezar-McKnight-becomes-the-6th-state-lawmaker-to-endorse-BernieSanders if need be. McKnight is already listed anyway. --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added the new source to the existing entry. — xaosflux Talk 04:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edit request

Peace Action, per https://peaceblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/largest-peace-group-endorses-sanders/

Peace Action is already listed --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Important: Endorsed this morning on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now. http://m.democracynow.org/stories/15946 duff 00:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

Margot Kidder, per http://bozemanmagazine.com/news/1/posts/2016/02/10/1553_bernie_sanders_qualifies_for_montana_democratic (she is a volunteer which obviously means she supports him)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Endorsement now listed --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reich

Why was he removed? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While he has positive and supportive comments about Sanders and signed a letter endorsing his economic policies, he has not (to my knowledge, but pleased to be corrected) actually endorsed the candidacy and said in mid-2015 that he would not be making an endorsement: https://m.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1018299474849315 Syek88 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can endorse someone without literally saying " I endorse so-and-so" , there are other words that can be used to endorse a candidate, such as "Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to bring about the political system we need"-Robert Reich http://robertreich.org/post/138036377515. Nothing could be more of an endorsement for Bernie Sanders than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.65.114 (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And he also calls Mrs Clinton "the most qualified candidate for the political system we now have". He's endorsing neither (although clearly prefers Sen Sanders at least in some respects). Again, his careful language stops short of an endorsement, consistent with his 2015 statement that it would be inappropriate of him to do so. You can't cherry-pick quotes and overlay your interpretation onto them to arrive at an "endorsement". Syek88 (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he is saying Sanders is most qualified candidate to bring about the political system we need that is quite clearly an endorsement. I do not see you combing through the Hillary Clinton endorsements with this level of narrow-mindedness about what qualifies as an endorsement, you are obviously biased.I don't appreciate being accused of cherrypicking quotes and overlaying my interpretation onto them, all i did was PICK a quote that is objectively and obviously an endorsement of Bernie Sanders.

This person came in here and started removing things left and right, calling the editors of this article "partisan". Got so bad I had to get an admin to lock this article down. This person shows no care for objectiveness, so once this article opens back up I'm going to be re-adding Reich. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.65.114 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you still have no evidence of an endorsement. Syek88 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have no evidence you're actually interested in being non-partisan, which you accuse the main editors of this article of, some of which are also editors on the Clinton article, amongst others. To be honest, you just seem kind of angry and flustered. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still have no evidence of an endorsement. Syek88 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of continuing with what has been an astounding and commendable display of civility can we please all remember rule number one, which is to assume good faith and discuss respectfully. Meanwhile, if one cannot respond to another user's arguments directly, reverting to attacking people as partisan does not give the best impression about one's own neutrality. In the case of Reich, this user has brought two new pieces of information that warrant reconsideration. First, a conflicting statement that the other candidate is the most qualified. (In general, a person can think that Candidate A is the only one capable with a chance at major reform while Candidate B is the most qualified candidate assuming no major reform occurs and we have at least some evidence that Reich holds both views - what we would need from Reich in that instance is a statement evaluating his aversion to risk). The second new piece of evidence and the controlling factor here is that Reich said explicitly in the summer that he personally likes Sanders and agrees with him on everything but is not making an "official" endorsement. We can roll our eyes at that (just like we can roll our eyes at Nancy Pelosi consistently calling the next President "she" but saying she does not "officially" support Clinton), but that is his right. This statement of his operates on a strict performative level indicating that in his eyes a) there is such a thing as an "official" endorsement b) that an "official" endorsement is expressed using words like "officially" and "endorse." That is not the understanding of "endorsement" we hew to here because it is legalistic and seems to be increasingly archaic (the digital age and 24-hours news cycle have eroded many markers of formality). However, we must evaluate a person's actions by their own understanding of them.PotvinSux (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of civility, if you scroll up we used that old Facebook post (albeit not directly linking to it, perhaps) in referencing why Rob Reich was not to be listed as an endorser. And now more recently he's made it clear who he supports, so he's clearly changed his mind on his former post. That itself is not new info. As for the first point, Reich has said there needs to be a movement, one reference being his calling a political revolution "the real choice ahead" here: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/robert-reich-big-fat-message-coming-out-new-hampshire. That clearly dictates he sides with Bernie on the need for his movement, along with all the other articles and FB posts he's written that have been quasi-endorsements. You don't need to post a op-ed saying "I Endorse Bernie Sanders" to endorse Bernie Sanders.
But this is my point. You do need to utter the words "I endorse Bernie Sanders" in the rare case where you've insisted yourself that really liking him is not enough and there is some "official endorsement" to be had.PotvinSux (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this facebook video post at about the -6:00 mark onward he explains how there is no "traditional endorsement" to be had, as he feels this would hurt an outsider anti-establishment candidate such as Bernie Sanders. Thus he is giving Sanders his untraditional endorsement by referring to Sanders as the most qualified candidate to bring about the political system he (Reich) thinks we should have. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1151922714820323

So in other words, he is not endorsing Samders. After saying in 2015 that he wouldn't be doing so and later calling Clinton the most qualified candidate for the present system. Syek88 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from Reich, saying that Clinton is the most qualified candidate for the present system which he hates, is nothing more than a backhanded compliment, at best. If he said at some point in the past that he wouldn't endorse he has obviously changed his tune now, what don't you understand about him saying that "Sanders is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE to bring about the system I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.75.160 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he draws a distinction between a traditional/official endorsement and some other form of praise, what we would need from him is that traditional/official endorsement. We can't bring ourselves to a point where we're adding people to a list of endorsements who explicitly say they are not endorsing. That's a bridge too far... As far as that particular statement, I think many people who vote Clinton would agree with that statement but just don't think his chances of doing it are high enough to justify voting for someone who would be less qualified under the present system. Do we have somewhere where he addresses this question explicitly? That might sway me.PotvinSux (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two videos from Robert Reich's facebook page , one where he addresses your question re the viability of Sanders' candidacy https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1142259599119968/, and the other where he indicates that people such as himself who feel Sanders is the leader of a "critically important movement" will be voting for Bernie https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/1156107607735167/ .--76.11.72.39 (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a wanton, deliberate and defamatory misrepresentation of Mr Reich. His closing statement in the second video is as follows: "If you don't think [a new political system] is possible or don't want to risk it, Hillary Clinton is your best bet. If you think it's necessary, and are willing to go for it, you'll vote for Bernie." Earlier is says "to my mind, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to be the president of the political system we now have." It is a very balanced statement in which he offers different suggestions for different voters. In no way is it an endorsement; it is the exact opposite. Instead of trying to boost your candidate, think about the damage you are doing by misrepresenting Mr Reich.

Syek88 (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Syke,stop being slanderous by accusing me of defamation, please maintain civility. I cannot understand how you managed to pass grade 1 in school when you are clearly incapable of connecting the dots with both the quotes I as well as you yourself provided. a) he refers to Bernie Sanders' candidacy as a "critically important movement" i.e. necessary b)he says in your quote"If you think it's necessary, and are willing to go for it, you'll vote for Bernie." Thus we can draw the conclusion that he will be voting for Bernie, how could he say it is "critically important" without thinking it is "necessary"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.11.72.39 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Please add : Pivot America -- it's a grassroots 527 organization devoted to downstream democrats from Bernie that share his ideology, and aren't establishment, for example: Picus vs Pelosi, and Canova vs DWS. URL : http://pivotamerica.com Patrickcurl (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No can do, this article has a page requirement.74.107.74.186 (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 February 2016

Capriaf (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No reliable source listed. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Request Zia McCabe of the Dandy Warhols be added to the list of endorsing musicians. RE: https://www.facebook.com/theziamccabe/posts/10156436610065433 71.197.173.158 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Now listed --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina's Representative Justin Bamberg's endorsement

Hello. Can you please add South Carolina's Representative Justin Bamberg's endorsement? Please use this New York Times article as a reference. Or ping me once it's been unprotected and I'll do it. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bamberg is already listed.
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Recently, the legendary Harry Belafonte endorsed the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders to become President of the United States. However, this is not reflected in the list of endorsements.

173.63.130.241 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This endorsement was recently added. --MrVenaCava (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources?

Surely not every notable person's Twitter or Facebook comment is of encyclopedic relevance. We should focus on those endorsements that were reported in secondary sources. Unless there's some policy-based objection, particularly in light of WP:UNDUE, I'll do some weeding out of insignificant trivia. Huon (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Notability, notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people. Also, per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists it is clear that it is up to us to develop a consistent criteria in order to avoid contentious debate on scores of individual items. We've developed a consensus over the last year that an endorsement is an "action or statement indicating exclusive support" for a given candidate. No one has proposed suitable criteria for excluding people beyond the page requirement we instituted for those holding elected positions below the state-level. One reason is that there is no good research examining the impact of your favorite guitar player versus a mayor of a town of 50k people versus an activist - etc., etc. Wikipedia:No original research does not apply to talk pages and any criteria for [in/ex]clusion should be based on substantiated reasoning as to what endorsements are "relevant" and what endorsements are not. Entirely subjective judgments of relevance in individual cases will unleash utter doom. Particularly given the sensitivity of the topic, I think this is best avoided.PotvinSux (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "coverage of the endorsement in a secondary source" would be a subjective criterion. "Relevant" are those endorsements others have reported on. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" (emphasis in the original). I'd say more than half of this list is based on primary sources. Huon (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you answered your own question. By relying on secondary sources to determine relevance, one would be basing relevance on the subjective selection and coverage by the media. The uncertainty in relevance of a questionable endorser, I think, is solved on the basis that him or her has to have a wikipedia page. If so, him or her has already established their relevance to the public by the fact that him or her has a valid wikipedia page (and has undergone scrutiny in the process). --MrVenaCava (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

McCain should probably be removed from the list -- When asked "We cannot expect an endorsement from you, is that correct?", he stated: "No, it's better for me to stay out of it. [...] I have to support the nominee of the [Republican] party." per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkMGrqNWxw0 . In other words, although he's concurring with Sanders, he expressed he's refraining from officially endorsing anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrVenaCava (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what idiot added McCain but I removed him earlier.

Green Party of Oklahoma

Shouldn't this have a link to Oklahoma state's Green Party page (Green Party of Oklahoma)? It's my understanding that only the state's Green Party endorsed Sanders, not the national Green Party (the national party is having their own primaries). --MrVenaCava (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it is the Green Party of Oklahoma, but isn't that basically just like saying that a labor division's local endorsed one candidate while the national hasn't? I personally don't care either way and won't cause a big fuss over it, but I was thinking that linking it as the national Green Party but specifically mentioning that it's the Oklahoma "affiliate / local" would suffice. Thoughts?
I see your thought process. Although the state party is affiliated with the national party, this is probably a special situation given the state party is unable to get enough support for a primary election. It's more accurate to link to the state party, in my opinion. --MrVenaCava (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I guess you're right, a political party is different from a political organization, and it's best to be as specific as possible. Let's keep it as you have it. ^_^
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bernie_Sanders_2016_presidential_campaign_endorsements&oldid=708170088"