Talk:Bernie Sanders

RfC: "news coverage" section

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)

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. 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.

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. 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. All 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.

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. 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.

References

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

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)
• 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)
• No. Don’t include. Burrobert (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• ^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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)
• Yes. Seems perfectly relevant and appropriate. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." WebMaven2000 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

It only holds significance in relation to the Florida primary, which is how it was presented in mainstream media. It has no relevance to this article. TFD (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Context is everything. 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? Msalt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind discussing that in the article in proper context. However, I don't think the Cuba comment in response to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes actually was a significant turning point in the race at all. The turning point was when Biden decisively won the primary in South Carolina and multiple candidates (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, O'Rourke in Texas) endorsed him one day ahead of Super Tuesday. As far as Sanders' Cuba comments, his comments on Cuba's literacy were exactly what Barack Obama had said on several occasions (example: YouTube video of Obama's remarks on Cuba). I don't think anyone took those comments out of context. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Obama said, "The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care."[3] Sanders was criticized for saying that the Cuban Literacy Campaign had increased literacy from 77% to almost 100%. The Cuban Missile Crisis refers to a 1962 confrontation between the U.S. and USSR initiated by the U.S. discovery of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. A number of elderly people are still in a Cold War mind set that Canadian style health insurance will lead to Cuban style regimentation. I don't think it was a turning point in the campaign. Cuban supporters of the Batista dictatorship were mostly Republicans and represent a small section of the U.S. population, mostly living in Florida, while Democrats over 70 mostly supported Biden anyway. It's more relevant to the campaign article, where Sanders share of the popular vote fell from 33% to 23% in the Florida primary. TFD (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Mostly agree, however we still cannot say that Sanders' share of the popular vote in Florida falling from 33% to 23% was in any way due to his remarks on Cuba. I am interpreting 33% as the percentage of the Florida vote that went to Sanders in 2016, however his percentage also changed in multiple states in the 2020 primary relative to 2016. We would need something like a poll showing Sanders at 33% in 2020 before his remark the CNN interview and at 23% almost right after to argue there was a real effect on the race. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit [4] again restores the material about Cuba in grammatically incorrect format. Further changes the lede to remove mention of Sanders' frontrunner status with no explanation provided. Reverting due to poor phrasing as previously noted by The Four Deuces. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanders expressed views on Cuba and Castro that were criticized severely for supposedly being insensitive to the plight of Cubans. This came at at time when he had emerged from a string of primary victories and his views were being more closely scrutinized. Nearly all of the major national news publications picked up on this story and evaluated it. This controversy is appropriately categorized under foreign policy views. Zloyvolsheb has repeatedly tried to remove any mention of it entirely based on nitpicking/unspecific criticisms over "grammar." This is ridiculous. WP:PRESERVE. IF there is a concern over presentation, I welcome and encourage tailoring of the language or a proposal here on how it can better be expressed. At the moment, the sentence plainly explains that Sanders was asked a question, and his quote is provided in full, along with the fact that these remarks were criticized. This couldn't be a more straightforward description of what happened. Efforts to whitewash this out of the article entirely reek of whitewashing. Do not remove this material wholesale again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, how is the comment he made about literacy in Castro's Cuba biographically significant? Significant to the 2020 campaign? Yes, I see that clearly. What makes it significant to his biography? And don't tell us what to do, everything on that page should be done through consensus and I don't see one supporting inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What??? He is a national politician. He is not some guy giving lectures to his cat in his garage. His views on foreign policy are obviously significant for the article. These remarks, which came in the midst of his presidential campaign, were some of the most heavily covered of the entire campaign and covered by major national outlets like the NYT. You are trying to entirely excise them from the article because you think that his political views aren't significant? Why don't you just cut all of the foreign policy views out of it, rather than just zeroing in on opinions he was criticized for?

I'm not going to continue entertaining any of these ridiculous arguments. WP:SANDBAGGING is trying to present a clear-cut issue as if it's one in dispute. That's exactly what's going on here. The rambling objections to this have nothing to do with policy. WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, are all satisfied, as I already noted above. This is a lame attempt to trim controversies out of the article, and I for one am going to be a bit more vigilant about this type of stuff going on here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

National politicians say lots of things, and Bernie has been a national politician for thirty years. The policy of WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from overloading a biographical article with every "he said this" type of story that has no bearing on their biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean it has "no bearing on his biography?" Obviously it has bearing. It was a prominently expressed view on national TV that received national coverage. WP:DUE is clearly met. This whole "unbiographical" argument is selectively applying an arbitrary standard and ignoring WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

As Muboshgu said, we cannot include everything that Sanders said just because it has received coverage during the primary. Why is this particular statement notable enough to select for inclusion in a biographical article? Sanders' praise for Cuba's literacy program was merely a repetition of remarks made previously by Barack Obama. [5] Why is the reader not given the full context of the remark - at minimum, the question from Cooper that prompted Sanders' answer? And to further assess due weight, is there evidence that this remark actually impacted Sanders' performance in the primary? If this was relevant to the outcome, before including you would need to a) rewrite grammatically to avoid run-on sentences, b) explain the question from Cooper that Sanders was responding to, c) try to present the context, e.g. Sanders' comments were the same as Barack Obama's, as Sanders later explained. However I am not convinced this even impacted the primary, as I wrote earlier, so I don't think it makes sense to highlight this by putting it into a biography that aims to cover 79 years of Sanders' life and sixty-some years in politics. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I support Wikieditor19920's position. Frankly, to say that Sanders' comment "was merely a repetition of remarks made previously by Barack Obama" is both factually wrong and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The effects and popularity of political positions change over time.

It was widely reported by reliable sources that Sanders' statements caused a great controversy and hurt his campaign in Florida, which has the third most electoral votes in the US (tied with New York). The opinion of one editor that Obama said something similar in the past is original research and should have no bearing on this discussion.

The New York Times headline was "Sanders’s Comments on Fidel Castro Provoke Anger in Florida" and the subhed was "Bernie Sanders told '60 Minutes' that it would be 'unfair' to say 'everything is bad' about Cuba’s Communist revolution." Politico's headline was "Florida Dems in uproar after Sanders’ Cuba comments." The South Florida Sun-Sentinel wrote "Even if Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, he already may have lost Florida. During a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, Sanders told host Anderson Cooper: “We’re very opposed to the authoritarian nature of Cuba, but, you know, it’s unfair to simply say everything is bad. When Fidel Castro came into office, you know what he did? He had a massive literacy program. Is that a bad thing? Even though Fidel Castro did it?”

Do you need more sources? There are many more if you do. I couldn't find a single source, reliable or not, supporting Zloyvolsheb's position, nor has Zloyvolsheb (or anyone else) provided any. Msalt (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Msalt, you are misrepresenting my position. I did not say that Sanders' remarks were uncontroversial. I am saying there is no evidence they actually impacted the outcome of the primary. Of course Sanders' opponents seized on those remarks to stir up controversy for political points, even though in substance they were the same as Obama's (education good, authoritarianism bad). Since Sanders is considered radical by the Democratic elite and the Republicans, much of what he says can be labelled controversial. We can make the same argument about virtually any politician in some cases. So, if there is no evidence that this impacted the outcome of the race (Sanders was projected to lose Florida anyway, he actually overperformed according to some polls), why does this deserve a special mention, as opposed to so many other things Sanders has said? Do you think we would need more context to avoid implying Sanders expressed an extreme position, when Obama had mended relations with Castro and expressed the same view before him? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, Sanders' remarks on Cuba were reported in the last week of February. According to multiple polls compiled by RealClearPolitics [6], Sanders' poll numbers in Florida improved in the first week of March and in the second week had DOUBLED in comparison to his numbers in January and February. I know this is a gross oversimplification editors cannot make, but if we were to make big assumptions about Sanders' comments as the special ingredient in the Florida primary, wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that Sanders' so-called controversial comments about Cuba actually improved his support among Democrats in Florida?

Now, to emphasize it again, this is only one possible interpretation of the polling swing in Sanders' favor; it seems obvious that there were multiple factors at play, for example, multiple candidates dropping out. We would need a reliable source to assert that Sanders' comments on Cuba's literacy program helped him with Florida Democrats. So I am not arguing that Sanders' comments on Castro's literacy program in fact led to the outcome being what it was. But this change in the numbers in Sanders' favor after the Cuba comments from single to double digits (he gained almost a third of Florida's delegates but still lost to Biden) clearly contradicts the notion that Sanders' answer to Anderson Cooper was "a significant turning point in the race" as you wrote previously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb is now setting a standard that has nothing to do with how we evaluate content on Wikipedia. It is not our job to assess "real-world impact" of information. We are editors looking for attention in reliable sources; that's where the impact analysis begins and ends. The rest of this long rambling post does nothing to refute the policies clearly requiring inclusion. Muboshgu is applying an equally hollow standard of "unbiographical," selectively and only to criticism. All of the relevant policies, WP:NPOV, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:DUE, require us to include material on a subject's views or statements if they receive sufficient coverage. The moment this received nationwide coverage and became the subject of an entire article in the NYTimes, all of those criteria were met. This is a ridiculous attempt to whitewash the article of a prominent criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

My comment was addressed to Msalt's statement that Sanders' comments were "a significant turning point" in the race, which was the rationale originally claimed for including this. Are you shifting the goalposts to "it was covered in the mainstream news"? That was already addressed by Muboshgu; we are not covering just anything that was reported in the news per WP:NOTNEWS. Also see WP:BALASP for information on balance. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Neither you nor Mugo have accurately stated what that policy means, because WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine coverage like those of sports or local crimes or original reporting, i.e. reporting that hasn't been published in a reliable outlet. It is a policy that states that Wikipedia is not to act as a news source. WP:DUE and WP:NPOV require that once a story has been addressed in mainstream reliable sources, which this has clearly, it is to be included. We are not here to debate the impact of the criticism. Msalt correctly noted that the controversy was significant and treated that way in reliable sources. You have referenced none of the relevant policies here and are attempting to exclude criticism of the candidate based on specious arguments w/o reference to relevant policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Here, at the Joe Biden page, Zloyvolsheb argues for including the sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade on the basis that they have been covered in reliable sources. There, he states Support Inclusion per sufficient evidence of mainstream coverage. I see that the story is now not just covered by The Intercept, The Hill, and others like Newsweek, National Review, Fox News, and The Guardian. It made it into the World Edition of The Times. That actually happens to be one of the English-speaking world's newspapers of record. In this case WP:BLP instructs: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That said, I would prefer to keep the description short and simple, as generally reported. Here, given the same set of a facts, but a different politician—a notable controversy (over remarks rather than allegations) covered in reliable sources (The New York Times, a full article)—Zloyvosheb suddenly forgets all of the relevant policies and makes specious arguments for removal. The same standard applies here, at Joe Biden, or any other page, and the criteria for inclusion is fully and obviously met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You should stick to one discussion instead of bringing in my comments in different contexts. I explained my position there quite well, stating that the Reade's allegation about Biden and Biden's response can be explained in 1-2 sentences and such inclusion would not create an issue of WP:BALANCE. I also stated I supported removing a separate minor controversy about Biden because it could not be briefly described, and a lengthy description would disrupt WP:BALANCE (Last paragraph of this diff.) You need to stop personalizing disagreements and focus on the content, not the contributor. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

If a statement or view received a substantial degree of attention, coverage, and criticism, it is not your role to subjectively characterize it as "minor" or complain that noting the controversy with a 2-sentence explanation in the article creates a WP:BALANCE issue. You are selectively arguing for removal of criticisms, misstatements, or gaffes from this article and applying standards totally inconsistent with the arguments you've made at other pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course Sanders' opponents seized on those remarks to stir up controversy for political points, even though in substance they were the same as Obama's Your comparison is factually wrong. The remarks were criticized by people who were offended by the sentiment, not just "Sanders' opponents." What you claim is your POV and directly disproven by the NYT article (are they enemies of Sanders, too?). I have addressed your arguments, and you are continuing to inappropriately push a POV here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I am going to once again ask you to tone it down. Next time you attack me for "pushing POV" when the majority of editors here are opposed to what you propose I will report you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Early Life

Sander's Mother's parents came from both Poland and Russia. Someone change this. There are links for this. Guardian10 (talk) 09:57, 09 April 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary; let's avoid confusion. The current content doesn't mention background only takes into consideration "modern-day borders" concept. The rest is clutter. Oliszydlowski (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the point of this line? Seems completely unnecessary and unencyclopedic.

A lot of renowned musicians uttered sad and thankful comments about the end of his presidential campaign.[284]

63.69.65.83 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree and just deleted it per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)