Talk:Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign/Archive 1

Archive 1

When to make this more than a redirect

Bernie has not officially announced that he is running for President, which is usually the default line of demarcation for creating these articles as separate pages. At the same time, Sanders has said that he probably will and there has been significant media coverage over the prospect of his run and/or his campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I would be open to the creation of a stand-alone article even if he has not "officially" announced. Juno (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Useful link

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6839305/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-2016 Good access to Bernie Sanders on his presidential run, motivations and such. Edit semi-protected (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Date of official announcement?

This article says that he officially announced on April 30. Today's news says that he officially announced today (May 27).

Which is it?

Or both, or neither?

?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? ---Dagme (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of complicated... He announced that we was running on April 30 informally at a press conference with the formal announcement coming yesterday. I've edited the lead and infobox in an attempt to fix that. PrairieKid (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Political positions

Should a thread of his political positions be started? On a May 19 CNN broadcast with Wolf Bliter, Sanders unveiled a plan to eliminate college tuition by taxing Wall Street speculation. There is also his main talking point about wealth (or income) inequality...among many other issues. . Buster Seven Talk 13:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Information suppression

Facts about campaign fundraising and political support are relevant to a candidate's probability of success in the Democratic primary. An earlier edit made on 05/10/15 cited (and then also quoted) the Huffington Post, stating that the campaign received support from a "a crew of former aides to President Barack Obama". It was further indicated that the financial support of Bernie Sanders was a "dramatic indication that he won’t be confined simply to a long-shot role in the Democratic primary". Both of these details were suppressed under the assumption that it violated the neutral point of view guidelines.

Wikipedia has defined NPOV as an act of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In my estimation, the Huffington Post is a reliable source with a significant and unbiased perspective: i.e. that Sanders' extreme grassroots support and political affiliation with members from the team that brought Barack Obama into office mark him as a serious contender for the Democratic primary. This is a reasonable view and should be voiced against those who are attempting to marginalize his relevance.

There is nothing in NPOV that argues the content should be value free or devoid of inferences. Please keep that in mind when editing political articles. --Aliensyntax (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

He's a Democrat?

The info box currently has his affiliation with the Democratic Party. Is that right? I mean did he formally join the party? I believe a candidate can run for an office for the Democrats without changing his Independent status. Did somebody jump the gun? __209.179.16.138 (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doubtful that he is a dues-paying, card-carrying member of the party. Wer902 (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

He has confirmed (as the sources in the article say) that he is running for the Democratic nomination. PrairieKid (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wer902, the Democratic Party does not charge membership dues (though its various constituent organizations ask for donations) nor does it issue official membership cards (though if you donate money, you will get all kinds of certificates and photos and thank you letters and maybe even a pocket card for some campaign). Candidates can run in partisan races as "Democrat" or "independent", or some other party. Bernie Sanders has run without a party line since he was elected mayor of Burlington, and deserves acknowledgement for that. Now he is running in Democratic Party primaries, so now he is a Democrat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, just so we're clear: If someone were to ask him if he is no longer an Independent and is now a member of the Democratic Party, he would reply, "Yes I am." Is that correct? If so, shouldn't this be corrected on his biography page? __209.179.16.138 (talk) 03:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is still an independent but is running as a Democratic candidate. He is not and will not be a member of the Democratic Party. 123.2.85.195 (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

He was elected as an independent. Being a "Democrat" is no more than changing your registration. Hard to believe he could get on the ballot without at least that. How does this work anyway? User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The State of Vermont has no party registration. JaskaPDX (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Twitter endorsements?

Should we allow for posts on Twitter to count as a reliable source for an endorsement? I notice that many of the endorsements on this page are cited by tweets, which seems to me to be an unofficial and non-reliable source for information.--TM 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should. There's a difference between an endorsement and a shout out.- MrX 11:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Twitter, I think we need to judge it on a case-by-case basis. Is is a verified account? Does the tweet specifically say "I endorse Bernie Sanders for President" or something similar? Is that person notable enough to warrant inclusion? If all of those are yeses, let's put it in. PrairieKid (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that if an endorsement is notable enough to be mentioned in the article, it will appear in more reliable sources such as the campaign website. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with PrarieKid that a verified account would suffice. Beware of Clinton trolls trying to use unsubstantiated sources. I've been fighting them over two articles they've been using (The Hill and CNN) as a basis for Sec. Clinton's Congressional endorsements. These two articles, which are used as citations for the lion's share of those endorsements, are not sourced themselves. For example, every female Democratic Senator signed a letter encouraging Clinton to run. This is not a formal endorsement by any means. Elizabeth Warren signed that same letter and they conveniently left Warren's name off that list of endorsements for the obvious reason it would send up a red flag right away considering Warren's apparatus has thrown their support behind Bernie Sanders. FYI, keep an eye out on the Endorsements for the Democratic nomination page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016). This is where they are trying to use those weak sources. I've had to go in there a half a dozen times and undo those entries. JaskaPDX (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

I removed Roseanne Barr from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements because she is listed at United States presidential election, 2016#Declared_3 as running for president herself. (By the same token, I have also removed Dan Bilzerian as an endorsement for Rand Paul because Bilzerian is also listed as running for president.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Too much thinking. It is up to them who they endorse, even if they are "running." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree... If someone is running for President, they can not endorse another candidate. PrairieKid (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No law, no rule, no custom. No source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun control

On one of the weekend shows, Bernie Sanders was asked about gun control. He handled it quite well, said he knew the difference between a gang-banger in Chicago and a hunter in Vermont. Said suing a gun company over a killing made no more sense than suing a hammer manufacturer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Occupy Movement endorsement

Howdy... A few editors have added the Occupy Wall Street movement as an endorser of Sanders. I think that's wrong. The movement has no central organization to endorse any one. The article cited says that supporters of the movement are more likely to be supporter's of Sanders but I don't think we can say an entire movement endorses one candidate. That would be like listing "African-Americans" as a supporter of Barack Obama since he won 95% of their vote. Barring objection, I will continue to revert the addition of the movement. PrairieKid (talk)

That is my understanding. And I was an active participant of the Occupy movement when it was actually occupying. ---Dagme (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

There is at least one "daughter" group, which, I suppose, could endorse him, but it would need to be identified. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the Occupy movement never endorsed any political candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8100:7FBB:494F:9978:46B1:8CA2 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Political positions

The guy has political positions and he is obviously a high profile candidate. Why doesn't this page have any of them, from foreign to domestic policy listed here? Buffaboy ^talk 23:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a capital idea. Find reliable third-party sources and write the section. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 05:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The political positions are listed at the main article. I added a section that will perhaps help send readers in the right direction to find them. Gandydancer (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That could work, I brought the idea up from observing the Clinton and Trump campaign articles. Buffaboy ^talk 11:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed at the main article and it was decided to just "wait and see" for now because the main article is getting a tremendous amount of traffic compared to this one. I would not care for a quick overview in this article because Sanders includes a lot of data to support his positions--which wouldn't make it into a short version. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Criterion for labels in Endorsements

What's the established protocol for "individual people"? Many of them are "celebrities" in as much as their stated profession is "comedian" for example. There is little to no consistency in how and where folks are listed in general. JesseRafe (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on endorsement formatting

The formatting of Bernie Sanders' endorsements appears almost deliberately hidden. There may be a reason, but should not these endorsements follow other much more typical Wikipedia formatting? What could possibly be the reason for listing Bernie Sanders' endorsements in formatting different from all the other candidates?!

(1) The endorsements are zipped up in a hidden box accessible on via an innocuous "show" link to the right. (2) Other lists in Wikipedia *rarely* use such "hidden" boxes. (3) That hidden box is listed directly *after* a circular reference that points users to *another* list of endorsements for other candidates, a circular reference ultimately pointing straight back to this page...while listing *none* of Sanders' endorsements along side the endorsements of his competitors on that other page. (4) The hidden box is buried underneath the circular reference. KyleSager (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Senator Sanders's endorsements are listed exactly as other candidates are. Stop believing in chemtrails and discussing whether or not jet fuel can get hot enough to melt steel girders -- not everything is a conspiracy. Incidentally, all of your points 1-3 are invalid and 4 is not a separate point (but is invalid nonetheless). JesseRafe (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JesseRafe, this is a ridiculious and poorly though out way to discredit the work that's been put into this article. The endorsement section is no different in and major applications than those of other politicians articles on Wikipedia. It looks like the user is just a rabble rouser. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's possible to dismiss the objection (which I do) without demeaning the editor who made it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky endorsement?

If Chomsky calls Sanders' campaign "good for the democratic party" [1] and even sent an email stating his endorsement for Sanders [2]. Should we add Chomsky? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's an observation of what Noam Chomsky thinks of the Democratic Party than an actual endorsement of Bernie Sanders. For example, I am belong to a political party, but I believe that certain presidential candidates would be good for the future of the opposition party. I wouldn't vote for those candidates under any circumstance however so I think that by itself is not an endorsement.mpen320 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2015 Central Time (US)

Random question

Daniel Craig is a Bernie supporter to the tune of $50,000. Can we add him? http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/james-bond-gives-50000-bernie-sanders Stellabystarlight (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you made the formatting changes you did, but this doesn't go in the section you put it in. JesseRafe (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like "no". He did not donate to his campaign but to some guy. He might support Sanders, but the article is predominantly about the fact that this Super-PAC is of dubious authenticity and may not be tied to Sanders at all. Especially given his views on PACs and campaign finance reform.

Drat. Stellabystarlight (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Early Childhood section

A citation needed tag was initiated about the report that is mentioned. The stats are the same as a release that Sanders made in Feb of 2011. I'm not sure where but I remember somewhere reading in his literature that they came from an OECD report. I'm confident that the figures come from OECD, but not so confident that the figures are recent (as our article states) if Sanders enumerated them in early 2011. . Buster Seven Talk 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent minor edit war

User:Whiteboyrobot. We are collaborators here. Saying, "If you don't like it, too bad" is not a good beginning. As for this edit, "Demonstrating his pride in relying on small individual donations,..." is your interpretation of the campaign literature's message. I think that may be why it was removed. Stating "...most Bernie Sanders campaign web pages and emails read at the bottom "Paid for by Bernie 2016(not the billionaires)" might be except-able. If phrased a little differently. But, rather than re-inserting things, and creating an edit war, you should bring your difference to the article talk page. . Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not in any sense constructive to target someone and mindlessly revert every single thing they edit. Period.

Collaborator is not just a word that can be used for anyone using this web page. There is nothing collaborative about petty and discourteous behaviors to others online. There is nothing collaborative about erasing factual information when previously, it was lacking. How does reversing an improvement help? Collaborators should actually be collaborative.

My interpretation? Okay, without interpretations, you deprive readers of useful information, because a statement of fact should ideally contain a purpose, not just state the fact by itself and leave the reader potentially unaware of the connection to the larger topic. That makes for easy reading. Command of the English language and writing go a long way. Not that any of that matters, since I am just being targeted by users who want to revert useful additions of information, with no apparent purpose for reverting. Alright.

I will re-insert things as I see fit if I see myself continually targeted by such individuals who, contrary to logic and common sense, feel threatened by information pertinent to the topic. If anyone has created an edit war, it is not me, it is the individuals intent on acting recklessly and discourteously to others, AND, rather than bringing differences to the article talk page, what would be most constructive(and that IS what matters) is if individuals just didn't screw around and left valuable information alone when coming across it.

I will defend my contributions, through very simply and slowly broken-down explanations for those who need that, and through actions. I will break things down very carefully, clearly, and slowly because I know how easily agitated the Wikipedia keyboard warriors can get when they don't control everything or if you disagree with them, and I will edit to maintain and defend the integrity of information. Au revoir. Whiteboyrobot (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page seems to be settling information before a consensus is built around a contribution and its form is finalized. That doesn't mean that I should be checking with the talk page every time before I make a contribution of information that improves a section. I would be the first user who always asks permission to make an edit. With information, there is sometimes a dispute pertaining to the truth and the reality of where a situation stands, but when facts are already settled, facts are stubborn things. Pragmatically, in that case just go ahead and make the edit. Whiteboyrobot (talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I moved Fundraising up to the top of the article. Do you think that helped? It seems much better to me. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Whiteboyrobot, you seem to have missed the point. We are collaborators here. When Buster7 said that they did not mean on this particular Bernie Sanders campaign article, but on Wikipedia as a whole. This place is not a forum for you to wax on about online courtesy as you define it. In fact, it is its own community with its own policies, and existed quite well before you started editing (under this name at least) last month and thought you could dictate terms of your edits to others. Please read up on Wikipedia's actual policies (not your personal ones) and contribute or/and collaborate with everyone else. JesseRafe (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gandydancer. That is collaborative, you found an actual solution and found a way to make the article look nicer. I do, however, believe that a consensus does not exist. Back-and-forth discussion-->Consensus. The form taken by his campaign emails and web pages is, from where I stand, relevant because of the consistent use of a message and theme, and it seems to have been never done before. Is it really a minor detail? Additionally, it seems very relevant to me that he lived in Israel, because this will give him a perspective re: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that no other candidate has, as a resident of that country, those territories, and that single war zone. I am taking into account the experience that comes with, one that he stands out for, and no other candidate has. His past residence in Israel is also noteworthy this year because of his interview with Diane Rehm, when he was falsely accused of Israeli citizenship. I expect it to come up again on the campaign trail. His position on the specific ideology of Zionism(the founding ideology of Israel), that he supports Israel's right to exist, also seems to me to be when it pertains to a stance on the issue. I think you can't talk Israel without talking Zionism. Discuss... What is your response to this?Whiteboyrobot (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

JesseRafe: Ditto! You can also go ahead and work on not talking to users like children. What do the guidelines say about personal attacks? Get a grip, your opinion of me means nothing to me. Happy editing! Whiteboyrobot (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer, I'm also not saying put something in my exact phraseology. If you see it fit, or a consensus otherwise emerges that the information should be added, exact wording doesn't make as much of a difference as communicating the idea or thought. Whiteboyrobot (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Whiteboyrobot, Wikipedia is not a forum, see WP:FORUM. Also, please refrain from personal attacks on other editors. Especially those like the long and quite delusional rant on your user page which you sadly deleted. You also made it more than a little obvious you are a resurfaced and very likely banned user and as such this account will likely be banned again in due order once your puppetmaster has been identified. Stick to the issues, please. JesseRafe (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

exact wording doesn't make as much of a difference as communicating the idea or thought. On the contrary. Exact wording is necessary to convey the idea or thought without any tag-along baggage. "Demonstrating his pride" was tag-along baggage of one editors interpretation. . Buster Seven Talk 08:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

collapsing out of scope discussion

JesseRafe, I am getting pretty sick of you. You need to leave me alone. Please refrain from wasting my time and keep your distance from my talk page. Look who's talking about delusional. I'm allowed to delete what ever I wish from my own talk page. Don't like it? Too bad. There's nothing delusional about the truth, it's too bad you can't get that through your head. It's too bad you can't handle it. I'm sure you've had a privileged experience throughout life, sheltered from reality, but most people don't just take what ever garbage you want to dish out at them. Don't dish out what you can't handle. I'm getting pretty sick of your crap and I'm not going to take it. You also made it more than a little obvious that you are absolutely clueless and frankly, more than a little pathetic because of your quickness to drop non-facts and your stalker-ish and creepy obsession with me. I have never been banned, have you? Obviously so. Maybe you're due again. My account will never be banned. Bite me. Some of us follow the rules. You obviously don't know what a "puppetmaster" is and I'm surprised someone of your miniscule intellectual fortitude can even spell that word. YOUR account will likely be banned in due order because you do not learn to stop harassing other users. I will not be censored. I'm not one to let myself be bullied, not going to happen. I am not intimidated, I have never let myself be, and I'm not going to start letting anyone try. While you relying on me for your existence is very flattering, it's also getting very creepy. Please learn to live without me and follow the rules just like every other user has to. If you have a problem and you want to fight in person, that can be arranged and that's another matter, a completely non-Wikipedia matter, but do not damage the integrity of a whole encyclopedic institution and incite just for your petty rivalries with other users. Since you like to cite them and that hasn't gotten you anywhere, maybe you could try learning and following the rules for a change. Grow up and follow the rules. Stick to not harassing me, please.

"Exact wording is necessary to convey the idea' So is being able to read... I was giving a suggestion for how you might edit to convey the idea in the first place. I also think tag-along baggage is a term you have just made up, so I'm not going to try to interpret it. I can't understand if you had a point. The point is that when reading an article, or when editing or writing one, the factors of clarity, context, and readability matter to conveying the correct idea correctly to the average person. That is why I am here. Bernie Sanders clearly relied on small donations over the course of his entire career and he isn't a multi-millionaire or a favorite of big money interests, but in fact one of the poorest members in Congress by net worth. Correctly portraying someone's character matters, and in this case that is done by showing that Bernie Sanders isn't someone particularly concerned with or endeared by money. I thought that was common knowledge.Whiteboyrobot (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Note

For what it's worth, there's a strong likelihood User:65.189.198.128 is the now-blocked WBR. Not worth my time and the backlash from this user for me to instigate an SPI on it. Just a note for any current or future-ly interested parties. JesseRafe (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

128 celebrity endorsements

I saw in an edit summary that Jeremy Piven was just added. I looked and saw quite a few others from this list of 128 celebrity endorsements. Are they all included now? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No. I need backup on this. I'm gonna add Hans Zimmer under the ref name "Bernie endorsements". Just add the names with that ref name. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That link should work for them all. I didn't want to get in your way. The 128 are...

Not a bad list. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I too gladly added my endorsement on his website. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly our names aren't worth as much as those on that list. I've tried to identify as many as I can, but there might still be a dab page or two in that bunch. I have to go out in a few minutes so I won't be able to add to the page until later. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm

My edit to this article which added the controversial Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm to the see-also section has been removed with this perplexing edit summary: Removing link to Diane Rehm § Controversies (via Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm) (even though the content of the interview could belong in this article). I will leave it to the editors controlling the contents of this article to decide if/how to add it to this page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: We all control this page—sorry to have come across as WP:OWNing it myself. The two reasons I removed the link were that the article didn’t exist when its link was removed;^[3] and the link was placed without context in § see also, where the only other link was to U.S. presidential election, 2016.^[4] —LLarson (said & done) 03:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy response, and for pinging me, LLarson  . Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm is a redirect, not an article, created on 22 September 2015 -- not clear to me why you say it did not exist when you removed it from the see-also section. As far as no context in see-also: I have placed it there hoping another editor with time on their hands would find a better location for this information, and if not, at least readers who have the patience to scroll to the bottom of this long page may benefit from access to information. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I meant that no article existed at “Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm”, which also didn’t redirect. Here’s what it looked like that day (and how it looks as of this message, too). Content-wise, I didn’t think what the radio host said was important enough to belong in this article, but I’m often wrong. Maybe find a reliable third-party source and be bold? —LLarson (said & done) 18:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@LLarson: I went ahead and followed your advice to be bold. I reverted your removal of the redirect link from the See also section. It was not necessary to find reliable third-party sources since the redirect already points to a page that contains eight such references for this material.

As far as the redirect not automatically redirecting and requiring readers to manually click the link, unfortunately this is our of my hands since the redirect has been nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

New template for the campaign Infobox?

The Infoboxes^[5] on the campaign page and the endorsements page need to remain in sync. I propose a new template that includes only that Infobox content, which we could transclude to this page as well as to the endorsements page. Thoughts? —LLarson (said & done) 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done,  done, and  done. —LLarson (said & done) 04:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

can't change the infobox

Why i can't change the infobox?Ghostmen2 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It uses a template and sidebar that are separate pages. SirLagsalott (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa [And Other States Primary and] Caucus Results?

Ought this page include something about how he's fared in the various state caucus and primaries? Considering that a big talking point against Bernie by some is "he's un-electable" it's worth noting that he essentially tied Hillary in the Iowa Caucuses and in more than 6 precincts across the state literally tied her in number of caucus goers forcing coin flips to determine who won the extra (or only) delegate. If someone knows how to make charts or something we could also list results in that way? Just an idea. RedDarling (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Hillary Clinton's Canadian Speeches

Did Hillary earn hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches in Canada? Why? Two Canadian Banks tightly connected to the TransCanada (XL Pipeline)heavily funded those speeches. So, my question is why was she so quiet on being pro or con the pipeline until it may have seemed politically correct for her to take a stand? Is she eventually going to support it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html

@Sherry Hartwig: and my question is: what has this got to do with Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That is about H. Clinton not Sanders. Whether or not the invitations had anything to do with the pipeline is pure speculation. TFD (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Protecting Page

Seems like a topic that might want to be semi protected to prevent people from putting false information. TempTTC (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Such as? And why didn't you leave an edit summary when reverting the videos? (diff) czar 04:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any videos in the page change. I reverted the page change because there was something wrong with the page infobox with that revision. TempTTC (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Bernie Bros" Article?

Hey folks. Should we make an article about the "Bernie Bros" concept promoted primarily by Clinton supporters (and the Clinton campaign itself)? There's plenty to work with about it, between the Intercept's rejection of the concept ([6]) to Clinton backer Paul Krugman's usage of the term. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It was my understanding that this entire concept is propoganda. Clinton did the same thing in 2008 with the "Obama boys". It has nothing to do with Bernie's actual campaign. VisaBlack (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I would nominate a "Bernie Bros" article for deletion if one is created. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is now this: Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Feel the Bern

Hey, the Feel the Bern slogan isn't mentioned at all in the article. I think it's relevant. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I will add something - see what you think... Gandydancer (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Opps...it's already in the info box. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The slogan is in the infobox as an image, although I think a little background to the slogan would be a little helpful, since myself don't know where it came from. (N0n3up (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Nor do I...though I have wondered... I wonder... Anyone? Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder as well. I do think it should be listed as a slogan as it is relatively common, so seeing no objection above I'll add it in. Buffaboy ^talk 00:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It should certainly be discussed on the page, there must be sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is no slogan section yet, just a list on the infobox. A small section sourcing and discussing the slogans in that list seems sensible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

African-American Support

Should we add a subsection about his African-American support? HRC's campaign article has one.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• The media has definitely stresses Bernie's "race problem," but I don't feel it really need a section to disseminate the demographics not/supporting his bid. I'm sure that can be done generally in the campaign article, or in another section about his supporters, etc. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 01:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Images

(diff) I put a fair amount of time into finding images most illustrative of the appropriate sections and I think the first one below is better than the one with which it was replaced.

• 
  Sanders in Littleton, New Hampshire, August 2015
• 
  instead of Sanders in Minneapolis facing the first large crowd of his campaign, May 31, 2015

We already have close-ups above this one and on Sanders's own article—there are crisper or more expressive portraits to use (if we need one) but nevertheless, this section should be about how the campaign looks. I would also think that a photo of the Seattle Black Lives Matter activists is historically consequential to include (even if it isn't this exact one). The point is to have photos for when the section expand (there is enough content—it just hasn't been added yet). Check the Commons category for plenty of others—I added a bunch of videos too and can make animations as necessary.  czar 16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Internet Memes

Is this section really relevant in the broader scope of Bernie's campaign and does it deserve a paragraph on this page? You might as well list all the cups and T-shirt's he is selling as well if that is the case. Who is for and against it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Super PACs

Sanders repeatedly says that he does not have any Super PACs. However, there are several that have spent millions supporting his candidacy, and ones that are even mentioned in sources on this page. Trump similarly said that he doesn't have any PACs, and when several cropped up he disavowed them, but there's still a section about it on his page. Shouldn't we mention that Sanders has several he has not yet disavowed as well? SirLagsalott (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with America (advertisement)

Doesn't feel like there's enough there for it to have its own article pbp 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I actually think that there is enough distinct information in America (advertisement) that it would be better to keep it there rather than "stuff it" in this page, as one might say. CarnivorousBunny^talk 21:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I created the article on the ad, but discussion of ad is still in today's news, yesterday's news... Here:[7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Admittedly, it's not viral like Adele's Hello, but 3,000,000 Youtube views is pretty viral for three 74-year-olds like Simon, Garfunkel, and Bernie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Can somebody close this?, and remove template from America (advertisement). Unless, of course, somebody wants to weigh in for merging. Thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• The advertisement's page is heavy POV and goes into more detail than the page for Morning in America, which was a much more influential advertisement. I don't think it requires its own page and it should be merged into the Advertisements section. SirLagsalott (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, should be merged. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@SirLagsalott and Tpdwkouaa: How is the article "heavy POV"? The present version of the article (diff) reads quite neutrally. There's not a shred of any biased point of view in it at this time, and its content is solidly backed with inline citations to reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In my mind the POV issue comes from the undue weight given to the advert by it simply having such a elaborate article of it's own. as SirLagsalott said, it goes into more detail than other articles with much more influential topics. It makes the advert seem more important than it honestly is, basically. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not Merge – The America (advertisement) article has been further expanded after this merge was suggested here. Better as a standalone article, as a merge would likely dilute the concept on this page via the consolidation and compression of information, and if merged in its full form, could provide WP:UNDUE weight on this page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Not Merge - It's an interesting article that would need to be chopped down to a small fraction of what it now is if it were to be merged into this one. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 Not doneE.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

/r/SandersForPresident

Much of the success of this campaign has not come from Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, but rather with a subreddit called /r/SandersForPresident. There have been a number of news articles on this group. Should an article for it be created? Buffaboy ^talk 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Font size in infobox

There's a few instances where the font size in the infobox drops below the required size as per WP:FONTSIZE. How would you like to reorganize this information? The small text tags need to go. Italics, maybe? ~ Rob^Talk 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues in SandersForPresident subreddit section

The subreddit subsection is littered with unverifiable claims. I have tagged many claims that I couldn't find in the sources, but I propose the whole section be deleted. If this is considered an important topic, the section should be written from scratch. Politrukki (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I fixed some citations in this subsection. Is that good enough? Pateca (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

BirdieSanders

• http://observer.com/2016/03/birdie-sanders-and-why-bernie-owns-the-internet/
• http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/25/bernie-sanders-rally-bird-portland-oregon-portlandia
• http://www.cnet.com/news/bernie-sanders-bird-encounter-leads-to-new-birdie-sanders-memes/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/bernie-sanders-bird-drawing-together/
• https://www.rt.com/usa/337313-birdiesanders-crowd-goes-wild/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12204823/Birdie-Sanders-Little-bird-steals-the-show-at-Democrats-rally-in-Portland.html
• http://time.com/4272885/bernie-sanders-bird-podium/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510881/Birdie-Sanders-takes-flight-Bernie-wins-Alaska-caucus-looks-set-claim-Washington-Hillary-needed-campaign-*boost.html

Campaign released video of event:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhezYYiTUm0

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru (talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 March 2016‎

This is seriously being discussed on this article? Nelson Richards (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to put this on an article talk page. FixCop (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

I was wondering if this page could be semi-protected. IP ranges tend to vandalize here. Maybe just in case? FixCop (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If by "this page" you mean the article, there has been a grand total of one IP edit to the article in the last month. If you mean this talk page, there have been no IP edits in the last month. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I meant the article. Thank you. FixCop (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

This Article Has Immensely Positive Bernie Sanders Bias

No talk about any gaffes from his campaign including recent ones like Bernie's New York Daily News interview. Almost everything in this article is positive about Senator Sanders. Compare it with articles for other candidates' campaigns (i.e. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz) and you'll see much more objective articles - articles telling both sides of the story, if you know what I mean.

Look guys, I know what you're trying to do here but this is Wikipedia and articles are supposed to be presented in an objective, unbiased manner. This article looks like it came straight from Bernie Sanders' campaign. Nelson Richards (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, as a major editor for this article I'll just skip your suggestion that the editors here are more interested in a biased article that promotes Sanders than an objective article that "tells both sides of the story", but frankly it is hard to avoid feeling a bit angry at that. Anyway, please make a list of the "gaffs" that you feel are missing and the editors here can discuss them. As for the NY interview, info could be presented that covered both sides of the suggestion that Sanders showed a lack of knowledge re the subject. Gandydancer (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why the tone? You also say "but frankly it is hard to avoid feeling a bit angry at that"which makes it sound like a conflict of interest. Nelson Richards (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not a conflict of interest. If there is content you'd like to add, please make a suggestion with supporting sources. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

• As User talk:Nelson Richards says, that New YOrk Dail News interview [8], should be discussed in the article, perhaps in the context of a section on Sanders unfamiliarity with policy and the working of government, that is, his inexperience at passing workable legislation and implementing policies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, what the article glaringly lacks is serious discussion of the idea that Sanders has been a notable voice, but a lone voice, interested in ideological purity, but never an effective legislator who formed coalitions, worked with other politicians and constituencies, or put together effective laws and programs. These criticisms may or may not be accurate, but they are notable and belong in the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Re "inexperience at passing workable legislation and implementing policies" and "never an effective legislator who formed coalitions, worked with other politicians and constituencies, or put together effective laws and programs", where are you getting this information from? Some of the sources you are using might be helpful. Also, a Criticism section? Do the other political articles have criticism sections? I do not see one at the Clinton article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Point taken, such material belongs in Sander article, not campaign article. If added here, it should be in the context of dearth endorsements by members of Congress.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Im not sure if there is any bias in this article. If you place any changes, please back up with sources and proof. FixCop (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Link to article on Bernie Bro

A link to Bernie Bros, which I thought that I had edited in a NPOV manner, was deleted. I think a short mention belongs on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I have edited it for neutrality.Wukai (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

leaked DNC emails conspiracy theory

You can't put that in based on a bunch of opinion pieces in tabloids or clearly non-reliable sources like RT. The fact that *only* low quality, junk sources are talking about it is a huge red flag that this is not encyclopedic. If reliable mainstream sources pick it up - which they won't because if you actually read the damn emails there's nothing in'em, this is just a bunch of click bait - you can put it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Another red flag: Sanders himself, or anyone associated with him, is actually saying this or backing this up in any way. It's just a bunch of trashy webpages + the Russian government propaganda channel.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign. The New York Times, July 22, 2016; Emails released by Wikileaks raise questions of DNC's impartiality. CNN, July 22, 2016.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes these are better sources. But please don't misrepresent them. "Derided the Sanders Campaign" is a long way off from "colluded with the Clinton campaign". That's pretty POV and a bit dishonest.

(and that one email about his religious beliefs - it looks like it was just an offhand remark about ... nothing. Nobody every actually questioned Sanders about his religious beliefs). So please, no OR and observe DUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath / Legacy

I think an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section should be created noting some of Sanders' continuing goals as well as the creation of "Our Revolution" and the "Sanders Institute." I hope that's a reasonable suggestion. Dustin (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD results

Dane2007 recently closed an AfD on Bernie or Bust, with the result of merging with this article. Putting this here to solicit any thoughts on how the merger should proceed. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

policy & race, racial support - American Indians

something needs to be included on Sander's positions and support in Native communities. Sanders gave unheard of support and inclusion towards native peoples. but as usual, "natives are forgot by americans thinking they are extinct or don't count" this is no small part of the notable points of his campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D6C1:3000:C11:7A1:C480:46B6 (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)