Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 17

Analysis subsection for Presidential Campaign section?
User:HopsonRoad reverted this edit of mine which added Chomsky's analysis of the Sanders campaign to the article, which I felt was notable. This editor said in the edit summary that such content would only be appropriate in an analysis sub-section. I tend to agree. There have been a lot of postmortems on this bizarre election, and such analysis is largely absent not only from this article but in others pertaining to the election. Should such a sub-section be built? Should I restore what I added in this new section with other analysis to follow?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad this came up. Shortly after the close of his campaign I was thinking that we needed this information in the article but as time went on I guess I forgot about it.  It's a good idea IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thank C.J. Griffin for bringing this idea here. I support the idea, but would recommend drafting a balanced section that includes the proposed text along with analyses from other sources in a sandbox environment, before introducing it here. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 16:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

O_o
O_0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.36.231 (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

CBS News: "Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation for bank fraud, hire lawyers"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

71.182.242.160 (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This was also reported here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's in the article. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I shortened the section. Sanders is not under investigation and the gory details of his wife's involvement belong in her article or the one for the college.  TFD (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-shortened and moved it; the in-depth sources here that the brief CBS piece is based on do not state that Bernie Sanders is under FBI investigation, and the Washington Post specifically, explicitly states that Sanders is not under FBI investigation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017
At the end of the "Personal Life" section, regarding the Burlington College bank fraud investigation, the article claims, "Sanders himself is not under FBI investigation". In fact Sanders is under investigation regarding the case, as reported recently by Townhall, Fox News, and CNN.

The erroneous sentence should be removed. Mherzl (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look more closely at the refs you offer. Also read the WP policy re the standards for making statements in people's biographical articles.  See above postings as well.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. However, I can see this coming up again and again, so I propose we restore attribution to the Washington Post report. It could read something like this: "The Washington Post reported on June 25th that Sanders himself is not under FBI investigation".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wondering about that too. In this case it seems a good idea.  Why don't you go ahead and make that change.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Done.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

274.
Reference 274. has a "Cite Error." Can anyone fix this? - Sleyece 02:31:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who fixed that reference, but thank you. - Sleyece 03:00:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Political positions paragraph
I would like to remove the following:

In an April 7, 2017 statement, Sanders expressed disapproval of Trump's ordered airstrike on Syria from the previous day: "If there's anything we should've learned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in which the lives of thousands of brave American men and women and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have been lost and trillions of dollars spent, it's that it's easier to get into a war than out of one."[253]

IMO it just does not rise to the level of importance for his bio. And if it does, where does it end? For example, he has also put out a statement calling Trump's travel ban racist which could be argued to be of at least equal importance. So to include one but not the other seems to be making a WP judgement that one is more important than the other.

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Gandydancer, my thoughts are at a larger scale. A Wikipedia article should be a coalescence of specifics in a manner that summarizes them. Having a series of entries that start with a date does not achieve this. So, I don't like how these entries are made. Of greater importance is that this section should be a summary of the main article, Political positions of Bernie Sanders. Specific items should start there and be summarized in less detail here. Nothing should be entered in this section that isn't a distillation of the main article. So, I would suggest the following steps:
 * Check to assure that everything in this section is a distillation of things that appear in Political positions of Bernie Sanders.
 * Move across anything that is here and not there, rewritten in a summarized fashion.
 * Re-summarize the contents of Political positions of Bernie Sanders into this section.
 * Thanks for drawing attention to this! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Critics of Islamophobia and removal of this category by User: Cpt.a.haddock
This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles.

There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization.

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: Vinay Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Mention of endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn sufficiently notable?
Tanbircdq made a good-faith contribution, regarding "Endorsement of Jeremy Corbyn", which I moved to Political positions of Bernie Sanders because I felt that it was not a general enough topic to remain here in Bernie Sanders. Tanbircdq restored a synopsis as Bernie Sanders, suggesting that it is sufficiently notable. While I don't feel that this topic is on the same level as the other headings (Trade, Social benefits, Climate change, Financial reform, Health care, Social issues, War and peace, Democratic Party, Critiques of the Trump Administration), I would support a heading of "Political endorsements", if it contained multiple examples of such. Otherwise, endorsement of a single foreign politician does not appear to belong here and should be covered in Political positions of Bernie Sanders. What do others suggest? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sanders in fact did not endorse Corbyn and even said it would be wrong for him to do so. None of the sources used say he endorsed Corbyn, but say Corbyn claimed to have Sanders' backing as well as mentioning positive things Sanders said.  The distinction is important.  The section should be removed or re-written.  TFD (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have moved material into the "Democratic Party" section and rewritten it to express parallels and praise, but not endorsement. User:HopsonRoad 20:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sanders' stance on gay marriage
I believe that this newly added information to the social issues section is not helpful in Sanders' bio:

(Long standing wording:) Sanders has liberal stances on social issues, having advocated for LGBT rights and against the Defense of Marriage Act. (Added:) '''However, at the time of his vote, Sanders described his opposition to DOMA as being on states' rights grounds rather than support for same-sex marriage. He also expressed opposition to Vermont's legalization of same-sex marriage in 2006, did not express support for the right until 2009, after Vermont had already legalized it.''' Reading the ref that was used, it is clear that he has long supported LGBT rights, including back in the 90s when it took a lot more courage to speak out -- It seems to me that only a simple statement is best here and I see no reason that we need give more detail. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think this is a serious issue and we should be giving more detail rather than a single sentence. By all means add his previous support for LGBT rights though to balance it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That is written in a biased way. States rights is code for racism.  While some of the sources say Sanders said the bill was unconstitutional (which is was), that is used against him.  Does anyone have any  sources for what Sanders actually said?  TFD (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the problem, we don't have any quotes from Sanders himself at the time, but we do have his wife and chief of staff saying that he was opposed to the bill for states' rights reasons. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Praise of Venezuela
Bernie Sanders believes the "American Dream" is alive and well in Marxist Venezuela:

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?" -Bernie Sanders, from his Sanders For Senate webpage, August 5, 2011


 * It's actually a article in the Valley News, which is mainstream daily newspaper in neighboring Vermont. If you read the article it defines the American dream as home ownership.  In other words, there is more home ownership in poor countries in South America than in the U.S.  Sanders did not write the story, but posted it on his site, as he does with many articles from many sources.  In order to mention this we would need a reliable source that reports factually, not the fakenews website where you probably found the story.  Venezuela's government btw is not Marxist, although some of its opponents, including Sanders, have called it "Communist."  TFD (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Spider
It might be worth mentioning that Sanders is getting a spider named after him. source. † dismas †|(talk) 01:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, it's Spintharus berniesandersi, if anyone would be willing to create the article. MB298 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is worth mentioning as we do with Gary Larson, who had an insect species named after him. Rather than create a new article, it would be better to expand Spintharus and the individual species could re-direct to it until we had sufficient information to create individual articles.  TFD (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox
Should we really have an infobox section describing him as ranking member? And I feel like the order can be adjusted as well. What do you all think?

Ueutyi (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2017
Change " New Deal-era American progressive (2nd paragraph, 2nd line) to "Traditional Early 20th century American progressive" ( for clarification of values in line with pre-new_deal american progressives) UVB-76-46250000 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also you would most likely require consensus for this edit per the notice at the top of this talk page. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources don't use the term "New Deal progressive." I don't think the term was used in connection with the New Deal.  TFD (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Presidential run information
This is the Sanders bio, not the Sanders run for president article. I tried to delete the following information:


 * Nationwide, it was possible to vote for Sanders as a write-in candidate in twelve states,In those three states, Sanders received 111,850 write-in votes, which was approximately 15% of the write-in votes nationwide, and 0.08% of the nationwide number of votes overall. On December 19, the day that the Electoral College convened in state capitols around the country, Sanders received one electoral vote for president, from David Mulinix, a faithless elector in Hawaii who also voted for fellow progressive firebrand Elizabeth Warren (instead of Clinton's running mate Tim Kaine) for vice president. Two other faithless electors, David Bright in Maine and Muhammad Abdurrahman in Minnesota, attempted to cast their electoral votes for Sanders, but their votes were invalidated by their states' faithless elector laws; Bright subsequently switched his vote to Clinton as pledged, while Abdurrahman was replaced by another elector who voted for Clinton as pledged  Sanders was one of five people who received electoral votes from faithless electors in the 2016 election; the other four were former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who received three electoral votes),Native American activist Faith Spotted Eagle, former U. S. Representative and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, and Governor John Kasich.The seven faithless electoral votes for president were the most in history, with the exception of the 63 electors who did not vote for their pledged candidate, Horace Greeley, in 1872 (Greeley had died between election day and the convening of the Electoral College).

My edit was reverted. Please explain how this information is important to include in this article, especially since we have an article devoted to his presidential run. Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Please explain how this information is not relevant. It's useful to have more detail in this section because many ordinary observers would not have heard of him were it not for his presidential run. In addition, the Cruz and Kasich articles have similar detail covering their post-primary activities, and neither of them achieved the highest statewide percentage in the history of write-in draft campaigns. Davey2116 (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2017


 * If you find these details important perhaps you should add them to the election article where they would be appropriate. How can they be important enough to include here while you are not concerned that they are absent in the election article? Gandydancer (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not aware that this information was not in his campaign article. I have just added them there. Davey2116 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war
There seems to be a slow-motion edit war between Therequiembellishere removing material, saying "Bringing succession boxes into the modern day and rming ridiculous breaks and superfluous info" and Davey2116, restoring the material, saying "Fine as-is". Could you both please explain what's going on for the benefit of other editors? Therequiembellishere, I see that you are taking similar action in other biographical articles and Davey2116 is undoing the same elsewhere. You appear to have a running feud going on that should be settled at a higher level, e.g. at WikiProject Biography. I ask you both to settle the matter elsewhere, before bringing your dispute back here with a consensus from the higher level of arbitration. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Too flattering & I question accuracy of some of the info
Especially at the beginning of the page, but throughout, this page seems to be too flattering to Bernie Sanders & leaves you with the impression it was written not by a serious & objective follower/historian of Sen. Sanders political career, but a “fan” (not even “supporter” but a “fan” if you take my meaning.)

At some places, the page is too heavy on adjectives that serve no purpose than to glorify Sanders himself instead of being descriptive of his positions on the issues or on his actions in his personal/professional life. I think it’s important this whole page be reviewed by someone who can be completely objective about the subject. Sanity0517 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any examples? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to explain how. Many of the views the article says he has are unpopular in the U.S.  TFD (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I thank Sanity0517 for the question. I don't see very many adjectives in the lead at all, especially not ones that reflect a POV. Perhaps "Sanders rose to national prominence after his 2010 filibuster against the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010..." could be toned down to "Sanders received national news coverage from his 2010 filibuster against the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010...". Elsewhere under Administration I see: "staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America" (could be "consistent critic...") and "signature achievements" (could be "primary achievements"). After scanning the rest of the article, I find very few adjectives, just declarative statements, backed up by reputable sources. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 04:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with this. I'll go ahead and make those minor changes and that should resolve the issue here.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the changes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree also. TFD (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to note, Sanity0517 who brought this up, is an abusive vandalizing troll. His only other edit is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Sarandon&diff=next&oldid=804569458  where he edited the lede of the Susan Sarandon article to say that she " is Twitter Troll Of Epic Propositions - her troll ability is matched only by her stupidity. She is a racist, sexist, fake progressive who dates Vladimir Putin and made sure that the ultra-leftists in America helped guarantee that the United States got President Chëëtö ClöwnHïtler ShïtGïbbön." Centerone (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us of that, Centerone. (BTW, you forgot to sign the above post.) I make it a practice of looking at the contributions history of those who make off-kilter comments in their edits and saw the same thing. However, I felt that it was appropriate to ensure that the article was, indeed, above reproach. Which, largely, it was.
 * On another note, rather than calling another editor an "X", I feel that it's better form to say that the editor's contributions reflect "Xish behavior". That way, we're criticizing the behavior, not the person. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but considering that he's got a semi-sockpuppet potentially robotic bot looking account name, and his whole two edits consist entirely of trolling and abusive behaviour, I have no problem with referring to him in that way. And, thanks, I signed it. Centerone (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

—I’m still learning how to use Wikipedia. I don’t think I am replying the right way so for that I apologize in advance. I appreciate the responses to the issue I brought up & that some of the more flattering language (as I put it) is being toned down. Now I would like to address the issue of myself. I am not a bot or troll. I had a bit of fun with Susan Sarandon’s Page knowing it would be reverted. I’m not saying that excuses the action, other than to say I meant it as a harmless prank. Immature yes. I own that. However, that one edit doesn’t make me an “abusive vandalizing troll” that’s unfair, as if that is my only identity. It is the only time I have ever pulled anything like that on any website. I’m a bit confused about the criticism of my user name. I suppose I will change it or abandon this account & not use it. What is an appropriate username? I suppose I should’ started mine with Ms. so at least I’d be referred to by my correct gender? - Sanity0517 20:28, 4 December 2017 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanity0517 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Sanity0517. Thank you for telling us about your intentions and experience. We hope that you can stay and contribute constructively under the name that you've chosen—I don't see anything objectionable about it. If you read up on the items linked in the welcome message at your User talk:Sanity0517, especially Five pillars, you'll find a welcoming environment. Note that we do our best to respect our fellow Wikipedians. That's why our welcome to you should be sincere. If you need any assistance on how to contribute, any of us should be at your service. Just contact one of us on our Talk page. Mine is User talk:HopsonRoad. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2017
I want to add some facts that I learned. Garydanke (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lede
So, we have this statement in the 3rd paragraph of the lede: "Polls in the year 2017 showed that Sanders had the highest favorability rating of the leading political figures included in the polls." And then in the final paragraph, we have: "Polls taken in 2017 have found Sanders to be the most popular politician in the United States." Is it really necessary to have both of these in an already cluttered lede? They are saying essentially the same thing, apart from minor differences. κατάστασ η  20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Removing that (and a few other redundant sentences). power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This action deleted a lot of material that belonged in the article, but not in the lede. I have made moves, restoring the deleted material elsewhere, that other should check for appropriateness and lack of redundancy. User:HopsonRoad 22:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017
I believe Sander's pro-LGBT stance in the 'social issues' section is lacking. The article cited for this information also states that Sanders "...signed a Gay Pride Day proclamation calling it a civil rights issue", opposed Don't Ask, Don't Tell and favoured a 1999 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court which guaranteed protections and benefits to gay couples. Also, the statement "In 2006, he expressed opposition to legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont and did not express support for the right until 2009" is misleading because it implies he was openly against legal recognition of same-sex unions, when the article cited for that statement actually states that he supported civil unions since 2000 and was mostly silent rather than openly opposed on the issue of same-sex marriage. Howl446 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope that I have re-worded this passage in a manner that fixes the problem described by Howl446. User:HopsonRoad 03:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an improvement. Sanders comments in 2006 were taken out of context.  TFD (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Mayor of Burlington"
I read the following in MOS:JOBTITLES to suggest that "Mayor of Burlington" should always be capitalized when it stands alone as the title of the chief office of that city, as well as when we write "Mayor Sanders": (these are my notations) Do you read this differently? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * When a formal title (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:
 * Richard Nixon was re-elected President of the United States on November 7, 1972. (stands alone) But: Nixon was the 37th president of the United States. (modified) Nixon was one of the more controversial American presidents. (modified) Controversial US president Richard Nixon resigned. (modified)
 * Louis XVI became King of France and Navarre in 1774, later styled King of the French (1791–1792). But: Louis XVI was a king of France. (reworded) Louis XVI was the king of France when the French Revolution began. (reworded) French king Louis XVI was beheaded. (reworded)
 * That looks like the correct interpretation. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh never mind, looks like it's been resolved. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Factual error on % of pledged delegates won by Sanders
There's a factual error in the third paragraph: "Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 55%. " Actually Sanders won approximately 46% (1846) to Clinton's 54% (2205) of the 4051 pledged delegates. See link: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_delegate_count.html 137.97.64.94 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The total delegate count comparison was changed from percentages to numbers, for clarity.      Spintendo       16:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Caucus memberships
User:TiWash has added a section, "Caucus memberships", as part of a contribution that he has offered for a variety of other politicians, all of which seem to highlight the Afterschool Caucuses. It seems to me that such a section should be populated by more than one entry and I would expect other entries to be more notable than the one offered. Unless other caucus entries are added, I would support deleting this new section. What do others think? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The order of "Political positions"
I notice that a new section on Union rights appeared in the middle of the "Political positions" section. What should be the order of the topics listed? Should it be by: I favor alphabetical. What to others suggest? HopsonRoad (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Chronological (either the most recent or the original reported action in first place)?
 * 2) Relative importance (hard to assess, except by frequency of mention)?
 * 3) Alphabetical by title of heading?
 * 4) Some other method of ordering the list?
 * ✅ Having seen no further discussion here, I have boldly implemented my recommendation. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Tenure" versus "Political positions"
I propose to move material that describes introduced legislation or votes into a "Tenure" section (within the "U.S. House of Representatives" or "Senate" sections) and leave general political principles in the "Political positions" section. This will be more consistent with how the "Tenure" within the "U.S. House of Representatives" section is handled. Any concerns with that proposal? HopsonRoad (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Having seen no further discussion here, I have boldly implemented my recommendation. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edit by Power Enwiki
Power Enwiki has repeatedly removed sourced content from this page without substantive explanation in talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Sanders&diff=842998570&oldid=842998471

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Sanders&diff=842998077&oldid=842997854

I'm giving him a chance to air his grievances here.--Jameswilson321 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Damn right. The "source" doesn't claim 25% of those who voted for Hillary Clinton switched party allegiance and voted for McCain.  I don't believe the 25% number, and also McCain ran in 2008 and Sanders ran in 2016.  If you're not going to be more collaborative, I expect you will have a short tenure here. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the source does make that statement: "A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election." Also, please refrain from expletives and try to maintain a civil discussion.--Jameswilson321 (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm just drunk or my computer is malfunctioning, but I swear the paragraph While much was made of the so-called Bernie-or-bust phenomenon, the number of Sanders supporters who crossed party lines to vote for Trump in 2016 may not be that unusual. A 2010 study in Public Opinion Quarterly found that in the 2008 election 25 percent of those who voted for Clinton in the Democratic primary ended up voting for Republican John McCain, rather than Barack Obama, in the general election. was not in the reference when I checked it the first time. I still think it's a useless addition to this article, but after such a mistake I'll refrain from commenting further until other editors can contribute. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this discussion here. I found a substantial amount of unattributed quoted material in the passage of interest. The quoted material made broad assertions that were not supported by either the article cited nor the reference given. Had they not been the Newsweek author's words, they would have been WP:POV here in Wikipedia. Therefore, I tightened up the description of what was reported in the Newsweek analysis piece. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You asked a pertinent question on this topic in your edit comment about whether the 2008 comparison should be included at all. I suggest that the percentage of voters, who supported Sanders in the primaries but supported Trump in the general election, is pertinent. The reference to the 2008 election puts that percentage into perspective. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't ask a question about it. If it was important enough for me to feel I needed to disagree I would have brought it to the talk page.  I have no reason to ask for further discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Amy Goodman's "note"
Why does this Wikipedia page cover that Amy Goodman, anchor on a fringe network, "noted" that Sanders did not have a speech broadcast in the middle of March 2016? A time when he had long lost the primary? Why is this mentioned other than to falsely suggest that the media failed to give him due attention? For what its worth, the whole section on polls, media and approval ratings is nonsensical and a violation of WP:NPOV. If I have the time, I intend to rewrite it and bring in political science research which puts it into context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * He hadn't long lost the primary in March 2016. Don't know what you're going at there. No comment on the rest. Master of Time   ( talk ) 07:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much over by early March. That this Wikipedia article depicts Sanders as warranting massive attention by mid-March (when the race was even more of a non-contest) is fringe nonsense and intended to portray Sanders as a victim. It's a violation of WP:NPOV. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Remember that this is a discussion of "Polls and news coverage" not our own analysis of events. We may agree or disagree with Goodman's analysis, but it properly belongs here. I would suggest that Snooganssnoogans (or someone else) provide a contrasting analysis of the fairness of coverage of the campaign from another journalist, rather than deleting this one. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On Super Tuesday of all the candidates Sanders was speaking at the largest rally of of the five candidates, including Trump and far surpassing Clinton, and yet their speeches were fully covered and there was not even a mention of Sanders on any of the major networks. Here is how this information is covered in our article:
 *  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, but his speech was not mentioned, let alone broadcast.


 * Amy Goodwin did not dream up these facts - they were presented while speaking with Bernie Sanders on her broadcast that regularly includes interviews with liberal personalities. That none of the major networks not only did not cover Sanders' speech but did not even mention it surprised even Sanders, who was pretty used to a lack of coverage as compared to the other presidential candidates by that time.  If these numbers are false then Sanders, like Trump, is a liar because he agreed with Goodman's comments.


 * Like the rest of the information in this section of our article it accurately reports one of the several most outstanding aspects of Sanders' campaign: along with record attendances at his speaking engagements and his ability to raise large amounts of money from small donations, is the almost total lack of media coverage. If there is an attempt to remove this important and long-standing reporting of this aspect of his presidential run from our article I would certainly be concerned and I ask that it is first discussed on the talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The content is not factually inaccurate. It's just irrelevant. Clinton's lead was insurmountable long before Super Tuesday III, and as such, it should not be expected that media outlets waste their time playing the speech of an irrelevant candidate. This is undue nonsense, and it only serves the purpose of falsely depicting Sanders as a competitive candidate whose run was hobbled by the media. Amy Goodman's observations belong in no Wikipedia article. The whole section in this article is fringe nonsense that misleads readers. This particular sentence is the most blatant example of it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that the paragraph is irrelevant. Both some supporters and some observers made claims that coverage of Sanders was less than that for other major candidates. That fact belongs in the article. What also belongs, but is missing, is any contrasting analysis that shows that those claims of unequal coverage were incorrect. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to the narrative that the media downplayed attention to the Sanders campaign, here noted by a respected journalist. It could be that the media were right to block coverage of Sanders throughout the primaries, but that does not mean we should not mention it. TFD (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree, Amy Goodman and others of her ilk believed that the media were unkind to Sanders, including when the AP announced that Clinton won the nomination the night before the California primary. It's possible to believe that Clinton was the inevitable nominee and also that the media specifically snubbed Sanders in favor of covering Trump as the breakout story. Andrevan@ 00:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a great example of a fringe opinion and why Amy Goodman's views should not be covered in Wikipedia articles. If anyone was harmed by the AP announcement it was Clinton. Sanders had no realistic chance to win the race since early March 2016. The announcement did absolutely nothing to harm Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The suggestion that the media should broadcast the speech of a candidate who has no realistic shot at winning (mid-March 2016) or else they're biased against the candidate is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not an opinion that the media did not broadcast his speech, but a fact. It could be that they made this decision because he had no realistic chance of winning and if so you are welcome to find a source that says that. We could say something like, "Sanders speech was not broadcast on mainstream media because he had little chance of winning the nomination." In any case, is significant to the Sanders article that the speech was not broadcast.  TFD (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your added voices, TFD and Andrevan. However, it would be WP:POV for a Wikipedia editor to say something like, "Sanders speech was not broadcast...." It would be fine for a Wikipedia editor to paraphrase another journalist or news analyst to the same effect and to provide a reference for the same. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I also disagree with the notion that this passage is irrelevant. As noted above, Sanders himself saw the lack of coverage that day as notably severe. If one believes that Sanders had no chance after March 15 (when Clinton swept all five states), then one should also believe that Cruz had no chance after March 15 (when Trump swept all except Ohio, Kasich's home state). Sanders got much more of the Democratic vote than Cruz had of the Republican vote. Yet Cruz's speech was broadcast in full, as the passage correctly states. So even if you believe that Sanders had no chance, this is still a notable instance of media bias. To be honest, I think removing the passage crosses WP:NPOV a bit more than it currently does, especially since the succeeding sentences cite people who think the media wasn't biased against Sanders. Davey2116 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily agree either that Sanders had no chance by March 15. National polls continued to tighten, and Sanders won nine out of the ten succeeding primaries. If he'd followed it up with a win in New York, he'd have been in a pretty good position. But he lost New York by a huge margin and his national polling began to decline for the first time afterwards. So if you were to assign a specific date to when Sanders's chances were gone, you really should go with his under-performance in New York on April 19. As I said above, regardless of whether you choose March 15, April 19, or July 26 (as some friends of mine like to do), the passage in question should be kept. Davey2116 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Clinton's lead was nearly insurmountable by the first days of March 2016 (there's reporting from 538 and the Upshot on that in early March). It would take shocking events for Sanders to win given his performances in previous states and the demographics in the remaining states. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, good. Media punditry, in a discussion about media bias. Also, you didn't answer my point that Cruz had no chance by the same standards, yet his speech was covered in full while Bernie's was not. Davey2116 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The initial posting in this discussion thread is confrontational and therefore working toward a new consensus is unlikely. So I would just keep what's there unless someone recommends an actual edit. TFD (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with TFD. The edit that prompted this discussion was deletion of material on this topic, which did not lead to support or consensus. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also, with due respect, adding a well-sourced view to the article is great and encouraged, but advocating for the deletion of the opinion that it opposes is unproductive. Davey2116 (talk) 01:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispersing economic matters into multiple sections
I don't think it's wise to spread economic issues into multiple sections as was done in this edit. It's common to list taxes, banking, monetary policy, regulations etc. under an "economy" heading on politicians' pages. The edit also duplicates some content, and starts the "banking reform" section with Sanders' position on campaign finance reform. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your bringing this discussion here, Snooganssnoogans. I split "banking reform" and "income distribution" from the umbrella of "economy", because they are distinct, unrelated topics between themselves. The overall economy is really controlled by the tax policies of Congress and the adjustment of interest rates and borrowing by the Federal Reserve and is itself distinct from banking reform and from any effects on income distribution that may result from tax policies and interest rates. I'll look forward to the perspectives of other editors. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not checked other articles but it seems to me that if they are including banking reform under economy it's most likely in error unless, perhaps, they have had so little to do with banking reform that there is no need for a separate section. This thinking would apply to income distribution as well. General guidelines are good to use as general guidelines but a good article is not put together in cookie cutter fashion IMO.  In many way Sanders is quite unique and I find the divisions appropriate.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert by User:Power~enwiki
My edit, which covered Sanders's views on democratic socialism vs. social democracy, legislative history, and position on gun laws, was reverted by Power~enwiki, citing NPOV concerns. Seeing as the revert took place two minutes after my edit was published, I assume my edit was so out of line that Power~enwiki did not have to bother carefully reading through my added text and checking the RS I cited. Thus, I'd like to ask Power~enwiki to post what made my edit so obviously bad, so that I can improve my editing in the future.

(I, for one, thought that edits made primarily by Snoogans this morning didn't tell a complete picture. Obviously, I didn't remove his edits since my edits alone don't tell a complete picture either.)

Please reply. Thanks. Davey2116 (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Including statements like By comparison, Hillary Clinton, Sanders's 2016 presidential primary opponent, passed zero roll call amendments and Sanders defends his early votes against gun control with his obligation to represent his constituents. gave the clear impression that the purpose of your edit, as a whole, was to promote Sanders and to make him look better for a 2020 campaign. The restoration of Many scholars consider his views to be more in line with social democracy. to the lead was not a new addition and seems fine to me, I'll restore that. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I don't think it's a POV issue to state Sanders's reason for voting against gun control in the 1990s. The way that passage stood right after Snoogans's edits this morning, which didn't provide any context, it read as if Sanders were against gun control. In short, I don't see how my edits were any more non-NPOV than Snoogans's were. Davey2116 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I just realized that I misread Snoogans's WaPo source title, title%3DHillary Clinton was a more effective lawmaker than Bernie Sanders, as an addition to the article text (a problem exclusive to source edits, instead of visual edits, it seems). I had been wondering why I couldn't find it in the article preview; it was a silly mistake. In that light, my addition of the "zero roll call amendments" sentence was not okay. Davey2116 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the 'roll call amendment king' stuff was OK. None of the other stuff was acceptable. If "many scholars" consider him a Dem-Socialist, then you should cite reliable sources who say that scholars perceive him like that or cite recognized experts (i.e. not the linguist Noam Chomsky) who assert that it's the case. If he's a "noted bipartisan", it should be sourced. The edit also removed pertinent info about the California primary to give a misleading picture of the state of play at the time. Parts of the gun stuff are undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The sentence that I restored was that many scholars consider him a social democrat, not a democratic socialist. I added two more sources to that effect. I re-used the NYT article that you added to cite Sanders's bi-partisanship. I also didn't think the info about Clinton already having locked up the nomination, though true, to be relevant in a section about the debates. The fact was that Clinton promised a California debate and reneged on it, and the section should report it that way. You can add another section discussing when the nomination was effectively over, if you'd like. Davey2116 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But none of your sources for "many scholars" describe that this is a common view by scholars or are written by recognized experts in a field that relates to politics (unless I missed something). As for the California primary stuff, if we don't mention that the race was essentially considered over by that time and confirmed 100% by the AP two days before the actual primary, then it makes it seem as if Clinton was skipping on a debate in a competitive race. The NYT source doesn't really say he's a "noted bipartisan", it just describes bills he's worked on with Republicans (I'm pretty sure most Democratic Senators have similar stories of reaching across the aisle on a number of bills without earning the label "noted bipartisan"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction as editor Davey to the addition in defense of Clinton's refusal to take part in the final debate. One would think that what with Donald Trump as our president when Clinton had that nomination all wrapped up as well should well show that it's not over till it's over. She agreed to ten debates and Wikipedia should not add an excuse for her failure to keep her word.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources note that the race was essentially over by then in the context of her debate refusal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No they do not. The source that you added does not even mention the scheduled debate.  Also, please list the parts of the "gun stuff" that you find undue.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. I erroneously read the CNN source ("Clinton's campaign is currently fighting a two-front war against both Trump, who has all but locked up the nomination, and Sanders, who has pledged to campaign until the last vote is counted in June."). But other sources do note the insurmountable advantage she had at that point (which was of course confirmed by AP shortly after)... USA Today: "Clinton holds a significant lead over Sanders in the delegate race and is within 100 of the 2,383 needed to clinch the party's nomination, according to the Associated Press" + LA Times: "with Clinton's delegate tally all but ensuring she will secure the Democratic nomination". Snooganssnoogans (talk)

I want to compliment everyone who took part in this discussion for keeping it unemotional, about the facts, and for people's ability to admit mistakes and make compromises! I'm proud to be associated with you all, as editors! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

"Effect of the Sanders' campaign on the Democratic party"
There is currently a whole section in the article that's sourced to three opinions. What makes this worse is that the section seeks to determine causality and is laudatory about Sanders' influence, yet has such sloppy sourcing. I removed it, as it was of course totally unacceptable for inclusion in its current form. Another editor then restored it in full without explaining how this content met WP:DUE requirements and was consistent with WP:RS policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Sanders campaign had an effect on the Democratic Party which is one of the reasons no doubt you are editing this article. If you don't like the way the section is written, then try to find better sources and recommend improvements. In the meantime, it should stay. TFD (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was obvious, then it should easy to find RS content to substantiate it or commentary by recognized experts (e.g. political scientists). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction as you, Snooganssnoogans, when I saw the initial contribution, which suggested that the Democratic Party had, in effect, become the Progressive Party. However, I noted that the analysis given is legitimate and therefore I changed the language to suggest a shift leftwards. This is another example where it's undesirable to delete a contribution that may not represent a universal point of view, but to add contrasting views with their sources. Therefore, I concur with TFD that the section should remain. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are a couple of books with info we can use:
 * -- Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * -- Gandydancer (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

We can mention this, but it's very subjective just how much of a change can be attributed to his candidacy directly or indirectly, so we should therefore not use Wikipedia's voice in the process. I do personally agree that Sanders' presidential campaign had an im'pact on the formation of Justice Democrats and Our Revolution, which has endorsed and funded many candidates running on policy platforms that mirror his, and have gone on to win their primaries; however, I don't believe we can simply say that Sanders himself is the cause of this, and we should choose our words carefully by mentioning with sources that some analysts believe that his presidential campaign had a lasting influence on the Democratic Party, notably the increase in social democratic progressives and left-wing populists. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 06:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Many scholars consider his views more in line with social democracy."
This sentence in the lede needs to be sourced to recognized experts in a related field or it needs to go. The text currently cites Marian Tupy (A Cato fellow with a PhD in International Relations and no related peer-reviewed publications) and Noam Chomsky (not a recognized expert on the topic), as well as editorials by Thor Benson (a journalist) and Ryan Cooper (a journalist). In short, there are no recognized scholars in a related field cited in support of the statement "Many scholars consider his views more in line with social democracy". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously, this sentence is okay. Also, I wouldn't describe Noam Chomsky as "not a recognized expert". He's not just a linguist; his Wiki bio also introduces him as a historian and a political activist. Davey2116 (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Scholars" is the wrong word, we're not necessarily talking about academics. I changed scholars => political analysts. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good solution. Gandydancer (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This could be better phrased. The point is that Sanders' policies were essentially liberal and were similar to what both Democrats and Republicans had supported in the past. The sources are inadequate to make the sweeping claim. Two of them were journalists, one was a scholar at the conservative Cato Institute who also claimed that the U.S. was not capitalist and Chomsky does not actually use the term social democrat. There is no academic consensus that the terms socialist and social democrat are distinct. Marx and Lenin were Social Democrats. The German Social Democratic Party was Marxist until 1959. The French Socialist and British Labour Party call themselves socialist, not social democratic. TFD (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Political analysts' is an improvement over 'many scholars', but I don't think that merits mention on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is going to analyze, describe and categorize Sanders' political philosophy, then we must source it to RS coverage or expert assessments. Citing a bunch of op-eds by non-experts is not encyclopedic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the passage as follows: "Many political analysts" => "A variety of political observers", which better describes the sources given. This passage provides perspective as to whether Sanders' view of his own political philosophy is consistent with the observations of others. The sources cited represent a cross-section of the political spectrum, rendered by thoughtful observers. It doesn't require "experts"; if the RS news organs judged the opinions worthy of publication, then they are suitable for WP in this article. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Rigged DNC primary?
Unless I'm overlooking it, there's only one mention about the controversy around his treatment by the DNC in the article which says just
 * Critics alleged that the small number of debates and the schedule, with half of the debates on Saturday or Sunday nights, were part of the DNC's deliberate attempt to protect the front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

Why such minor coverage? Sanders mistreatment by the DNC is so huge that it should be a significant portion of the article. And there's no need to hedge statements with qualifiers like "Critics allege...". The DNC head at the time resigned at the behest of the US President because of e-mails stolen from the DNC by Russian hackers that strongly suggested she favored Clinton over Sanders and helped spearhead her nomination. Things like the strange debate scheduled which seemed designed to quell Sander's momentum were also big part of the discussion leading up to the nomination too. Giving Sander's mistreatment by the DNC barely a mention sweeps this dirt under the rug in a non-neutral, non-factual way. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there isn't evidence of rigging, as in deliberately changing/falsely reporting the votes. Favoring a candidate isn't the same thing. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 08:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree Jason. It was a historic and significant incident that deserves more coverage.  BTW, I deleted a couple of paragraphs that are not significant enough for this article.  Gandydancer (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just bear in mind that we can only report the analysis of others, not draw our own conclusions. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No offence, but I think that a glance at this editor's user page shows that s/he is well aware of that. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That may be, but saying "Giving Sander's mistreatment by the DNC barely a mention" suggests a non-neutral POV. I would have used treatment to remain neutral. From the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that stratagem might just be regarded as favoring a card-carrying member of the party over a gadfly interloper. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Treatment", "mistreatment", the point remains that during most of his campaign there was a fairly constant din about the odd debate schedule that seemed to purposely favor Clinton over Sanders and the DNC e-mails showed a clear bias towards Clinton that resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a close personal friend of Clinton, resigning. Sources for these are easy to find. Since it was an important element of his campaign and ultimately resulted in him not winning the Presidency, it's a very important aspect of his life and should be at least a bit part of the article on his life. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Schultz's bias had any impact on the result of the primaries? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * To simply say in Wikipedia's voice that the primary was rigged against him would be unencyclopedic and undue. However, accusations by other parties of it being rigged could be noteworthy, and there were documented incidents of deliberate actions intended to change the outcomes of the elections, such as the national committee contacting a media outlet requesting that they ask Sanders if he believes in God shortly before the primaries in the most religious states, or in the California primary when poll workers were wrongfully instructed to give independents provisional ballots which are discarded and not counted, or how many Sanders delegates' seats at the national convention were marked as reserved and his delegates couldn't enter, or how many of the delegates of the states he won in the primary went to Clinton in the final count at the convention; however, we cannot just say all of these (or any of these) without a large amount of reliable secondary sources and wording that carefully makes sure to not present these things as uncontested, and instead refer to whatever is alleged as nothing more than allegations. In short: this is very noteworthy, but we can't draw conclusions for the reader. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 00:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a matter that deserves extensive treatment at Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016, especially the Wikileaks email release section, and then summarized here. I suggest developing the topic there, first. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would avoid the term rig, except in direct quotes. However, the DNC showed favoritism to Clinton and made efforts to ensure her victory over Sanders or any other candidate that might have run. They also used friendly contacts in the media to portray Sanders and his supporters in a poor light. TFD (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Develop topic at Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016?
What do you think of the idea of developing this topic in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016, perhaps as a new section with a title something like, "Relation of campaign with the Democratic National Committee"? It would probably include elements of the current Wikileaks email release section. A properly balanced and referenced section could then be summarized here. Your thoughts? Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The campaign article would certainly be a better place to develop a section with this information; we can add content to his personal page at a later time. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 01:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think starting there is a good idea. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems like a good start. There certainly is enough RS for even an entire article.  Warren stated flat out the election was rigged.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that there is already material at: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I know. It was after all quite significant at the time. I have done some work on the article.   Cheers  Gandydancer (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)