Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 22

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


 * Context is everything. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on the need for context, though I'm not sure what TFD means by "Cuban Missile Crisis" or "repeating what Obama said." (Maybe referring to an earlier version of the section than Zloyvolsheb's recent deletion? That's all I saw.) It's important to include a discussion of the controversy over Sen. Sanders' comments on Cuba, I believe, since the controversy over the comment was a significant turning point in the current campaign. Perhaps it should be included in the 2020 campaign narrative? Msalt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind discussing that in the article in proper context. However, I don't think the Cuba comment in response to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes actually was a significant turning point in the race at all. The turning point was when Biden decisively won the primary in South Carolina and multiple candidates (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, O'Rourke in Texas) endorsed him one day ahead of Super Tuesday. As far as Sanders' Cuba comments, his comments on Cuba's literacy were exactly what Barack Obama had said on several occasions (example: YouTube video of Obama's remarks on Cuba). I don't think anyone took those comments out of context. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Obama said, "The United States recognizes progress that Cuba has made as a nation, its enormous achievements in education and in health care." Sanders was criticized for saying that the Cuban Literacy Campaign had increased literacy from 77% to almost 100%. The Cuban Missile Crisis refers to a 1962 confrontation between the U.S. and USSR initiated by the U.S. discovery of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba. A number of elderly people are still in a Cold War mind set that Canadian style health insurance will lead to Cuban style regimentation. I don't think it was a turning point in the campaign. Cuban supporters of the Batista dictatorship were mostly Republicans and represent a small section of the U.S. population, mostly living in Florida, while Democrats over 70 mostly supported Biden anyway. It's more relevant to the campaign article, where Sanders share of the popular vote fell from 33% to 23% in the Florida primary. TFD (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree, however we still cannot say that Sanders' share of the popular vote in Florida falling from 33% to 23% was in any way due to his remarks on Cuba. I am interpreting 33% as the percentage of the Florida vote that went to Sanders in 2016, however his percentage also changed in multiple states in the 2020 primary relative to 2016. We would need something like a poll showing Sanders at 33% in 2020 before his remark the CNN interview and at 23% almost right after to argue there was a real effect on the race. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit again restores the material about Cuba in grammatically incorrect format. Further changes the lede to remove mention of Sanders' frontrunner status with no explanation provided. Reverting due to poor phrasing as previously noted by The Four Deuces. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders expressed views on Cuba and Castro that were criticized severely for supposedly being insensitive to the plight of Cubans. This came at at time when he had emerged from a string of primary victories and his views were being more closely scrutinized. Nearly all of the major national news publications picked up on this story and evaluated it. This controversy is appropriately categorized under foreign policy views. has repeatedly tried to remove any mention of it entirely based on nitpicking/unspecific criticisms over "grammar." This is ridiculous. WP:PRESERVE. IF there is a concern over presentation, I welcome and encourage tailoring of the language or a proposal here on how it can better be expressed. At the moment, the sentence plainly explains that Sanders was asked a question, and his quote is provided in full, along with the fact that these remarks were criticized. This couldn't be a more straightforward description of what happened. Efforts to whitewash this out of the article entirely reek of whitewashing. Do not remove this material wholesale again. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is the comment he made about literacy in Castro's Cuba biographically significant? Significant to the 2020 campaign? Yes, I see that clearly. What makes it significant to his biography? And don't tell us what to do, everything on that page should be done through consensus and I don't see one supporting inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What??? He is a national politician. He is not some guy giving lectures to his cat in his garage. His views on foreign policy are obviously significant for the article. These remarks, which came in the midst of his presidential campaign, were some of the most heavily covered of the entire campaign and covered by major national outlets like the NYT. You are trying to entirely excise them from the article because you think that his political views aren't significant? Why don't you just cut all of the foreign policy views out of it, rather than just zeroing in on opinions he was criticized for?
 * I'm not going to continue entertaining any of these ridiculous arguments. WP:SANDBAGGING is trying to present a clear-cut issue as if it's one in dispute. That's exactly what's going on here. The rambling objections to this have nothing to do with policy. WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, are all satisfied, as I already noted above. This is a lame attempt to trim controversies out of the article, and I for one am going to be a bit more vigilant about this type of stuff going on here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * National politicians say lots of things, and Bernie has been a national politician for thirty years. The policy of WP:NOTNEWS prevents us from overloading a biographical article with every "he said this" type of story that has no bearing on their biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it has "no bearing on his biography?" Obviously it has bearing. It was a prominently expressed view on national TV that received national coverage. WP:DUE is clearly met. This whole "unbiographical" argument is selectively applying an arbitrary standard and ignoring WP:DUE and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As Muboshgu said, we cannot include everything that Sanders said just because it has received coverage during the primary. Why is this particular statement notable enough to select for inclusion in a biographical article? Sanders' praise for Cuba's literacy program was merely a repetition of remarks made previously by Barack Obama. Why is the reader not given the full context of the remark - at minimum, the question from Cooper that prompted Sanders' answer? And to further assess due weight, is there evidence that this remark actually impacted Sanders' performance in the primary? If this was relevant to the outcome, before including you would need to a) rewrite grammatically to avoid run-on sentences, b) explain the question from Cooper that Sanders was responding to, c) try to present the context, e.g. Sanders' comments were the same as Barack Obama's, as Sanders later explained. However I am not convinced this even impacted the primary, as I wrote earlier, so I don't think it makes sense to highlight this by putting it into a biography that aims to cover 79 years of Sanders' life and sixty-some years in politics. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I support Wikieditor19920's position. Frankly, to say that Sanders' comment "was merely a repetition of remarks made previously by Barack Obama" is both factually wrong and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The effects and popularity of political positions change over time.


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


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


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


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


 * Zloyvolsheb, I would ask you to tone it down and assume good faith. My only representation of your position was a direct quote from you, which makes it pretty outrageous to accuse me of misrepresenting it. Your position also continues to represent original research, as I have pointed out twice now, and I would ask you to address that point. Msalt (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you don't need to ask: I am assuming good faith but you are pointing me to news articles that merely describe Sanders' position as controversial. As I said before, I am not arguing that Sanders' remark was uncontroversial. My argument is that it was not "a significant turning point" in the race, as you previously stated verbatim. As far original research, that policy applies to article content, not talk pages, where users are free to discuss the content and information that relates to the content. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Zloyvolsheb The logic of my reply may or may not have been on point, but either way that does not suggest I misrepresented your position which -- again -- was by direct quote. To your point about whether it was a turning point, I provided several reliable sources further down this thread in response to another place where you asked for that. At least two of those articles point out the overarching significance of this incident -- that Sanders had tremendous strength among Hispanic voters right up through Florida, but then lost among Hispanic voters decisively in Florida, which they specifically tie to his comments on 60 Minutes. On original research, you are calling for omitting important content from the Sanders page based on original research which you say invalidates it. I would argue that omissions from the article due to original research are just as invalid as additions based on it. In both cases, the editor is NOT relying on reliable sources, as we are called to do, but is instead substituting their own judgment for the experts whose judgment we should be relying on. Msalt (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, Sanders' remarks on Cuba were reported in the last week of February. According to multiple polls compiled by RealClearPolitics, Sanders' poll numbers in Florida improved in the first week of March and in the second week had DOUBLED in comparison to his numbers in January and February. I know this is a gross oversimplification editors cannot make, but if we were to make big assumptions about Sanders' comments as the special ingredient in the Florida primary, wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that Sanders' so-called controversial comments about Cuba actually improved his support among Democrats in Florida?
 * Now, to emphasize it again, this is only one possible interpretation of the polling swing in Sanders' favor; it seems obvious that there were multiple factors at play, for example, multiple candidates dropping out. We would need a reliable source to assert that Sanders' comments on Cuba's literacy program helped him with Florida Democrats. So I am not arguing that Sanders' comments on Castro's literacy program in fact led to the outcome being what it was. But this change in the numbers in Sanders' favor after the Cuba comments from single to double digits (he gained almost a third of Florida's delegates but still lost to Biden) clearly contradicts the notion that Sanders' answer to Anderson Cooper was "a significant turning point in the race" as you wrote previously. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * is now setting a standard that has nothing to do with how we evaluate content on Wikipedia. It is not our job to assess "real-world impact" of information. We are editors looking for attention in reliable sources; that's where the impact analysis begins and ends. The rest of this long rambling post does nothing to refute the policies clearly requiring inclusion. is applying an equally hollow standard of "unbiographical," selectively and only to criticism. All of the relevant policies, WP:NPOV, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:DUE, require us to include material on a subject's views or statements if they receive sufficient coverage. The moment this received nationwide coverage and became the subject of an entire article in the NYTimes, all of those criteria were met. This is a ridiculous attempt to whitewash the article of a prominent criticism. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment was addressed to Msalt's statement that Sanders' comments were "a significant turning point" in the race, which was the rationale originally claimed for including this. Are you shifting the goalposts to "it was covered in the mainstream news"? That was already addressed by Muboshgu; we are not covering just anything that was reported in the news per WP:NOTNEWS. Also see WP:BALASP for information on balance. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Zloyvolsheb, since you are apparently directing your comments to me, here are several additional reliable sources in addition to the four I already provided. All of these are stories reporting the results of the Florida primary, from the leading sources. It would be helpful in reaching consensus if you could provide some reliable sources to support your position as well. That may not be possible -- Googling just now, the following quotes appear to represent an absolute consensus of reliable sources.


 * -- South Florida Sun Sentinel, "Joe Biden wins big Florida victory and delivers humiliating defeat to Bernie Sanders," March 17, 2020 "He [Sanders] has passionate supporters in the state, but he hurt himself politically in Florida with a Feb. 23 interview on “60 Minutes” in which he said it was “unfair to simply say everything is bad” about the Cuban revolution led and presided over by the late dictator Fidel Castro. Sanders’ praise for Castro’s literacy program, and refusal to back down from his comments, led some state Democrats to predict he’d hurt the party in Florida if he became the party’s nominee."


 * -- Washington Post, "Democratic primaries highlights: Sanders to assess his campaign; primary schedule in flux amid pandemic," March 17, 2020 "Biden is projected to win the Florida Democratic primary, Edison Media Research projects. ...Black voters represent a quarter of Florida’s Democratic primary electorate. That, plus the uproar that Sanders’s praise of Fidel Castro’s regime sparked among Cuban American voters, contributed to Biden’s strength in the state."


 * -- The Sun (UK), "WALKING ON SUNSHINE Joe Biden wins Florida and Illinois Dem presidential primaries by huge margin over Fidel Castro-praising Bernie Sanders," March 18, 2020 "Bernie Sanders' recent comments about Cuba probably doomed him there weeks ago, well before Biden's South Carolina surge. In a 60 Minutes interview on February 23, Sanders praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro for his "massive literacy program."


 * -- Miami New Times, "Miami New Times' 2020 Primary Election Live-Blog," March 17, 2020 "9:14 p.m.: It's been a tough night for Bernie Sanders, whose somewhat longshot odds of securing the Democratic presidential nomination became even longer after an electoral thrashing in Florida. Reports are coming in that Sanders did not win a single county in Florida, which might come as a surprise to many, given his strength with Hispanic voters in other states. 9:17 pm.: Bernie Sanders once was leading among Latino voters, but that advantage hasn't appeared to help him in Miami-Dade [County]. His Fidel Castro comments probably didn't help, either. With about 61 percent of Miami-Dade precincts reporting, Sanders has only a third of Joe Biden's votes. Election-day and vote-by-mail ballots are still being counted. Biden leads with 80,130 votes." Msalt (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


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

Here, at the Joe Biden page, argues for including the sexual assault allegations by Tara Reade on the basis that they have been covered in reliable sources. There, he states Support Inclusion per sufficient evidence of mainstream coverage. I see that the story is now not just covered by The Intercept, The Hill, and others like Newsweek, National Review, Fox News, and The Guardian. It made it into the World Edition of The Times. That actually happens to be one of the English-speaking world's newspapers of record. In this case WP:BLP instructs: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That said, I would prefer to keep the description short and simple, as generally reported. Here, given the same set of a facts, but a different politician—a notable controversy (over remarks rather than allegations) covered in reliable sources (The New York Times, a full article)—Zloyvosheb suddenly forgets all of the relevant policies and makes specious arguments for removal. The same standard applies here, at Joe Biden, or any other page, and the criteria for inclusion is fully and obviously met. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You should stick to one discussion instead of bringing in my comments in different contexts. I explained my position there quite well, stating that the Reade's allegation about Biden and Biden's response can be explained in 1-2 sentences and such inclusion would not create an issue of WP:BALANCE. I also stated I supported removing a separate minor controversy about Biden because it could not be briefly described, and a lengthy description would disrupt WP:BALANCE (Last paragraph of this diff.) You need to stop personalizing disagreements and focus on the content, not the contributor. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If a statement or view received a substantial degree of attention, coverage, and criticism, it is not your role to subjectively characterize it as "minor" or complain that noting the controversy with a 2-sentence explanation in the article creates a WP:BALANCE issue. You are selectively arguing for removal of criticisms, misstatements, or gaffes from this article and applying standards totally inconsistent with the arguments you've made at other pages. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course Sanders' opponents seized on those remarks to stir up controversy for political points, even though in substance they were the same as Obama's Your comparison is factually wrong. The remarks were criticized by people who were offended by the sentiment, not just "Sanders' opponents." What you claim is your POV and directly disproven by the NYT article (are they enemies of Sanders, too?). I have addressed your arguments, and you are continuing to inappropriately push a POV here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to once again ask you to tone it down. Next time you attack me for "pushing POV" when the majority of editors here are opposed to what you propose I will report you. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be accused of POV pushing, don't make the talk page a forum for your personal evaluations. Where in the NYT or any other source are Sanders' comments described as "substantively the same" as Obama's? What is your basis for describing them as so minor that they are undeserving of coverage, despite being the subject of several articles from major national outlets? These arguments are tendentious and circular, and you applied precisely the opposite standard for review that you are arguing for here at Joe Biden. This is blatantly non-compliant with WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It only holds significance in relation to the Florida primary, which is how it was presented in mainstream media. It has no relevance to this article.
 * There's has been substantial coverage of Sanders' comments on Canadian health care and drug prices, far more than on his one line comment on Cuba. Why do you think Cuba should be included but not Canada?
 * TFD (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It has no relevance to this article. What a ridiculous statement. This is an article about Bernie Sanders, who happens to be a politician, and this article, as with any other politician, documents all of his views on notable policy issues as measured by coverage in reliable sources.
 * And do you always decide to argue with imaginary straw men? I have not taken that position on his Canada comments. I'm not familiar with the statements on Canada, and they should be tested according to the same standard for inclusion as any other content: weight in reliable sources. I don't know what you mean by saying his comments were "only relevant to the Florida primary." This is illogical reasoning. Were the comments erased from the history books after he lost? No. They are probably most relevant to his views on foreign policy—that is why they were included under that section, until editors here selectively decided to delete it because it includes criticism. This is more tendentious, non-policy based argumentation.
 * This is shamefully transparent POV pushing. We have controversial remarks that received substantial coverage, were appropriately placed into the relevant existing category (foreign policy), and editors here are 1) edit-warring to keep it out, 2) misrepresenting or ignoring basic policies governing content, 3) making ridiculous assertions that prominent views and criticisms espoused by Bernie Sanders are not relevant to an article on Bernie Sanders. Zloyvolsheb made glaringly obvious the double-standard he is applying with his stance at the Joe Biden. At this point I think it's clear that the efforts to remove this material hold no legitimate grounds and this has been recognized by enough for restoration. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The reality is that his comment has not received as much coverage proportionately as his discussion on numerous topics he has commented on. As I mentioned, he has provided substantial commentary on Canadian health care and drug policies but they are not mentioned here. He has also commented on the British health care system and others. I suggest you look at how much coverage the media has given to different aspects of Sander's comments. This could be confirmation bias on your part. If you read something negative about Democrats it registers while positive things don't. TFD (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What support do you have for that comment about coverage? I've just provided 8 or 9 articles from all of the leading newspapers in Florida, the US and even the UK focusing on the impact of this statement. It took place on 60 Minutes, one of the highest rated TV programs. It was widely cited in news reports as a major factor in his loss in Florida, where he lost the Hispanic vote after dominating it in all of the previous primaries. Msalt (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Your assessment has nothing to do with reality or source coverage. National coverage would be sufficient for inclusion, which this received, but not only that, we have a full-page article from the NYT addressing it. Few other remarks, many of which are included in the article, received the same level of attention. THis makes the NPOV violation by exclusion all the more apparent. , I think it's obvious what's going on here. Z takes the opposite position at Joe Biden on source coverage on controversies as he does here, indicating clear double-standard POV bias. TFD will argue until the cows come home and repeat vague, conclusory, and inaccurate statements like "this is not relevant" or "this is unbiographical" or "this is disproportionate." The evidence, policy, and common sense all show otherwise. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A Google news search shows 50,500,000 stories run on Bernie Sanders. Out of those you have presented 8 or 9 articles or about 1/100,000 of the articles about him. That last poll in Florida before Sanders' interview placed him in third place at 13%. The polls remained level unitl it became a 2 way race and Sanders received 23% of the vote. No sources ever suggested that Sanders might win Florida. In any case, that has more to do with the Florida section in the campaign article. In case you were unaware, Hispanics are not a monolithic group. Cuban American refugees from Castro were typically European and middle class, while elsewhere in the U.S. Hispanics are mostly mixed race descended from agricultural workers.


 * Sorry, Wikieditor, if it sounds repetitive, but the only consideration I can except for the inclusion or exclusion of material is policy and guidelines. I don't read things I find important and add them, but assess weight first. And it doesn't matter if it is Trump, Biden, or Sanders. TFD (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No one cares about your personal opinion, or attempts to insert it into this article. You are zeroing in on controversies and spending a lot of time arguing about how they are "unimportant" in the face of mounds of evidence to the contrary. We don't use WP:GHITS to determine notability or lack thereof. National coverage has been established. Your personal, subjective opinion about what's important doesn't take precedence over objective policy, i.e., WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources. WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT.sWikieditor19920 (talk)
 * Absolutely agree with TFD in that this material does not belong in the article. Rather than repeat his/her comments, please re-read them because I believe that they are right on.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If someone is well known and has extensive ongoing media coverage, then there will be substantial media coverage of them. Google news search shows over 50 million articles. Our task as editors is not to find everything we find interesting in those sources and add them, but to select what those sources consider to be the most important aspects. Sanders' comments on Cuba were of course of some significance during the Florida primary and may belong in the article about them or that section of the article about Sanders' campaign. TFD (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that we have a separate Campaign article I can't see placing any Cuba info into this bio article's campaign section; perhaps it could go in the campaign article. Gandydancer (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is the line for which comments belong in the campaign article and which belong on the main page? The campaign article cannot serve as a dumping ground for criticisms, that violates WP:POVFORK. There was no basis for removing this reliably sourced information in the first place. They received substantial national coverage based on the reaction to the views he expressed; Msalt has already provided the sources. Foreign policy is a completely appropriate category for his views and commentary on a foreign nation/diplomatic relations. Editors need to start providing policy and/or sources to ground their assertions in, because this relates to fundamental, binding policies including WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and these are not to be replaced by opinionated WP:IDONTLIKEIT type reasoning for a high-profile article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeated attempts to explain the reasons for not including the copy that you are attempting to add has not been successful and there is no reason to keep repeating them over and over.  No matter how many times editors say this information was only briefly widely reported because of the importance of the Florida vote when for any politician to say anything at all good about Cuba was bound to bring controversy in Florida - except that in this case it was important to not only Florida but the nation because it was made into a campaign issue. To call editors that don't agree with you as biased and attempting to whitewash the Sanders's article of criticism - what's to criticize?  Obama opened the door to Cuba-U.S. relations.  It was not un-American for Sanders to say something good about the improvements brought about by Castro.  Our article should have perhaps one sentence on Cuba, perhaps two.  Not extensive copy with (I think) the longest quote in the section.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'll read my comment, you'll see I was replying directly to a new suggestion you made, to include the comments in the "campaign" article. My question is, what is the criteria for including a comment or viewpoint in the campaign article versus the main page? Because the comments were more a general expression of his views. I don't see an exclusive tie to the election other than timing. It's inappropriate for you to lecture about how Sanders' comments were "not un-American." We should be concerning ourselves with source coverage and policy, not issuing a defense of his positions or opinions. WP:NPOV. The fact that this kind of reasoning is prevalent in the discussion is exactly the problem. Repeatedly removing reliably sourced information and then substantively defending the comments on this talk page as not deserving of controversy, when that's precisely what reliable sources have reported, is indeed problematic and indicative of POV problems. WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, I think this relates to your question. We know Sanders' comments on Cuba were covered by media and described as controversial - at least by Democrats who stated they could harm the party's general election chances in Florida if Sanders became the Democratic nominee. (At least that's what I see in the sources provided by Msalt above.)
 * The concerns raised, however, were WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BALASP. WP:BALASP tells us that "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." It makes sense to therefore assert that the majority of the participants here believe that Sanders' answer to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes in February was actually not a significant event in the context of Sanders' life, not due for inclusion in a biographical article per WP:BALASP. (Perhaps it's more relevant to another article, perhaps not.) But, since you think this belongs in the article, the implication is that you believe it meets the standard of WP:BALASP.) In other words, you believe this was a significant event in Sanders' life, right?
 * We were originally discussing this as a turning point in the primary, but the position that it was a turning point appears to have been abandoned now. You've pointed to significant media coverage at the time. So, in your view, was it significant event in Sanders' life because of the media attention generated around February 24th or for any other reason? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. This has been treated as significant by reliable sources. Full piece on it from The New York Times. Therefore, WP:WEIGHT is established, and inclusion is required per WP:NPOV. I won't cite that policy for you since I know you're familiar with it, as you've quoted it repeatedly at Joe Biden. What you or other editors believe based on personal or political views is not a valid argument for exclusion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a question of applying policy, not anyone's political views. I am trying to clarify how including something mentioned in reliable sources should fit in with adherence to WP:BALASP.
 * So far we agree that Sanders' answer on 60 Minutes received significant coverage in the news around February 24th, 2020. We also agree that coverage in multiple reliable sources is necessary (and policy clearly states so). The issue is whether that is also sufficient. I think to say so would be problematic, because if that were enough, then anything that receives brief (perhaps significant, but ephemeral) attention from multiple major news sources could be put into any related article and have to stay there. To me that looks like a problematic interpretation of policy in light of WP:BALASP and WP:NOTNEWS, which I believe tell us that an event may be verifiable and covered by reliable sources, but still not necessarily fit for inclusion. As you can see, this is a bigger question that the Sanders article alone, our answer to this question would have to hold for any article, so it's important to come to correctly understand this point, and I appreciate it that you're drawing attention to that.
 * So, to facilitate correctly understanding your position, I would like you to directly answer: do you think policies require that anything covered in multiple major news sources necessarily merits inclusion? That's what your argument looks like now, but I may be mistaken. Most likely your view is more nuanced. Is it more nuanced, or do you actually hold that anything that is covered by multiple major news sources deserves inclusion? (Keep in mind, WP:BALASP, as you just quoted, states "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" whereas you seem to go further in arguing that coverage of event in multiple major news media = siginificant = WP:BALASP satisfied. That would seem to imply that anything covered in multiple major news sources merits inclusion, regardless of any additional factors that editors may think of as relevant in deciding that. In contrast, I think that an event could be covered in multiple major news media but still be a minor event in relation to a particular topic, as I think is the case here. To illustrate that with a simple example, Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream Speech" was covered by many news sources - in fact it was a major historically significant event in the history of the American civil rights movement, but it may be excluded from our article United States per WP:BALASP as it was minor compared to events like the Civil War, the Space Race, etc.) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not need to answer a litany of irrelevant questions, I've made my point. You need to stop bludgeoning the discussion. These comments received a substantial amount of coverage, more than enough to merit or even require inclusion. Here is your argument at Joe Biden, and you can apply that reasoning here: Again, I feel that the reader is best informed by being given all relevant information about a subject. For BLPs that means including allegations for which multiple WP:RS exist, as stated in policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These are not irrelevant questions. A direct yes/no answer to the question would tell us where you stand in terms of policy interpretation. Instead you present an out-of-context quotation. Since you haven't answered directly, I am assuming the answer is yes, you think anything covered in multiple reliable sources is fit for inclusion. My example shows the problem with that line of reasoning. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are posing irrelevant hypotheticals; this is not about any content. I am not interested in an abstract policy discussion. WP:SATISFY. It's this simple: Weight is determined by attention in reliable sources. NPOV requires anything included in multiple sources and that receives substantial coverage must be included. This is an objective statement of what WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV stands for; these are not my "interpretations." The Cuba comments received a substantial amount of coverage, more than most content currently within the article," so inclusion does not present a WP:BALASP with the 1-2 version that you repeatedly removed. We do not omit controversies when policy shows that they should be included. You have argued for a constantly shifting array of standards from "impact on the primary" to subjective "unimportance" without addressing any of these concerns, and this is not a valid basis for your repeat removal of reliably sourced information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not "argued for a constantly shifting array of standards" and the "impact on the primary" argument was brought up by Msalt, not me. If relative importance is not taken into account, it follows this content should also be added to our article on Cuba. Plenty of WP:RS, so what's the problem? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You are misrepresnting the position of another editor. You raised the "impact on the primary issue" first, saying Why is the reader not given the full context of the remark - at minimum, the question from Cooper that prompted Sanders' answer? And to further assess due weight, is there evidence that this remark actually impacted Sanders' performance in the primary? Again, you are now suggesting, perhaps sarcastically, that an article focusing on Sanders' remarks does not belong in the Sanders article but instead belongs in the article of the country that his comments focused on. And you have ignored the fact that these remarks received more coverage than most of his other remarks during the election, yet those other remarks are included in the article. If WP:BALASP was your concern, you wouldn't be zeroing in on controversies, you would be reviewing the entire structure of the article, which is how that policy is relevant, and taking into account the relative levels of coverage (of which this received the most). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , have you read all the comments? Msalt brought up the impact of the remark by describing it as a "turning point" in the primary in his comment at 21:33 on 23 March 2020. Nor am I "making a sarcastic point." I am showing you that your logic leads to a conclusion that does not make sense, which is a legitimate argument form. Please stop accusing me of "zeroing in" on controversies. I made a legitimate point about WP:BALASP, as did three others. This article has a great structure, I don't need to review it to make an argument. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Msalt was replying to your initial comment about "impact in the primary," so again, you are inaccurately stating the sequence of the discussion. Endless hypotheticals and abstract policy discussions are disruptive and counterproductive. Address the issue at hand precisely or don't at all. This is not a discussion about whether or not a substantial degree of coverage about the comments of candidate Bernie Sanders articles also belong in the articles of the subjects of his comments. The subject of the coverage provided isSanders, not Cuba, which is an ancillary topic within those articles. WP:BALASP involves "relative weight," but instead of assessing the weight of these comments in reliable sources in comparison to other content in the article, you are solely considering them in a vaccuum; not only that, you are repeatedly removing this reliably sourced information. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Msalt was NOT replying to my initial comment about "impact on the primary" when he wrote that. Diff: . You accused me of "misrepresenting" your position when I simply restated what you wrote, so I have no choice but to call this out as actual misrepresentation by you. The "subject of the coverage" was actually Sanders' comment to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes, which directly relates to multiple topics Sanders, Castro, Cuba, education, Anderson Cooper, 60 Minutes, etc., and it's probably undue for inclusion as a minor ephemeral event in all of these, despite the significant news coverage around February 24th. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Who was being interviewed? Bernie Sanders? About what? His views. What was the NYT piece and other national coverage on that interview about? Bernie Sanders views on Cuba/Castro. None of your arguments make any reference to the proper criteria for WP:WEIGHT which is the degree of coverage. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, great point about policy being worded in terms of "degree of coverage" in reliable sources; in all honesty I didn't pay much attention to the way that relates to WP:BALASP (proportional treatment of any aspect of a subject according to subject's coverage in WP:RS) until just a few days ago. I agree that is what policy states, the key part is application. Perhaps common sense should play a part. As this is a biographical article, I have to assume that the degree of coverage must somehow relate to reliable source coverage of Sanders in total. In other words is the news coverage of this remark proportionately significant in relation to all the coverage of Sanders in reliable sources? How do you assess that? As a practical matter you and I cannot assess that, as we can't simply find all the coverage of Bernie Sanders in all reliable sources that may be out there, sort through that coverage, and come up with what fraction of those sources pay attention or significant attention to these remarks. Even if we somehow could do that, this was a very recent event, so any reliable sources produced before February would omit it. But you have come to the conclusion that this is significant because multiple sources ephemerally reported on it around February 24th. So please let me know how you deduced that this meets the criteria of significant degree of coverage, as you put it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I come across this issue a lot because some editors will read something that is really important to them and if it is a very notable topic they will then find numerous sources. One weigh to determine if something belongs is ongoing coverage in mainstream media, rather than short-lived coverage. Another way per WP:TERTIARY is to follow what respected tertiary sources do with articles of similar length. While they are shorter, there is no mention of Cuba in articles in Encyclopedia Britannica or biography.com. The reality is that Sanders' factual statement about Cuba would not have struck anyone as unusual except for people who have strong feelings about Cuba
 * To most people, Cuba is just another cheap all-inclusive resort destination, not the existential threat to the American way of life. It might have been seen that way 60 years ago, but so was fluoridated water and rock'n'roll. TFD (talk) 22:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUE is not a mathematically precise analysis of sources where we deduce how many characters to dedicate based on how many google hits come up. WP:GHITS. We look to reliable sources, how prominent those reliable sources are, and how much attention they gave to it. The New York Times dedicated a full article to it. Therefore, inclusion is almost certainly appropriate. I think one to two sentences was a perfectly appropriate amount of space to allot based on this alone. I think common sense is great, and I think it runs contrary to common sense to exclude material given significant weight in reliable sources based on subjective viewpoints. Also, WP:SATISFY, at this point. I can only repeat "Reliable sources . . . weight . . . New York Times . . . NPOV" so many times. You have not presented a legitimate policy reason to justify repeatedly removing the material. We do not rely exclusively on WP:TERTIARY sources for political BLPs, and the vast, vast majority of this page is not derived from such sources. The measuring stick is not how closely we can mirror EB. I do not think that is a strong argument at all. I think it would be better if we assessed policy and sources first rather than reaching a pre-determined conclusion and offering arguments that are more and more of a stretch to justify it, because that is my sense of where this conversation is going. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times dedicated a full article to it is inadequate when numerous articles have been written about Sanders. For example, the Washinton Post once ran 16 articles about Sanders in 24 hours. The Times has published three articles about Sanders in the last three days, even though he is no longer running for president. If we follow your interpretastion, this article will be very lengthy indeed. And basically DUE would be unneccesary. TFD (talk) 03:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with TFD's analysis. Notably, WP:BALASP does NOT simply say we should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in reliable sources; if it did we perhaps would be able to make the jump to "The NY Times reported on it, so it is significant." The policy actually says we "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So, not just according to an article in The NY Times or several articles like it, but according to the body of reliable, published material about Bernie Sanders. While a mathematically precise analysis is indeed not necessary to make a decision, some consideration of that guideline should be made, no? Of course this is problematic for recent events, so that's where editors should be making a judgment call. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Cuba comments received substantially more coverage than most others in the campaign which are included in the article. There is no mathematical formula for including sources, see WP:GHITS, and even if their were, it would reveal that the Cuba remarks received some of the most substantial attention of the campaign. A full article in one of the most reliable sources available, the NYT, about a set of comments is unusual and immediately grants substantial weight. Policy clearly requires inclusion, and none of the arguments here offer any argument grounded in sources or policy for the repeated removal of this material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, any argument that we should be engaging in anything close to some sort of "hits per search" mathematical analysis reveals a misunderstanding of WP:DUE. Two sources are not equal, and the amount of attention given to any subject in two articles that mention something may not be equal. A full article dedicated to the Cuba comments in the NYT--and there was far more coverage than that. seems mock this type of analysis, saying it is "jumping to conclusions" to treat coverage in the NYT as significant. No, that's exactly what we do. Substantial attention in highly reliable sources is what we go off of. There is nothing "precise" about a statistical survey of sources that make mention of something--this is actually a sloppy means of analysis that disregards relative attention given in each respective and reliability. Again, I will note that there is no contention on this page on comments in this article which have received substantially less coverage. I think we should be applying the same standard to controversial remarks that we do to any other set of comments, and avoid removing reliably sourced material where it is clearly accorded WP:WEIGHT. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating that we are not giving you "any argument grounded in sources or policy for the repeated removal of this material" when these arguments have been stated and restated multiple times. No one has suggested conducting a precise statistical survey. I am not sure if further discussion would make any sense. I don't know if the other material in this article is less relevant than the Cuba remarks in terms of proportional WP:RS coverage; maybe, but I can't review coverage of every other statement in the article and try to evaluate all of them in this discussion. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me try to rephrase that: I believe that you are presenting arguments that reference policy, and I will assume these to be in good faith of course. However, I do not believe that a careful review of these policies shows them to require, or frankly, even support removal. 1) BALASP indeed mentions "isolated" or "minor" criticisms, but we should be looking at "minor" from the perspective of "how was this treated in reliable sources," not "is this subjectively important or impressive to me." WP:DUE. If you even look at many of the preceding lines in Foreign policy, you'll see that most are supported with a single citation giving a far more cursory mention than the coverage that these remarks received. You mention that you're not reviewing all of the coverage in this discussion, but if you are going to cite a policy that examines relative weight, then that's exactly what we should be doing. BALASP does not call for analysis of limited content in a vacuum, it involves an assessment of what the article as a whole covers and relative weight assigned pieces of content per source coverage. WP:PUBLICFIGURE notes that once a controversy -- a set of remarks, an allegation -- receives coverage in multiple news sources, inclusion is warranted -- actually the policy says "should be" included. That's exactly what we have here; more than what's asked for, in fact, since we have a full piece from the NYT and other outlets. Even if I were to put on my "I want this excluded" hat, objective evaluations of source coverage should be controlling here, and we should not exclude this unless there's a compelling reason to do so. As for arguments about whether or not it's "biographical" or "relevant," these are the fuzziest and least compelling, IMO, since they are more subjective, but even then we should be presenting all of a politicians prominent views. This is a typical part of political BLPs. Removing some and not others without respect to source coverage and giving editor's subjective opinions controlling weight is not in compliance w/ NPOV and creates an uneven article that misses key info. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me try again, with comments next to your statements; maybe that will be clearer. You wrote:
 * [1] BALASP indeed mentions "isolated" or "minor" criticisms, but we should be looking at "minor" from the perspective of "how was this treated in reliable sources," not "is this subjectively important or impressive to me." Look at WP:BALASP: "Articles should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." Was Bernie Sanders' remark an aspect of Bernie Sanders? Yes. How should we judge if it was significant or insignificant, according to BALASP? According to the body of reliable, published material. Is coverage in The NY Times and several other media outlets significant or not in the context of the subject? Per BALASP, that's relative to the body of reliable sources on Bernie Sanders. So, I think not: the overwhelming body of sources about Bernie Sanders has nothing to do with this remark. But maybe that's because it was recent, and we should make an exception on that basis? Well, perhaps, but if you click on recent events, BALASP takes you to WP:RECENTISM. That explanatory supplement suggests considering the long-term significance of the material. That's obviously a judgment call; at one point RECENTISM suggests using a 10-year test - will this be notable in 10 years? No, I don't think so, and that seems to be the consensus view.
 * [2] BALASP does not call for analysis of limited content in a vacuum, it involves an assessment of what the article as a whole covers and relative weight assigned pieces of content per source coverage. If we follow BALASP we should end up with a reasonably balanced article in the end. But what BALASP directly states is to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material." So, Sanders' Cuba remark should be assessed according to the body of reliable sources dealing with Sanders, not according to sources dealing with his other statements or views. His position on Israel may be separately assessed according to the body of reliable sources about Sanders. Sanders' opposition to the Iraq War may be separately assessed in relation to the body of reliable sources about Sanders. That's just applying BALASP again. If I hold that discussion of a single remark about Cuba is inappropriate per BALASP as too minor to include at all, as a comment that is very minor relative to the body of reliable sources about Sanders, I am not required to examine any other particular statement. If I were to argue that the amount of space devoted to Sanders' view of Cuba were disproportionate relative to something else discussed in the article, that would be a different scenario. But so far we have only looked at Cuba, and if we don't think it is appropriate to include that in the article, we don't have to review anything else in the article, since we have already examined the weight of Cuba in the article as a whole in relation to the body of reliable sources, as policy requires. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , your arguement boils down to that although the Cuba comments received little coverage, you think it is important. But what you may find important someone else may not and vice versa. But DUE specifically says that what is important is determined by the degree of attention paid in reliable sources, not our personal judgments. There are lots of stories for example about Sanders and Canada, for example, "Canada to Bernie Sanders: Don't take our drugs home" (CNN 26 July 2019). Castro was as pallbearer at the funeral of the current prime minister, so it's got a Cuba angle if you use your imagination. But there's no mention of Canada in this article.
 * What can't you just say the lamestream liberal media is soft on Communism and once again betrayed the people by virtually ignoring the story?
 * TFD (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * although the Cuba comments received little coverage, you think it is important. This is factually correct. The exact opposite is true. The relevant sources have already been cited, and they are both numerous and in prominent publications. Kindly do a better job with regards to the factual basis of your argument and representing the opposing position. Nowhere does WP:BALASP justify removal of this well and reliably sourced content. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These long arguments are becoming increasingly difficult to follow, but I think I get the sense of what you are asserting. Because no one story, comment, or controversy comprises a substantial portion of the entire body of coverage, it is "insignificant," and your repeated removal of reliably sourced content at this page is justified. That is not how we evaluate content or apply policies like WP:BALASP. The truth is, you really haven't offered any observations about the body of coverage about Bernie Sanders except that it is probably large. There is no threshold created by WP:BALASP based on number of stories, etc. If we are at apply WP:BALASP, we should actually acknowledge what was removed: a two-sentence summary under Foreign policy describing a controversy over his comments/views on a foreign country that received substantial national coverage. No one suggested that an entire paragraph or section be dedicated to this. If I hold that discussion of a single remark about Cuba is inappropriate per BALASP as too minor to include at all, as a comment that is very minor relative to the body of reliable sources about Sanders, I am not required to examine any other particular statement. This is a conclusory argument. Why is it "minor?" You are assuming It is not minor according to the sources, and prior arguments about it being "unimportant" are subjective and not how we decide how to assess content. WP:DUE. And obviously WP:BALASP involves looking at relative weights and structure, so any BALASP analysis should be looking at the article as a whole, not exclusively focusing on controversies and removing them and ignoring or allowing to remain less controversial statements that have received less attention in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, certainly at least some aspects of Bernie Sanders' biography - whether story, comment, or controversy - are significant in proportion to total coverage of Sanders in reliable sources. Others are not. In the case of recent events like Sanders' answer to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes, WP:BALASP urges caution and provides a Wikilink to WP:RECENTISM, which asks editors to write with "attention to the long-term significance of the information..." I don't know why you think that violates policy. That's exactly what policy asks for. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The comparison for each and every proposed addition to the article is not a comparison to the entire body of source coverage. Articles grow and expand as the subject continues to receive reliable coverage. For a controversy over the subject's comments, the degree of coverage of substantial and clearly indicates the significance. Few other incidents received such focused coverage from prominent and reliable sources, and other comments under Foreign policy certainly received less. That's why removal is unjustified, and the explanation that was in the article before being removed was on the conservative side. We should not be applying an incorrect standard for WP:BALASP, which is a minor commentary on broader policy, and ignoring sources like CNN, the NYT, WaPO, CNBC, NBC, or WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:NPOV. RECENTISM is also an explanatory supplement and does not prohibit addition of recent material. Otherwise we would not include any information on the campaign.

I will explain again: the above arguments are selectively arguing for removal of well sourced, reliable information as a "balancing" issue while ignoring the fact that the majority of the article info is supported with far less sourcing. The habit of focusing on controversies to the exclusion of all other content and making specious arguments for removal without considering sources or controlling fundamental policies creates an unbalanced and non-neutral article. Users above need to indicate specifically how a 1-2 sentence explanation of a controversy that received national and sustained coverage under Foreign policycreates a "disproportionate focus." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This really seems like beating a dead horse; I and others have repeatedly expressed a policy-based objection. I don't really want to continue flogging the carcass at this point, but since your last statement is a direct request, I will provide the courtesy of a response. You ask "to indicate specifically how a 1-2 sentence explanation of a controversy that received national and sustained coverage under Foreign policy creates a disproportionate focus." The answer is that it did not even receive sustained coverage; it generated some significant ephemeral coverage during the primary and is already no longer an issue that anyone is concerned about, since the controversy involved Sanders being criticized for a position that would compromise the Democrats' chances in Florida if he were the nominee in a general election. That indicates no long-term significance in terms of source weight (see WP:BALASP), in contrast to other positions that have received sustained coverage for years, like Sanders' positions on healthcare, or in terms of foreign policy, Israel-Palestine, Iraq War, etc. Perhaps Sanders' positions on Cuba has also received sustained coverage over the years (I would have to research further), but certainly not his one particular response on 60 Minutes in February, which you are trying to frame as biographically significant based on ephemeral coverage.
 * If you have any other questions about my position, I will be happy to answer them. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A cursory reference to or citation of policy while ignoring how that policy applies is not a policy argument. it generated some significant ephemeral coverage during the primary and is already no longer an issue that anyone is concerned about I will explain again: the first half of this sentence is what matters. The second half is irrelevant. It is not for an editor to decide what's important and what's not independent of or contrary to reliable sources. WP:DUE is met with the sources provided. WP:NPOV requires noting prominent views and controversies. The addition was a short, 1-2 sentence explanation, which is short shrift given the substantial degree of attention in reliable sources. WP:BALASP is not a license for removing reliably sourced controversies, and the efforts to trim this article of criticisms by selectively and unequally applying this loose, subjective standard of "I don't think this is important" standard is inappropriate. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, forgive me, but I still am not sure I understand why this content is being treated differently than the rest of the content throughout the article, much of which is either a) supported by fewer or less prominent sources or b) takes up a lot more space. I do not think controversies should be trimmed selectively absent a compelling reason why doing so would not impinge on WP:NPOV. I have not heard that or observed a substantial concern for WP:NPOV. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm re-adding this material. The objections here are presumably in good faith, but do not give appropriate acknowledgement to the substantial weight assigned to this viewpoint given in reliable sources and controlling policy here, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A complete bio should present all of a politician's prominently reported views, and so long as each is described in short, concise sentences relative to weight in reliable sources, there is no WP:BALASP issue justifying their removal. The current version is a 2-sentence descriptor, which is short-shrift for nationally covered remarks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You have not gained consensus for the Cuba information and I have removed it. Please do not add till you have consensus.  Gandydancer (talk) 00:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ephemeral coverage does not meet npov. TFD (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)