-
Sanders in Littleton, New Hampshire, August 2015
-
instead of Sanders in Minneapolis facing the first large crowd of his campaign, May 31, 2015
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Bernie has not officially announced that he is running for President, which is usually the default line of demarcation for creating these articles as separate pages. At the same time, Sanders has said that he probably will and there has been significant media coverage over the prospect of his run and/or his campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I would be open to the creation of a stand-alone article even if he has not "officially" announced. Juno ( talk) 07:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6839305/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-2016 Good access to Bernie Sanders on his presidential run, motivations and such. Edit semi-protected ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This article says that he officially announced on April 30. Today's news says that he officially announced today (May 27).
Which is it?
Or both, or neither?
?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? --- Dagme ( talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Should a thread of his political positions be started? On a May 19 CNN broadcast with Wolf Bliter, Sanders unveiled a plan to eliminate college tuition by taxing Wall Street speculation. There is also his main talking point about wealth (or income) inequality...among many other issues. . Buster Seven Talk 13:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Facts about campaign fundraising and political support are relevant to a candidate's probability of success in the Democratic primary. An earlier edit made on 05/10/15 cited (and then also quoted) the Huffington Post, stating that the campaign received support from a "a crew of former aides to President Barack Obama". It was further indicated that the financial support of Bernie Sanders was a "dramatic indication that he won’t be confined simply to a long-shot role in the Democratic primary". Both of these details were suppressed under the assumption that it violated the neutral point of view guidelines.
Wikipedia has defined NPOV as an act of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In my estimation, the Huffington Post is a reliable source with a significant and unbiased perspective: i.e. that Sanders' extreme grassroots support and political affiliation with members from the team that brought Barack Obama into office mark him as a serious contender for the Democratic primary. This is a reasonable view and should be voiced against those who are attempting to marginalize his relevance.
There is nothing in NPOV that argues the content should be value free or devoid of inferences. Please keep that in mind when editing political articles. -- Aliensyntax ( talk) 03:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The info box currently has his affiliation with the Democratic Party. Is that right? I mean did he formally join the party? I believe a candidate can run for an office for the Democrats without changing his Independent status. Did somebody jump the gun? __ 209.179.16.138 ( talk) 00:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
He has confirmed (as the sources in the article say) that he is running for the Democratic nomination. PrairieKid ( talk) 02:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just so we're clear: If someone were to ask him if he is no longer an Independent and is now a member of the Democratic Party, he would reply, "Yes I am." Is that correct? If so, shouldn't this be corrected on his biography page? __ 209.179.16.138 ( talk) 03:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we allow for posts on Twitter to count as a reliable source for an endorsement? I notice that many of the endorsements on this page are cited by tweets, which seems to me to be an unofficial and non-reliable source for information.-- TM 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed Roseanne Barr from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements because she is listed at United States presidential election, 2016#Declared_3 as running for president herself. (By the same token, I have also removed Dan Bilzerian as an endorsement for Rand Paul because Bilzerian is also listed as running for president.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree... If someone is running for President, they can not endorse another candidate. PrairieKid ( talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
On one of the weekend shows, Bernie Sanders was asked about gun control. He handled it quite well, said he knew the difference between a gang-banger in Chicago and a hunter in Vermont. Said suing a gun company over a killing made no more sense than suing a hammer manufacturer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Howdy... A few editors have added the Occupy Wall Street movement as an endorser of Sanders. I think that's wrong. The movement has no central organization to endorse any one. The article cited says that supporters of the movement are more likely to be supporter's of Sanders but I don't think we can say an entire movement endorses one candidate. That would be like listing "African-Americans" as a supporter of Barack Obama since he won 95% of their vote. Barring objection, I will continue to revert the addition of the movement. PrairieKid ( talk)
That is my understanding. And I was an active participant of the Occupy movement when it was actually occupying. --- Dagme ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the Occupy movement never endorsed any political candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8100:7FBB:494F:9978:46B1:8CA2 ( talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The guy has political positions and he is obviously a high profile candidate. Why doesn't this page have any of them, from foreign to domestic policy listed here? Buffaboy talk 23:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the established protocol for "individual people"? Many of them are "celebrities" in as much as their stated profession is "comedian" for example. There is little to no consistency in how and where folks are listed in general. JesseRafe ( talk) 19:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The formatting of Bernie Sanders' endorsements appears almost deliberately hidden. There may be a reason, but should not these endorsements follow other much more typical Wikipedia formatting? What could possibly be the reason for listing Bernie Sanders' endorsements in formatting different from all the other candidates?!
(1) The endorsements are zipped up in a hidden box accessible on via an innocuous "show" link to the right. (2) Other lists in Wikipedia *rarely* use such "hidden" boxes. (3) That hidden box is listed directly *after* a circular reference that points users to *another* list of endorsements for other candidates, a circular reference ultimately pointing straight back to this page...while listing *none* of Sanders' endorsements along side the endorsements of his competitors on that other page. (4) The hidden box is buried underneath the circular reference. KyleSager ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If Chomsky calls Sanders' campaign "good for the democratic party" [1] and even sent an email stating his endorsement for Sanders [2]. Should we add Chomsky? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Craig is a Bernie supporter to the tune of $50,000. Can we add him? http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/james-bond-gives-50000-bernie-sanders Stellabystarlight ( talk) 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A citation needed tag was initiated about the report that is mentioned. The stats are the same as a release that Sanders made in Feb of 2011. I'm not sure where but I remember somewhere reading in his literature that they came from an OECD report. I'm confident that the figures come from OECD, but not so confident that the figures are recent (as our article states) if Sanders enumerated them in early 2011. . Buster Seven Talk 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Whiteboyrobot. We are collaborators here. Saying, "If you don't like it, too bad" is not a good beginning. As for this edit, "Demonstrating his pride in relying on small individual donations,..." is your interpretation of the campaign literature's message. I think that may be why it was removed. Stating "...most Bernie Sanders campaign web pages and emails read at the bottom "Paid for by Bernie 2016(not the billionaires)" might be except-able. If phrased a little differently. But, rather than re-inserting things, and creating an edit war, you should bring your difference to the article talk page. . Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not in any sense constructive to target someone and mindlessly revert every single thing they edit. Period.
Collaborator is not just a word that can be used for anyone using this web page. There is nothing collaborative about petty and discourteous behaviors to others online. There is nothing collaborative about erasing factual information when previously, it was lacking. How does reversing an improvement help? Collaborators should actually be collaborative.
My interpretation? Okay, without interpretations, you deprive readers of useful information, because a statement of fact should ideally contain a purpose, not just state the fact by itself and leave the reader potentially unaware of the connection to the larger topic. That makes for easy reading. Command of the English language and writing go a long way. Not that any of that matters, since I am just being targeted by users who want to revert useful additions of information, with no apparent purpose for reverting. Alright.
I will re-insert things as I see fit if I see myself continually targeted by such individuals who, contrary to logic and common sense, feel threatened by information pertinent to the topic. If anyone has created an edit war, it is not me, it is the individuals intent on acting recklessly and discourteously to others, AND, rather than bringing differences to the article talk page, what would be most constructive(and that IS what matters) is if individuals just didn't screw around and left valuable information alone when coming across it.
I will defend my contributions, through very simply and slowly broken-down explanations for those who need that, and through actions. I will break things down very carefully, clearly, and slowly because I know how easily agitated the Wikipedia keyboard warriors can get when they don't control everything or if you disagree with them, and I will edit to maintain and defend the integrity of information. Au revoir. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page seems to be settling information before a consensus is built around a contribution and its form is finalized. That doesn't mean that I should be checking with the talk page every time before I make a contribution of information that improves a section. I would be the first user who always asks permission to make an edit. With information, there is sometimes a dispute pertaining to the truth and the reality of where a situation stands, but when facts are already settled, facts are stubborn things. Pragmatically, in that case just go ahead and make the edit. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gandydancer, I'm also not saying put something in my exact phraseology. If you see it fit, or a consensus otherwise emerges that the information should be added, exact wording doesn't make as much of a difference as communicating the idea or thought. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 01:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
collapsing out of scope discussion
|
---|
|
For what it's worth, there's a strong likelihood User:65.189.198.128 is the now-blocked WBR. Not worth my time and the backlash from this user for me to instigate an SPI on it. Just a note for any current or future-ly interested parties. JesseRafe ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw in an edit summary that Jeremy Piven was just added. I looked and saw quite a few others from this list of 128 celebrity endorsements. Are they all included now? – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
My edit to this article which added the controversial Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm to the see-also section has been removed with this perplexing edit summary: Removing link to Diane Rehm § Controversies (via Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm) (even though the content of the interview could belong in this article). I will leave it to the editors controlling the contents of this article to decide if/how to add it to this page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
The Infoboxes [5] on the campaign page and the endorsements page need to remain in sync. I propose a new template that includes only that Infobox content, which we could transclude to this page as well as to the endorsements page. Thoughts? — LLarson ( said & done) 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Why i can't change the infobox? Ghostmen2 ( talk) 10:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It uses a template and sidebar that are separate pages. SirLagsalott ( talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ought this page include something about how he's fared in the various state caucus and primaries? Considering that a big talking point against Bernie by some is "he's un-electable" it's worth noting that he essentially tied Hillary in the Iowa Caucuses and in more than 6 precincts across the state literally tied her in number of caucus goers forcing coin flips to determine who won the extra (or only) delegate. [1] If someone knows how to make charts or something we could also list results in that way? Just an idea. RedDarling ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Did Hillary earn hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches in Canada? Why? Two Canadian Banks tightly connected to the TransCanada (XL Pipeline)heavily funded those speeches. So, my question is why was she so quiet on being pro or con the pipeline until it may have seemed politically correct for her to take a stand? Is she eventually going to support it.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html
Seems like a topic that might want to be semi protected to prevent people from putting false information. TempTTC ( talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks. Should we make an article about the "Bernie Bros" concept promoted primarily by Clinton supporters (and the Clinton campaign itself)? There's plenty to work with about it, between the Intercept's rejection of the concept ( [6]) to Clinton backer Paul Krugman's usage of the term. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, the Feel the Bern slogan isn't mentioned at all in the article. I think it's relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we add a subsection about his African-American support? HRC's campaign article has one. Zigzig20s ( talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
( diff) I put a fair amount of time into finding images most illustrative of the appropriate sections and I think the first one below is better than the one with which it was replaced.
We already have close-ups above this one and on Sanders's own article—there are crisper or more expressive portraits to use (if we need one) but nevertheless, this section should be about how the campaign looks. I would also think that a photo of the Seattle Black Lives Matter activists is historically consequential to include (even if it isn't
this exact one). The point is to have photos for when the section expand (there is enough content—it just hasn't been added yet). Check the Commons category for plenty of others—I added a bunch of videos too and can make animations as necessary.
czar
16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this section really relevant in the broader scope of Bernie's campaign and does it deserve a paragraph on this page? You might as well list all the cups and T-shirt's he is selling as well if that is the case. Who is for and against it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sanders repeatedly says that he does not have any Super PACs. However, there are several that have spent millions supporting his candidacy, and ones that are even mentioned in sources on this page. Trump similarly said that he doesn't have any PACs, and when several cropped up he disavowed them, but there's still a section about it on his page. Shouldn't we mention that Sanders has several he has not yet disavowed as well? SirLagsalott ( talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't feel like there's enough there for it to have its own article p b p 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Much of the success of this campaign has not come from Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, but rather with a subreddit called /r/SandersForPresident. There have been a number of news articles on this group. Should an article for it be created? Buffaboy talk 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a few instances where the font size in the infobox drops below the required size as per WP:FONTSIZE. How would you like to reorganize this information? The small text tags need to go. Italics, maybe? ~ Rob Talk 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The subreddit subsection is littered with unverifiable claims. I have tagged many claims that I couldn't find in the sources, but I propose the whole section be deleted. If this is considered an important topic, the section should be written from scratch. Politrukki ( talk) 12:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I fixed some citations in this subsection. Is that good enough? Pateca ( talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 March 2016
I was wondering if this page could be semi-protected. IP ranges tend to vandalize here. Maybe just in case? FixCop ( talk) 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No talk about any gaffes from his campaign including recent ones like Bernie's New York Daily News interview. Almost everything in this article is positive about Senator Sanders. Compare it with articles for other candidates' campaigns (i.e. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz) and you'll see much more objective articles - articles telling both sides of the story, if you know what I mean.
Look guys, I know what you're trying to do here but this is Wikipedia and articles are supposed to be presented in an objective, unbiased manner. This article looks like it came straight from Bernie Sanders' campaign. Nelson Richards ( talk) 20:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A link to Bernie Bros, which I thought that I had edited in a NPOV manner, was deleted. I think a short mention belongs on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You can't put that in based on a bunch of opinion pieces in tabloids or clearly non-reliable sources like RT. The fact that *only* low quality, junk sources are talking about it is a huge red flag that this is not encyclopedic. If reliable mainstream sources pick it up - which they won't because if you actually read the damn emails there's nothing in'em, this is just a bunch of click bait - you can put it in. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Another red flag: Sanders himself, or anyone associated with him, is actually saying this or backing this up in any way. It's just a bunch of trashy webpages + the Russian government propaganda channel. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section should be created noting some of Sanders' continuing goals as well as the creation of "Our Revolution" and the "Sanders Institute." I hope that's a reasonable suggestion. Dustin (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 recently closed an AfD on Bernie or Bust, with the result of merging with this article. Putting this here to solicit any thoughts on how the merger should proceed. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
something needs to be included on Sander's positions and support in Native communities. Sanders gave unheard of support and inclusion towards native peoples. but as usual, "natives are forgot by americans thinking they are extinct or don't count" this is no small part of the notable points of his campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D6C1:3000:C11:7A1:C480:46B6 ( talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Bernie has not officially announced that he is running for President, which is usually the default line of demarcation for creating these articles as separate pages. At the same time, Sanders has said that he probably will and there has been significant media coverage over the prospect of his run and/or his campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I would be open to the creation of a stand-alone article even if he has not "officially" announced. Juno ( talk) 07:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6839305/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-2016 Good access to Bernie Sanders on his presidential run, motivations and such. Edit semi-protected ( talk) 05:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This article says that he officially announced on April 30. Today's news says that he officially announced today (May 27).
Which is it?
Or both, or neither?
?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? --- Dagme ( talk) 00:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Should a thread of his political positions be started? On a May 19 CNN broadcast with Wolf Bliter, Sanders unveiled a plan to eliminate college tuition by taxing Wall Street speculation. There is also his main talking point about wealth (or income) inequality...among many other issues. . Buster Seven Talk 13:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Facts about campaign fundraising and political support are relevant to a candidate's probability of success in the Democratic primary. An earlier edit made on 05/10/15 cited (and then also quoted) the Huffington Post, stating that the campaign received support from a "a crew of former aides to President Barack Obama". It was further indicated that the financial support of Bernie Sanders was a "dramatic indication that he won’t be confined simply to a long-shot role in the Democratic primary". Both of these details were suppressed under the assumption that it violated the neutral point of view guidelines.
Wikipedia has defined NPOV as an act of "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In my estimation, the Huffington Post is a reliable source with a significant and unbiased perspective: i.e. that Sanders' extreme grassroots support and political affiliation with members from the team that brought Barack Obama into office mark him as a serious contender for the Democratic primary. This is a reasonable view and should be voiced against those who are attempting to marginalize his relevance.
There is nothing in NPOV that argues the content should be value free or devoid of inferences. Please keep that in mind when editing political articles. -- Aliensyntax ( talk) 03:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The info box currently has his affiliation with the Democratic Party. Is that right? I mean did he formally join the party? I believe a candidate can run for an office for the Democrats without changing his Independent status. Did somebody jump the gun? __ 209.179.16.138 ( talk) 00:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
He has confirmed (as the sources in the article say) that he is running for the Democratic nomination. PrairieKid ( talk) 02:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, just so we're clear: If someone were to ask him if he is no longer an Independent and is now a member of the Democratic Party, he would reply, "Yes I am." Is that correct? If so, shouldn't this be corrected on his biography page? __ 209.179.16.138 ( talk) 03:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we allow for posts on Twitter to count as a reliable source for an endorsement? I notice that many of the endorsements on this page are cited by tweets, which seems to me to be an unofficial and non-reliable source for information.-- TM 14:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed Roseanne Barr from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements because she is listed at United States presidential election, 2016#Declared_3 as running for president herself. (By the same token, I have also removed Dan Bilzerian as an endorsement for Rand Paul because Bilzerian is also listed as running for president.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree... If someone is running for President, they can not endorse another candidate. PrairieKid ( talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
On one of the weekend shows, Bernie Sanders was asked about gun control. He handled it quite well, said he knew the difference between a gang-banger in Chicago and a hunter in Vermont. Said suing a gun company over a killing made no more sense than suing a hammer manufacturer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Howdy... A few editors have added the Occupy Wall Street movement as an endorser of Sanders. I think that's wrong. The movement has no central organization to endorse any one. The article cited says that supporters of the movement are more likely to be supporter's of Sanders but I don't think we can say an entire movement endorses one candidate. That would be like listing "African-Americans" as a supporter of Barack Obama since he won 95% of their vote. Barring objection, I will continue to revert the addition of the movement. PrairieKid ( talk)
That is my understanding. And I was an active participant of the Occupy movement when it was actually occupying. --- Dagme ( talk) 00:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the Occupy movement never endorsed any political candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8100:7FBB:494F:9978:46B1:8CA2 ( talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The guy has political positions and he is obviously a high profile candidate. Why doesn't this page have any of them, from foreign to domestic policy listed here? Buffaboy talk 23:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
What's the established protocol for "individual people"? Many of them are "celebrities" in as much as their stated profession is "comedian" for example. There is little to no consistency in how and where folks are listed in general. JesseRafe ( talk) 19:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The formatting of Bernie Sanders' endorsements appears almost deliberately hidden. There may be a reason, but should not these endorsements follow other much more typical Wikipedia formatting? What could possibly be the reason for listing Bernie Sanders' endorsements in formatting different from all the other candidates?!
(1) The endorsements are zipped up in a hidden box accessible on via an innocuous "show" link to the right. (2) Other lists in Wikipedia *rarely* use such "hidden" boxes. (3) That hidden box is listed directly *after* a circular reference that points users to *another* list of endorsements for other candidates, a circular reference ultimately pointing straight back to this page...while listing *none* of Sanders' endorsements along side the endorsements of his competitors on that other page. (4) The hidden box is buried underneath the circular reference. KyleSager ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
If Chomsky calls Sanders' campaign "good for the democratic party" [1] and even sent an email stating his endorsement for Sanders [2]. Should we add Chomsky? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 02:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Daniel Craig is a Bernie supporter to the tune of $50,000. Can we add him? http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/james-bond-gives-50000-bernie-sanders Stellabystarlight ( talk) 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
A citation needed tag was initiated about the report that is mentioned. The stats are the same as a release that Sanders made in Feb of 2011. I'm not sure where but I remember somewhere reading in his literature that they came from an OECD report. I'm confident that the figures come from OECD, but not so confident that the figures are recent (as our article states) if Sanders enumerated them in early 2011. . Buster Seven Talk 08:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Whiteboyrobot. We are collaborators here. Saying, "If you don't like it, too bad" is not a good beginning. As for this edit, "Demonstrating his pride in relying on small individual donations,..." is your interpretation of the campaign literature's message. I think that may be why it was removed. Stating "...most Bernie Sanders campaign web pages and emails read at the bottom "Paid for by Bernie 2016(not the billionaires)" might be except-able. If phrased a little differently. But, rather than re-inserting things, and creating an edit war, you should bring your difference to the article talk page. . Buster Seven Talk 05:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not in any sense constructive to target someone and mindlessly revert every single thing they edit. Period.
Collaborator is not just a word that can be used for anyone using this web page. There is nothing collaborative about petty and discourteous behaviors to others online. There is nothing collaborative about erasing factual information when previously, it was lacking. How does reversing an improvement help? Collaborators should actually be collaborative.
My interpretation? Okay, without interpretations, you deprive readers of useful information, because a statement of fact should ideally contain a purpose, not just state the fact by itself and leave the reader potentially unaware of the connection to the larger topic. That makes for easy reading. Command of the English language and writing go a long way. Not that any of that matters, since I am just being targeted by users who want to revert useful additions of information, with no apparent purpose for reverting. Alright.
I will re-insert things as I see fit if I see myself continually targeted by such individuals who, contrary to logic and common sense, feel threatened by information pertinent to the topic. If anyone has created an edit war, it is not me, it is the individuals intent on acting recklessly and discourteously to others, AND, rather than bringing differences to the article talk page, what would be most constructive(and that IS what matters) is if individuals just didn't screw around and left valuable information alone when coming across it.
I will defend my contributions, through very simply and slowly broken-down explanations for those who need that, and through actions. I will break things down very carefully, clearly, and slowly because I know how easily agitated the Wikipedia keyboard warriors can get when they don't control everything or if you disagree with them, and I will edit to maintain and defend the integrity of information. Au revoir. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 06:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of this talk page seems to be settling information before a consensus is built around a contribution and its form is finalized. That doesn't mean that I should be checking with the talk page every time before I make a contribution of information that improves a section. I would be the first user who always asks permission to make an edit. With information, there is sometimes a dispute pertaining to the truth and the reality of where a situation stands, but when facts are already settled, facts are stubborn things. Pragmatically, in that case just go ahead and make the edit. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 06:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
@Gandydancer, I'm also not saying put something in my exact phraseology. If you see it fit, or a consensus otherwise emerges that the information should be added, exact wording doesn't make as much of a difference as communicating the idea or thought. Whiteboyrobot ( talk) 01:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
collapsing out of scope discussion
|
---|
|
For what it's worth, there's a strong likelihood User:65.189.198.128 is the now-blocked WBR. Not worth my time and the backlash from this user for me to instigate an SPI on it. Just a note for any current or future-ly interested parties. JesseRafe ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I saw in an edit summary that Jeremy Piven was just added. I looked and saw quite a few others from this list of 128 celebrity endorsements. Are they all included now? – Muboshgu ( talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
My edit to this article which added the controversial Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm to the see-also section has been removed with this perplexing edit summary: Removing link to Diane Rehm § Controversies (via Bernie Sanders interview with Diane Rehm) (even though the content of the interview could belong in this article). I will leave it to the editors controlling the contents of this article to decide if/how to add it to this page. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me
The Infoboxes [5] on the campaign page and the endorsements page need to remain in sync. I propose a new template that includes only that Infobox content, which we could transclude to this page as well as to the endorsements page. Thoughts? — LLarson ( said & done) 00:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Why i can't change the infobox? Ghostmen2 ( talk) 10:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It uses a template and sidebar that are separate pages. SirLagsalott ( talk) 17:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ought this page include something about how he's fared in the various state caucus and primaries? Considering that a big talking point against Bernie by some is "he's un-electable" it's worth noting that he essentially tied Hillary in the Iowa Caucuses and in more than 6 precincts across the state literally tied her in number of caucus goers forcing coin flips to determine who won the extra (or only) delegate. [1] If someone knows how to make charts or something we could also list results in that way? Just an idea. RedDarling ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Did Hillary earn hundreds of thousands of dollars giving speeches in Canada? Why? Two Canadian Banks tightly connected to the TransCanada (XL Pipeline)heavily funded those speeches. So, my question is why was she so quiet on being pro or con the pipeline until it may have seemed politically correct for her to take a stand? Is she eventually going to support it.
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html
Seems like a topic that might want to be semi protected to prevent people from putting false information. TempTTC ( talk) 04:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks. Should we make an article about the "Bernie Bros" concept promoted primarily by Clinton supporters (and the Clinton campaign itself)? There's plenty to work with about it, between the Intercept's rejection of the concept ( [6]) to Clinton backer Paul Krugman's usage of the term. :bloodofox: ( talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, the Feel the Bern slogan isn't mentioned at all in the article. I think it's relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Should we add a subsection about his African-American support? HRC's campaign article has one. Zigzig20s ( talk) 21:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
( diff) I put a fair amount of time into finding images most illustrative of the appropriate sections and I think the first one below is better than the one with which it was replaced.
We already have close-ups above this one and on Sanders's own article—there are crisper or more expressive portraits to use (if we need one) but nevertheless, this section should be about how the campaign looks. I would also think that a photo of the Seattle Black Lives Matter activists is historically consequential to include (even if it isn't
this exact one). The point is to have photos for when the section expand (there is enough content—it just hasn't been added yet). Check the Commons category for plenty of others—I added a bunch of videos too and can make animations as necessary.
czar
16:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is this section really relevant in the broader scope of Bernie's campaign and does it deserve a paragraph on this page? You might as well list all the cups and T-shirt's he is selling as well if that is the case. Who is for and against it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonnus ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Sanders repeatedly says that he does not have any Super PACs. However, there are several that have spent millions supporting his candidacy, and ones that are even mentioned in sources on this page. Trump similarly said that he doesn't have any PACs, and when several cropped up he disavowed them, but there's still a section about it on his page. Shouldn't we mention that Sanders has several he has not yet disavowed as well? SirLagsalott ( talk) 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't feel like there's enough there for it to have its own article p b p 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Not done
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Much of the success of this campaign has not come from Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash, but rather with a subreddit called /r/SandersForPresident. There have been a number of news articles on this group. Should an article for it be created? Buffaboy talk 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a few instances where the font size in the infobox drops below the required size as per WP:FONTSIZE. How would you like to reorganize this information? The small text tags need to go. Italics, maybe? ~ Rob Talk 22:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
The subreddit subsection is littered with unverifiable claims. I have tagged many claims that I couldn't find in the sources, but I propose the whole section be deleted. If this is considered an important topic, the section should be written from scratch. Politrukki ( talk) 12:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I fixed some citations in this subsection. Is that good enough? Pateca ( talk) 22:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potguru ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 27 March 2016
I was wondering if this page could be semi-protected. IP ranges tend to vandalize here. Maybe just in case? FixCop ( talk) 12:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
No talk about any gaffes from his campaign including recent ones like Bernie's New York Daily News interview. Almost everything in this article is positive about Senator Sanders. Compare it with articles for other candidates' campaigns (i.e. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz) and you'll see much more objective articles - articles telling both sides of the story, if you know what I mean.
Look guys, I know what you're trying to do here but this is Wikipedia and articles are supposed to be presented in an objective, unbiased manner. This article looks like it came straight from Bernie Sanders' campaign. Nelson Richards ( talk) 20:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A link to Bernie Bros, which I thought that I had edited in a NPOV manner, was deleted. I think a short mention belongs on the page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
You can't put that in based on a bunch of opinion pieces in tabloids or clearly non-reliable sources like RT. The fact that *only* low quality, junk sources are talking about it is a huge red flag that this is not encyclopedic. If reliable mainstream sources pick it up - which they won't because if you actually read the damn emails there's nothing in'em, this is just a bunch of click bait - you can put it in. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Another red flag: Sanders himself, or anyone associated with him, is actually saying this or backing this up in any way. It's just a bunch of trashy webpages + the Russian government propaganda channel. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 04:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I think an "Aftermath" or "Legacy" section should be created noting some of Sanders' continuing goals as well as the creation of "Our Revolution" and the "Sanders Institute." I hope that's a reasonable suggestion. Dustin (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Dane2007 recently closed an AfD on Bernie or Bust, with the result of merging with this article. Putting this here to solicit any thoughts on how the merger should proceed. TimothyJosephWood 12:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
something needs to be included on Sander's positions and support in Native communities. Sanders gave unheard of support and inclusion towards native peoples. but as usual, "natives are forgot by americans thinking they are extinct or don't count" this is no small part of the notable points of his campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:D6C1:3000:C11:7A1:C480:46B6 ( talk) 19:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)