Talk:Cenk Uygur

Inappropriate deletions

An editor has now twice made inappropriate deletions of RS-supported text. In the first case, he didn't even follow the rules that require him to add an explanatory edit summary. In the more recent instance, he deleted all the text, on the unlikely basis that he felt it was necessary, because he didn't see a political debate as properly falling with a section entitled "Political .. views." That's not cricket. I would ask the editor to stop, or let's bring in an admin to address this mode of editing. It's not what is expected of wp editors. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:3081:F:44FD:CED1 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Appearance on the Arkansas primary ballot.

What is the reliable course that says Uyugr will appear on the Arkansas primary ballot? Uygur's claim about himself is self-sourcing that is making an extraordinary claim. The Arkansas Secretary of State's site lists Uygur (and others) as having filed, but it doesn't say any candidate qualified for the ballot. Weazie (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It's Ballotpedia: [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Ballotpedia lists the names of who filed from the Arkansas Secretary of State's site, and its article's title is "Seven candidates have filed to appear on Arkansas’ Democratic presidential primary ballot." Filing isn't qualifying. Weazie (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The body of the Ballotpedia article also says: "Seven candidates qualified to appear on the March 5, 2024, ballot. In order to qualify, candidates had to submit either a petition with 5,000 signatures or a $2,500 filing fee to the state party." David O. Johnson (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Those aren't the only qualifications to appear on the Arkansas ballot. "Ballotpedia said it, that settles it" seems like a rather low bar for WP:RS about an extraordinary claim. --Weazie (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders endorsement retraction clarification?

The portion about Bernie Sanders retracting his endorsement currently reads (trimmed the extra detail out of the middle so the key portions I’m referring to here are easier to read):

Sanders retracted his support after offensive sexual comments that Uygur had long made […] in years prior were brought to his attention.

— Cenk_Uygur#Political_campaigns

While the timeline is technically true, in that his retraction eventually followed complaints from supporters (regarding Uygur’s past comments), the wording of this sentence seems to imply a causal relationship - that his learning of the comments was the direct reason for the retraction - and that Sanders was previously unaware of the existence of all/any of these comments. As “brought to attention” means “to make someone aware of (something).” Merriam-Webster

The sources suggest that while the retraction did come after people brought up his past comments, it was not immediate, and they make no mention of whether he was ever previously aware of these statements:

The Sanders campaign chose not to comment on Uygur’s past, instead referring to the prepared statement.

— CNN

Sanders did not specifically address Uygur’s comments about women. His campaign spokesman Mike Casca did not respond to an email asking whether the senator shared the concerns of supporters who were offended by his support for Uygur.

— LA Times

But he withdrew the endorsement a day later, after facing considerable backlash for his decision, and after Mr. Uygur made an announcement of his own: He was no longer accepting endorsements of any kind.

— New York Times

Sanders’ own released statement on the retraction was as follows, and does not specifically state it was the nature of the comments, or being made aware of their existence, that led to his retraction of the endorsement. At most, he refers to frustrations and concerns from his supporters as implied reasoning, as well as Uygur’s rejection of all endorsements:

As I said yesterday, Cenk has been a longtime fighter against the corrupt forces in our politics and he's inspired people all across the country. However, our movement is bigger than any one person. I hear my grassroots supporters who were frustrated and understand their concerns. Cenk today said he is rejecting all endorsements for his campaign, and I retract my endorsement.

— Bernie Sanders, Business Insider

One of the quotes from the above BI source that suggests this was already well-known information (but does not confirm whether or not Sanders knew beforehand):

All this stuff about Cenk Uygur has been well known in the progressive community for a very long time. Sanders either didn't ask anyone about it, or didn't care. Both are bad.

— David Atkins

Obviously Atkins’ statement speculation/opinion, and therefore not a valid source of fact, just including it to show that Sanders’ actual reasoning seems to have been debated and uncertain.

Tl;dr, the implications in the wording of the part about Sanders’ endorsement don’t seem to be supported by any of the linked sources. If someone has a source that supports the current wording, that should be included. Otherwise, I propose that portion be re-worded to be more accurate/neutral, stating just the facts, without any inference about what Sanders may or may not have known ahead of time. As-is, the discrepancy reads (whether intentional or not) as defensive speculation.

I know it’s just a small portion of the article, and Sanders isn’t even the topic of this article, but (regardless of my own political views) I know how important it is, especially with current political figures, that statements about their actions and the motivations behind their decisions, remain restricted to known facts, free of bias.

I can try to reword it myself if necessary, but I’m not very experienced at editing on here (and have a tendency to be overly wordy) and I don’t have a ton of free time right now, so I’m hoping someone else can tackle it if others agree with this proposed edit. Catfrost (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)