Talk:Cenk Uygur/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2016

Cenk is not 5'11 lets be real here.

Canada15102050100 (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and "being real" means providing a reliable source for that. And providing the correct height if you claim this is wrong. If you just want to throw in sentences like this, just do it without edit requests, or better don't do that at all. Besides, who cares about his height? Is it really necessary info in an encyclopedia?

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MediaKill13 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the height entirely, it's not something that is generally put into infoboxes where it's not germane to the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 July 2016

Please change pronunciation [ˈdʒɛɲc ˈujɡur] to [ˈdʒɛŋc ˈujɡur]. /n/ turns into velar [ŋ] before velar /k, g, c, ɟ/ in Turkish. /ɲ/ is palatal - someone probably confused the two symbols. See Turkish phonology for source: "Before /c, ɟ, k, g/, /n/ is realized as velar [ŋ].". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.144.127 (talk) 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Toggling for now. Do you have a source for this? Re-open here if you have one. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Alex Jones confrontation

I don't oppose a sentence or two mentioning this, the current version is unacceptable though. It's sourced to Breitbart, the Daily Mail, and the Huffington Post, none of which are WP:RS; it's also WP:UNDUE and controversy sections are discouraged (WP:CSECTION). Any thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and made note of the incident. Since Uygur is usually fairly relaxed during his show, it is meritorious to at least mention a seemingly out-of-character moment in which he comes close to physically attacking a reporter after his show was interrupted. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

But you failed to describe the incident accurately. Uygur did not become "apoplectic" upon being shown an anti-Clinton T-shirt. His wrath was triggered when Jones suggested that his organization was soft on Saudi Arabia. Orthotox (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

Moved from User talk:MorbidEntree § Cenk Uygur

 – MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@MorbidEntree: i dont know how this works im new here, but his page is under troll attacks, pls read his article talk page to know the proper aproach that has been decided on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProgGR (talk • contribs)

@ProgGR: What exactly makes those parts of the article that you removed a "troll attack?" --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}^(Contribs)(please reply using {{ping}}) 06:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

There's no source for (end of 1st paragraph) "As a young man, Uygur espoused socially conservative views, criticizing feminism, abortion, and affirmative action."

Peppapaul (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Partly done I added a {{Citation needed}} tag. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is sourced in the "Political views" section.LM2000 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well that's why there's no need for a source there, Peppapaul. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"On Democratic politicians and officeholders" is nonsense

It portrays Cenk as a confirmed Democrat who just doesn't like the party's right wing. He is constantly criticizing the vast majority of well-known Democratic politicians, Hillary chief among them. I'm sure the majority of independent third-party sources that only describe folks like him in terms of "Democrat vs. Republican" portray him as a supporter of the Democrats, though, so I'm not sure how we could improve it without citing Cenk's own criticism of virtually all Democratic politicians, the party itself, and voters who consider themselves loyal Democrats. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Family

Sweetazsugar22 (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In a video titled "Marry Your Cousin But Watch Out For Mongoloid Kids, Says Crazy Uncle Pat" from The Young Turks, Cenk said that his Grandparents were 1st Cousins

 Not done Not sure what you want changed here.LM2000 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Justice Democrats Minespidur (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The use of "pro-life"

I modified the statement "pro-life" by changing it to "so-called pro-life". That was removed with the comment "we don't editorialize". However, using "pro-life" unmodified is editorializing. It takes a neutral position on a politicized usage. I would like a discussion on this, please.Michtom (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in quotes, which I think is good enough. Whether you agree or not with the position, "pro-life" is a commonly used term for people opposed to abortion. If anything, you could change it to "anti-abortion", which is the title of the relevant wiki article. --Sysys (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

Hi, Cenk is often nicknamed "The Buffalo" and "Chunk". Any place the page can mention these? Garjiu432hfui42hgfrn (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone cite a source that says Cenk didn't rescind his earlier genocide claim until 2016?

Because that's what our article currently says. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

In his own words: Today [April 22, 2016], I rescind the statements I made in my Daily Pennsylvanian article from 1991. In our words:In a blog post in April 2016, he rescinded the statements made in the earlier letters.LM2000 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

He did not acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in this article. He only states he doesn't have enough information on it. It is a common tactic when one is being attacked for Genocide denial. He says words that make him sound compassionate in hopes of getting some empathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is adequately summarized in the paragraph. Do you have any suggestions for improvement?LM2000 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

What paragraph?

Second paragraph under "Political views" section.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well I think it is important it is mentioned he has not still recognized and the article appears to say nothing that suggests he has. In adding that particular paragraph the way it is written -definitely does not portray his continued denial. I suggest you add ( But it appears (in the article) he still does not officially acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.) Thank you BTW for asking for my help. AlanaKAlanian (for some reason my username did not appear) I could add it?

Please do not erase -paragraph is perfect now.

• Alanakalania, we have had a discussion on the content posted. A judgmental statement like the one you just posted was not part of the consensus. It is putting a conclusion in wikipedia's voice. It is unsourced and this is a WP:BLP. You have a WP:POV blind spot about this subject. Gain a consensus before you post your opinions about this subject matter anywhere on wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not correct then. You deleted a very important part of the paragraph, the part I attached. As a portion of the article is copied it is vague and deceiving -leading readers to believe either to read between the lines or assume something that is not true. It is informative not personal to say he does deny than say he does not know enough about it otherwise you suggest he doesn't when he truly does still in fact deny. Alanakalanian 20:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs)

It must convey that in the recent article he makes no attempt to acknowledge what happen to the Armenians was actually a Genocide. Saying he does not have enough info on a historical fact when there is a ton of factual evidence out there for him to have explored by now is no different than saying one hasn't enough info on the Holocaust to actually call it that. The article brought him no closer to recognition, and so I don't even understand why this blog source was even posted? Anyhow, if words from that article are going to stay on his page -the fact the article says nothing about his recognition should also be provided. His still being a Genocide denier is very much is pertinent here. "He went on to mention that he doesn't know enough today to comment on the genocide", should go on to say that "and therefore still denies it was a Genocide. Alanakalanian 21:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanakalanian (talk • contribs)

I have to agree that he should still be categorised as an Armenian genocide denier until such time as he goes completely back on his previous claims and acknowledges it. Which he hasn't done yet. All of the other names on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers are there for the same reason, whether or not they played down their previous claims, they haven't acknowledged the event happened after their previous denial of it. Of course a left wing political columnist is going to get special treatment on Wikipedia, which shouldn't be the case - only truth should matter - and this man has denied a historical atrocity and should still be considered, objectively, a denier until such time as he comes out and admits it happened. A bit disappointed by this. I won't make the edit again since apparently it's not politically wikipedian. 209.93.39.98 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, being Armenian makes an obvious issue null and void due to a supposed bias of the person pointing it out. Certainly, not the best way of doing business. But the fact remains, the guy is still in denial. His nationality is American and not Turkish this makes him more subject to criticism than an actual Turkish person living in Turkey. There is a law in Turkey, Article 301, that forbids Turks from publicly acknowledging, but yet so many do, and sadly are penalized in some way for it. But this guy with a wide range of freedom has nothing stopping him, and yet he denies. It is obvious his reasons for doing so must be personal and not based on a lack of knowledge. His denial must be noted. Alanakalanian 01:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This really sums up what the hell is wrong with Wikipedia today. 37.18.142.142 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cenk Uyhur never stopped his denail of the armenian genocide - he just switch for hard denialism (nothing happend) to soft denialism (some bad things happend, but there was no genocide) - many (if not most) holocaust deniers are soft denialist, and that does not stop them from being holocaust deniers (cause they still do) - and exactly the same is true for the statements made by Cenk Uygur as well 15:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.3.218.55 (talk)

His denial of the genocide is relevant in large part because of the Young Turks association with the genocide, which is the name of his political commentary program. Is there any reason why there is no mention of the Young Turks when noting his denial of the genocide? Seems to be an important ommission. 16:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCbRk6xakV4 here he is on video https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/after-years-of-denying-the-armenian-genocide-cenk-uyguar-now-admits-he-doesnt-know-enough-about-it-to-say-anything/ Good to see the liberal retards of wikipedia covering up historical facts!2600:1700:C470:E310:4CAE:AA6B:F5E5:A2B3 (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide

Judging by some comments that Cenk made on the 6th of September 2017, in the video Myanmar's Muslim Genocide on The Young Turks Youtube Channel, he appears to now acknowledge the Armenian Genocide (Timestamp from 2:29-3:21). (Not 100% sure, but it seems like he does now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:2E5:BE00:1A2:2A73:FF71:92DC (talk) 08:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cenk Uygur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://youtube.com/WVl3BJoEoAU?t=28m51s
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.salon.com/1999/06/16/punk_2/singleton/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080301231336/http://www.theyoungturks.com/ to http://www.theyoungturks.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120602214826/http://www.theblaze.com/stories/teen-atheist-who-brought-down-prayer-banner-feminist-gloria-steinem-to-be-honored-at-atheist-conference/ to http://www.theblaze.com/stories/teen-atheist-who-brought-down-prayer-banner-feminist-gloria-steinem-to-be-honored-at-atheist-conference

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Incident with Alex Jones

Hi, I feel this incident is verifiable and notable as it is covered by multiple reliable sources, with plenty of video evidence, so I have added a new sub-section. Was interested to know what editors think of the addition. Thanks. KU2018 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:The Young Turks#What about the Alex Jones confrontation? and Talk:Jimmy Dore#Incident at the RNC Trackinfo (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cenk Uygur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/1999/06/16/punk_2/singleton/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718030010/http://www.confabb.com/users/profile/cuygur to http://www.confabb.com/users/profile/cuygur

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Template "Denial of Mass Killings"

This template {{Denial of Mass Killings}} is for navigation between articles which topic is systematic denial of genocides etc. This aricle does not significant coverage dedicated to denial. What is more, Ujgur, changed his view already. therefore IMO template should not be placed on this article. It is placed on articles only for people notorious of this systematic denial. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

He named his news network after the group that commited the Armenian genocide. And he left the Justice Democrats for things he has said in the past. Living up to those principles the template should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:681A:B0D7:42F0:603E (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You have to provide reliable sources which discuss him in detail as a notable genocide denier and have more than a couple of sentences in the article about that. A notable denier actively works on support and propagation of the denialist theory. Merely expressing a view is not enough. By your logic, you have to put this template into articles about almost each and every Turkish official. We do not use navigational templates in this way in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok hypothetically lets say he named his newsnetwork after the SS and claimed the holocaust never happened, then when politically conveninent for him said that it did happen and denied ever denying it. Would you still be defending him as if he was infallable? and the things he said that made him leave the Justice Democrats were not as aggregious and he has ACTUALLY retracted what he said then but, he still left the movement meaning his principles are that if he said things like that at all it should be a mark on his record forever. In that vain the template needs to stay exactly where it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:681A:B0D7:42F0:603E (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia does not use navigation templates in this way. Your opinion abut Uygur does not matter. Please see Wikipedia:Navigation template. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

And yours does? point is he denied the armenian genocide until it was politcally convenient for him not to do so and thats the only reason he backpedaled on that stance. He named his news network after the ones who carried out said genocide. If he was a republican, I am sure youd have no problem with keeping the template there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:681A:B0D7:42F0:603E (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Try and get a sense of proportion. It was just a background belief Cenk Uygur inevitably picked up as a child, an alignment with what was national policy in the country where he was born and spent his early years. In his maturity he has reevaluated and no longer holds that position. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And if it were Holocaust denial and he were white then thered be no problem keeping the template up. Have some consistant standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No we do not place this template on all denialist anti-Semites and Stormfront nazis. We have List of notable Holocaust deniers, and persons in this list have separate sections with encyclopedic nontrivial info about their activities in Holocaust denial. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And a man with his own news network, which may i remind you, is named after the group who carried out the armenian genocide, isnt notable how exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He is notable, but for other reasons; he is not described in reliable sources as a notable Holocaust denier. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Because youre shifting the goalpoast, he is not a holocaust denier he denied the Armenian Genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No Im not shifting goalposts; I simply made an error. I meant to write "he is not described in reliable sources as a notable Armenian Genocide denier". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He is notable, he is described in reliable sources as a genocide denier, he is accurately categorized as an Armenian Genocide denier on this page, this page goes into detail about the subject, and his group is named after genocidal murderers. If that's not enough for you, nothing will be. -- Glynth (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"progressive" is a liberal euphemism

You can call him a left-winger or globalist but a political side that likes to kill unborn babies, promoting Islam and pretends to save the environment by destroying the economy can hardly be considered a "progressive".80.131.63.131 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree! But that's not the point of this talk page. Please keep all discussion related to the content of the article. Aglo123 (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Abjective before "commentator"

Why was my edit, describing him as a "progressive commentator" reverted? 2601:18F:4101:4830:11C4:C48D:C7AA:5911 (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I took issue with Progressive being linked to a dab page. His political leanings have changed from conservative to progressive over the years and are described and linked properly later in the lede.LM2000 (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Economic Progressive Pledge Policy Descriptions

Hey, in the last section of "Political Views" in this article, I think it would be a really good idea to hyperlink the following Wikipedia pages to the phrases "higher wages" and "Ending the Corruption" respectively, to both better describe the "economic pledge" in more detail as well as give more detail on the policy behind them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_for_$15 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

Would definitely be a good idea to help understand the plans that he's referring to in this "economic pledge" by making the policies that he's referencing more easily accessible to read about, just like the other 3 "pillars" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7227:E100:E5C0:9FFC:B4A6:79EC (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Denial of Armenian Genocide

"In 2019, he reaffirmed his acceptance of the Armenian Genocide." I dont think he did accept the genocide, but that it happened. correct me if i am wrong. --212.41.122.254 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cenk currently has 8 titles

Folks, Mr. Uygur is starting to have more titles than English Royalty. broadcaster, lawyer, businessman, columnist, journalist, activist, political commentator and politician For reference, virtually all articles involving top tier individuals, restricts it to 2-4 titles. 2601:982:4200:8C80:D75:2363:51E0:B32C (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sanders retracts support.

I'm not certain about it. But, I believe Sanders has retracted his support of Uygur, today. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Info about earlier conservative views

There are a few paragraphs about this in the article but their location seems confusing within the larger article. In most entries, a chronology is followed - the info about the earlier stances/views/papers seems like it should come first, before the deep dive into his current views, etc. 2601:282:1300:296:6C24:312E:38A0:57E1 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2019

At the end of the page, Bernie Sanders rescinded his endorsement because Uygur did not accept any endorsements, not because of the old blog posts. KRed221 (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Congressional candidacy Main article: 2020 California's 25th congressional district special election In mid-November 2019, Uygur filed to run for Congress in California's 25th district, a seat recently vacated by the resignation of Katie Hill, an office also being pursued by Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith and former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos.[90][91][92] Uygur is running in two primary elections on March 3: the special election primary to fill the vacant seat through January 2021 and the Democratic primary for the next full term (decided in the 2020 November election). Bernie Sanders initially endorsed Uygur but then retracted at the request of Uygur after reports came out that showed Uygur criticizing religion and protesting disciplinary action against students who made sexist comments.[93] Δημοκρατία (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:06, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2019

Under:

== Congressional candidacy ==

Bernie Sanders initially endorsed Uygur but then retracted at the request of Uygur FULL STOP, The rest of this sentence has no bearing on the first part of the sentence, it should be deleted. after reports came out that showed Uygur criticizing religion and protesting disciplinary action against students who made sexist comments. Δημοκρατία (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It appears to be supported by the source and gives somewhat of an explanation. Please demonstrate a consensus for this change before requesting it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Last name/ethnic origin?

Is he, as his name suggests, actually descended from ethnic Uyghurs? (Majority Muslim group from Central Asia/Western China, with a substantial diaspora in modern Turkey.) —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 21:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cenk has said on the show that his father’s side chose the name Uygur in honour of the cultural and political achievements of the Uyghurs of late antiquity (see:Uyghur Khaganate). This happened in 1934 when the state made Turkish citizens have surnames (see: Surname Law (Turkey)). Cenk also said some time back that he has some distant Kurdish origins from his mother's side. Both of his parents are natives of Kilis, a town with a mainly ethnic Turkish population that is close to areas compactly populated by Arabs (to its south) and Kurds (to its east).Resnjari (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Political Views Section

Unsure of why an Admin reverted as cacash was correct that little of the material is secondary sourced and any portion that is secondary sourced is already mentioned elsewhere. So to avoid further issues, is any part of the political views section salvageable?? Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The announcement on Twitter of an announcement is pointless, the last two paragraphs with their primary references can be removed. The image and maybe two other references can be moved to #Congressional candidacy. That would leave only three paragraphs for further checking. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Spammy categories

Independent + Democrat is weird, please pick only one of these categories. California + New Jersey lawyer might be possible (IANAL and also not from the US), but should be justified by something in the article: The lawyer in the lede does not count, it is not backed by anything in the body and un-sourced. California + New Jersey radio personality in addition to American talk radio hosts + American television talk show hosts is also excessive. The complete page is excessively spammy. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Some days later, I found the archived Diskord source in the body supporting lawyer, ending up in two categories. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Not more excessively spammy, the switch from Independent to Democrat in the Infobox only has to reflect a sourced statement in the body, could somebody please fix this? A {{edit semiprotected}} only to get a {{fact}} in the Infobox could be really excessive. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

LA Times, biased against progressives.

The LA Times source concerning Sanders endorsement retraction is unreliable, per it's being corporate-bias. Uygur has renounced his views on the topic of sex, years ago. GoodDay (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Nothing is wrong with using critical sources, and the Los Angeles Times is at least not bigot.
Actually I think that using Jezebel in #Congressional candidacy would help: Ignoring their clickbait title the article offers a good summary of the withdrawn Bernie Sanders endorsement.^[1] Caveat, to overrule WP:RS/P that requires attribution and a rough consensus here. Not mentioning this incident at all is dangerously near to WP:UNDUE. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: In an edit summary you asked what do secondary sources say about his campaign? That's why I consider Jezebel quoting the LA Times (or directly LA Times, not checked) as interesting, they are clearly critical, i.e., help to avoid that this BLP degenerates into a fanzine, and offer a "correct" (= I see no lie) summary of the Sanders endorsement incident currently not covered in #Congressional candidacy, annoying "some supporters" (not weasels) of Sanders in Rising-YouTube comments. If folks agree that not mentioning this is UNDUE, but dare not overrule RS/P for Jezebel, they could find a video on this channel for a friendly (instead of critical) reference. –84.46.53.116 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Political Views edit

Regarding sourcing in the political views section, Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of a living person state to "[n]ever use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Refer to WP:BLPSPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacash refund (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This reply is partly based on what you said at BLPN as well [2]. While I agree with you that someone's self-published material can be used as sources for their views, we have to be careful with such material since they are effectively WP:primary sources, it's easy wander into interpretation or misuse territory.

More importantly, if we are using self published sources to establish someone's views, the question of 'why?' generally arises. If the person's views on the matter are a significant part of their life story, it seems likely they will be covered in reliable secondary sources. We can use perhaps use self published sources to help flesh out details covered in secondary sources to a limited extent. But it's very difficult to make editorial judgments about what to cover if we have no secondary sources helping us establish which of their views are significant, especially for someone who operates in the opinion-journalism sphere and therefore has published a lot which will cover their views.

It's IMO incredibly easy for editor bias to come into play in the selection of what views to publish with no such guidance. How do we know Cenk Uygur's views on say "net neutrality" are more important than his views on whether cats are better than dogs? Or being less facetious, what to do about the dominance of big tech companies, the problems with modern media funding and the money made from big tech companies especially Google coming in part from the work of the media? (For the record, I have no idea if he has published anything on his views on cats and dogs, or the other stuff.)

So if a substantial part of someone's views only comes from self published sources [3], it seems quite likely we are publishing stuff which is an insignificant part of their life story and therefore is WP:UNDUE. Ultimately if no one else thought it matters, we shouldn't either.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

For starters I suggest to add a {{primary|section}} to the #Political views, his vies are widely discussed by RS, let them decide what is or isn't interesting. Personal picks by Cacash refund or others are fine, primary sources are fine, but each item has to be based on independent sources. Background, I'm interested in the other article in Category:Air America people. –84.46.52.173 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Valid points made. I've done some digging and figure I can cite each political view with a secondary source, mostly television and various videos of public appearances. Then the self-published sources can stand as further evidence that he actually holds these views. I'll start working on it soon. Cacash refund (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. My major concern is that the self sourced list of views reads as a campaign page. But if others are covering his views than relevance and undue become less of an issue. Slywriter (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Though I am not sure whether the citations added by a second user are sufficient. They appear to all be sourcing through the Young Turks network of sites/shows/channels. Slywriter (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the cites are inappropriate uses of primary sources, the content should be removed. The political views section seems like a political campaign list rather than an encyclopedia article. As stated by others, if they were important enough to be included, then they should be covered by independent reliable sources per WP:DUE. Right now, the page seems more like promotion of the subject's views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The guy has been spouting his political views on line, virtually daily since 2002. If anybody has their political views well documented, its him. Yes, they are sourced to him and the "network" he owns, but we are talking about his political positions. Where can they be sourced other than originating from his own mouth? Trackinfo (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As with almost all information on Wikipedia, it should be sourced to independent reliable sources. As you said, he has many views he has expressed in his shows, and we as editors should be guided by reliable sources to determine which are significant enough to include in a biographical article on him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case we are talking about Cenk Uygur's political views. Where else will you hear them than out of his own mouth? He says them on TYT, a "network" he owns. They are self sourced. If he said them to a newspaper, it still came out of his mouth and the newspaper is only being a stenographer. No difference. Any further interpretation of what he said is someone else's opinion, in communication terms that is a distortion of what his views are. He said it. Him saying it is available to be seen on on TYT for hours on end. There is little need for clarification or interpretation. Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You can review the prior comments here for why that's not how it works, and see WP:PSTS and WP:SPS for additional information. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the citations to almost completely remove TYT videos and now reference things such as C-Span, Politicon, Real Clear Politics and Oxford Union, and removed the bullet points that I only had TYT videos citing. Is this not enough to remove the primary sources tag? Cacash refund (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the "political views" section, almost half of the citations are still to Uygur's videos/website, and the vast majority of the rest are interviews or videos of Uygur speaking. Those are still all primary sources, which is why I restoring the section tag. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I'm understanding this. So what we're saying here is that for a section on the opinions of a living person, we are treating that person's own words as less reliable than a second party's interpretation of his words? These videos are published by secondary sources, even if they are of him speaking. What about a newspaper article or profile in a magazine: would they need to have no quotes from Uygur himself to be considered reliable? And if so, why would that make them more reliable? The only way the references could be further removed from Uygur is if they didn't have his words in them at all, meaning it would truly be a section about other people's interpretation of his political views and thus the section would be improperly named.

Have a look at Rush Limbaugh's Views section on his page, where a great many references are to his personal website. Should there be a tag on that section as well? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just want to make sure the tag is being properly applied. Cacash refund (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The original research policy and its subsection WP:PSTS probably give a better explanation than I could. An important reason stated in the conversation above is also that secondary source reporting is important to show that the information is significant enough to include per WP:DUE. A reliable secondary source that includes quotes from Uygur means that an author has selected which quotes and views by Uygur are important and has been allowed to publish them by their publication's editors. Those are vitally important aspects of Wikipedia's content policies for reliable information. Many biographies for politicians and others involved in politics are poorly written with an inappropriate reliance on primary sources, but that is not a good reason to expand the errors to more pages. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add a couple more thoughts to the discussion. WP:OR states: The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. I don't think WP:OR applies to this discussion because every source used is a published source and is reliable with respect to the topic (Uygur's political views), even if they are primary sources. WP:OR is intended to prevent unverifiable material from being added to Wikipedia. This material is verifiable, the videos show Cenk Uygur's words coming out of his own mouth. Therefore WP:OR is not applicable.

I also want to post a quote from WP:PSTS: Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. I think the part about judgment and common sense is being lost in this discussion. Ultimately we are talking about whether anything is unverifiable or undue in the Cenk Uygur Political Views section. Common sense tells me primary sources are appropriate here, because all we are trying to do is prove he actually holds the views we say he holds. Cacash refund (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

You continue to ignore the fact that your interpretation of policy would allow anything and everything a person has said to be included on Wikipedia. Reliable sources determine what is appropriate to include, not your personal preferences. You also need to read those whole policies, and not pick and choose which lines suit you while ignoring the rest. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with Wallyfromdilbert here. If a political reporter from a reliable publication not affiliated with Uygur and his groups summarizes his political views, then that is an acceptable for use as a reference. But is a Wikipedia editor rummages through his various policy statements, picking and choosing which of his opinions are "relevant" or "important" to include, then that selection process is a form of original research, and violates WP:DUE. Reliable, secondary sources get to make those choices, not Wikipedia editors. Common sense is not the determining factor. Following Wikipedia policies and guidelines is essential, especially with biographies of political candidates, which must be neutral and policy compliant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cacash refund:

I understand that his views are well documented but the fact that someone has views isn't necessarily encyclopedic. More importantly, if no one else is writing an article or book about them, then we are lacking secondary sources to attribute them to. This may seem unreasonable to you but what makes someone noteworthy is others talking about them, not them talking about themselves.

I removed a good chunk of the material originally because it lacked any relevance to someone reading about him. It was an out of context list of positions that were more appropriate for a campaign page.

You may also want to review WP: Advocacy , WP:COI , and WP:SPA to see if any of those policies apply.

Slywriter (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

So the Real Clear Politics piece, the Oxford Union debate, the Politicon 2017 debate, and the C-Span interviews don't count for anything? They don't give any weight to the encyclopedic relevance of his views? Suppose every TYT citation was taken out, would the section be clean then? Or does it have to be a newspaper quoting Uygur for it to be clean? Cacash refund (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The Real Clear Politics pieces may be relevant because it shows at least some editorial discretion, but it is pretty much a primary source just like the other sources you reference, which are simply interviews or speeches. None of these are significantly different than the sources published by Uygur, which are both primary sources and self-published. Independent reliable sources that analyze and discuss his views are the most appropriate, although books and journal articles are preferable to newspapers. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the complete removal of this section by Cacash refund. Then I tried to solve his problem by adding multiple edits using reliable sources to establish Uygur's political positions. I included a sourced quote from the Antelope Valley Press, a newspaper from the 25th district and a Bernie Sanders quote from Fox News. Yes I do not normally regard Fox as reliable, but because of hacks voting at the reliable sources noticeboard, they are considered reliable. I had also added content sourced to the Hollywood Reporter-I may have updated that out but the HR article provides additional reliable sourcing for the same stuff that comes out of Uygur's mouth regarding his positions, which seems to be an illogical requirement as I expressed above. Within minutes Wallyfromdilbert removed the sourced content I added, along with the sources. I also added content from the Simi Valley Acorn another local paper and Mediaite that was left in. I add sources that are not primary and they get deleted along with their content. Aquillion then added the primary source tag. Is this fixed or what? Trackinfo (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed two quotes that had no encyclopedic value, and reordered the section to chronological order [4]. Check your facts, and realize that this is not a campaign page for the political candidate you like. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion to achieve the aforementioned predetermined result. The Sanders quote, sourced to Fox News exactly explains Uygur's key political positions as seen by his faction's leading figure and presidential candidate. What better source to enumerate those political positions? That is what we are talking about here and you keep dismissing. The AV Press, a reliable source, quotes Uygur directly about what he considers his key issue. Again, a reliable source putting all the above controversy into words. Not only did you make the quotes disappear, you also disappeared the sources. Trackinfo (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources that analyze and discuss his views are the most appropriate, not editors picking and choosing promotional quotes from political figures and the article subject. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, I find it interesting that although the material I just removed was completely sourced from op-eds written by Uygur with no independent reliable sources whatsoever, you didn’t find it inappropriate enough to remove and instead chose to leave it in during your reordering of the section. I removed it because according to your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines its sources are entirely insufficient and therefore it has no encyclopedic value.

I agree with the criticisms Slywriter puts forth and am trying my best to comply with the guidelines, but you appear to have a double standard in your editing. Cacash refund (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed promotional quotes. I did not remove any views for being sourced to primary sources. However, you have now removed only the material about his previous conservative views. That is clearly biased, and I have restored that material. You cannot only remove his conservative views. The other alternative is to remove all the material about his political views that are sourced to primary sources. I support that alternative, but I was trying to avoid simply removing all the material you put in about his liberal views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Primary

Timeout, TYT as "independent" on this BLP makes no sense for me, please add {{primary|section}} at the top of #Political views while folks figure out which of these perfectly ordinary progressive views have to be enumerated on this BLP. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks, missing {{BLP noticeboard}} added here, because a 2nd editor answered there. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: You and others here addressed the issue—the section is obviously much better than it was four days ago—please just remove the "primary" tag, it did its job and can go. Likewise please remove the BLP/N info tag from this talk page when the BLP/N section will be archived in a few days, I'll probably forget to fix that, because it wasn't "my" BLP/N entry.(unlike an almost identical case discussed in Talk:Kim Iversen#Political views, meanwhile also resolved.) –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – by Trackinfo et al., thanks. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I reverted the wholesale deletion of the Political section. Please delete sections & sources that violate policies with some discretion. Do not delete entire sections with the promise of replacing it with better content unless there are BLP or copyright violations. Sound good? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Cacash refund has now explored various radical solutions, further experiments will be progressive. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Liz, why? If wallyfromdilbert is correct, there are only primary sources in the section which means the whole section violates WP:DUE. Why is it preferable to keep poorly sourced material that violates the guidelines? Cacash refund (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pings + mentions require a fresh signature, recently learned + done here: 84.46.53.221 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Cacash refund, I have never said the section had only primary sources, and you apparently did not look into them individually when wholesale blanking the section. Please avoid making statements about me that are incorrect. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@wallyfromdilbert Which references are to secondary sources then? You tell me, because every time I think I have it right there's another comment telling me I don't. Looking at the "political views" section, almost half of the citations are still to Uygur's videos/website, and the vast majority of the rest are interviews or videos of Uygur speaking. Those are still all primary sources, which is why I restoring the section tag. That was your quote from 9 January. My mistake, it's true you didn't say "only" so I apologize for misrepresenting what you said. What I meant to say is, according to you, the section is almost completely sourced from primary sources. The only thing that's changed since then is the last paragraph that Trackinfo added.

If most of the sources are still primary, why have we decided to both refrain from removing the section and proceed with removing the primary tag? This doesn't seem like the right decision. Cacash refund (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I posted an independent reliable source supporting every point of his political positions. Several of those sources were removed from the article along with supporting direct quotes. Before any of you go removing sections or even make claims that these are not referenced by reliable sources, go back and pull from the sources I already posted. Trackinfo (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Cacash refund: The secondary sources that I see in that section are: [5] [6] [7]. I think [8] also has its lead paragraphs count as a secondary source (before the interview starts), and similarly with [9]. Please note that I have not looked at those sources carefully regarding reliability or bias. Also, primary sources are not entirely bad. They can be used for supplementing other sources and some of them, such as some interviews, show enough editorial discretion by the publisher to be useful. I would support removing the entire "political views" section if some of the more relevant and well-sourced information was pulled out and put into other sections. I would also support keeping the information with the "primary sources" tag until it can be more properly sourced, especially since the section is no longer overtly promotional. While I favor the former more, I would imagine that people who have put more time into editing the article and creating the content would prefer to latter, and so I am fine with either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert you are getting ridiculous. You removed a whole, important section, based on the existence of primary sources, instead or removing the problematic sources. You removed content sourced to Bloomberg News, C-SPAN, RealClearPolitics and my subsequent source of NBC News. Are you claiming those are primary sources too. I don't think you were thinking when you blindly deleted NBC and I will restore that. I will continue adding sourced content to restore all the stuff you just blindly deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Interviews and speeches are primary sources, even if they are not self published. I also didn't remove either the Bloomberg or the Real Clear Politics sources. You may want to be more careful when editing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

As you continue to remove content sourced to reliable sources, please, for the first time, explain how under your standards, any subject of any article is allowed to state their political views? Trackinfo (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Content should rely on secondary sources. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly not answered the question. This subject's opinions, any subject's opinions are only going to come out of their own mouth. I have added numerous, reliable sources reporting exactly that information relative to this subject, many including direct quotes and you have deliberately blanked that information. Trackinfo (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on what a person has said about themselves to determine what is relevant for an encyclopedia article about them. Several people have explained that, both on this page and on BLPN. Go write a blog or work on his campaign if you want to promote his views. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I have nothing to do with Uygur or virtually any of the many subjects I have contributed to wikipedia on. I have far more wikipedia experience than you. I know policies backwards and forward. What I am known for is providing sources when others can't seen to find them. You are inventing different standards in order to blank this section of this particular article. The best way to support a person's opinion is to quote them. You have the opposite standard, if they ever said it, we can't trust it. Somebody else needs to express their opinion. Even when I have supplied reporters rewriting Uygur's comments, you blank them. Beyond ridiculous, this is bordering on disciplinary. Trackinfo (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Trackinfo, please provide a diff of where I have removed material sourced to a reporter in a news article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Example 1 source He says his platform will include support for Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and tougher gun control measures. Reporter: Peter Kiefer The other source in that edit was an NBC News interview of Uygur by Dylan Ratigan from 2010, transcribed, where he explains how he thinks the Bush tax cuts caused the 2008 crash and asks "can we try something that worked?" referring to historical tax rates during both pre-depression and strong economic periods. Example 2 in response to challenging questions from Alex Graf Uygur responded And by the way, while we’re doing it, create millions of new, higher-paying jobs in renewable energy and in infrastructure. These are not unfiltered rants on TYT, these quotes are controlled by the reporters. The original objection was to statements sourced to TYT, which Uygur owns and controls the editorial content. Your objections then were understandable. I found these sources to back up existing statements of his political positions. In other words, you only had a weak objection to the content already, simply based on Uygur's control of the sources. That was solved. So you have gone over and above the call to still remove the content. And at no point have you ever addressed how, under the artificial restrictions you are enforcing, any reporter could possibly conjure the political positions or opinions of a political candidate or pundit without listening to what that subject says. The source has to originate the information it reports with the subject. Trackinfo (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You picking and choosing what quotes should be included from interviews is not appropriate. We rely on secondary sources. You don't seem to understand that concept. Also, "self-published source" and "primary source" are two different limitations, which you also seem to not understand. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What you do not understand and fail to address is the impossible conditions you are imposing here of reporting any subject's political positions without using that subject's expressions of their opinions. We can fight over what quotes are appropriate later. You are simply blanking content. Trackinfo (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Multiple editors have removed the primary-sourced content. Secondary sources are not an "impossible condition" as several of his political views are already included in the article with appropriate sourcing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. You are not the only problematic editor. There is an apparent move afoot to keep Uygur's political positions secret. Trackinfo (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:AGF. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Have faith. Believe facts.Trackinfo (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The relevant sections here are: (1) "Primary" does not mean "bad": WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, which specifically says that primary sources *can* be used especially for direct quotations, (2) "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves": WP:ABOUTSELF, which says that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", and (3) WP:BLPSELFPUB, which says that "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source..." Wally is ignoring Wikipedia's decided policies. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bueller 007, none of that addresses WP:DUE or any of the other arguments made on this talk page or at BLPN by multiple editors. I would encourage you to post at the open thread there, but considering that you have simply followed me because of a previous dispute, where you also refused to participate in any BLPN discussion, I doubt you will do that. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Uygur's primary claim to notability is his role as a political commentator, from Sirius to MSNBC to Current all under his own TYT banner. TYT's leadership in youtube content distribution clearly makes him and his views pertinent to this article. If you look at comparable political commentators' articles, say Tucker Carlson, there are large sections detailing their political views. My contention continues that the actions by the crowd of editors above to squelch that listing of Uygur's political views is artificial and contrived through wikilawyering. Trackinfo (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop with WP:ASPERSIONS against other editors or go to WP:ANI with evidence. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If no one is finding his views relevant enough to write about then neither should Wikipedia. Said another way, mere existance and having vocal opinions does not make those opinions encyclopedic.

Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FFRF nit

The FFRF award already has a primary {{cite web}} reference, adding a second primary source on this site as bare URL is unnecessary, just wikilink to Freedom From Religion Foundation#Emperor Has No Clothes Award instead of Freedom From Religion Foundation.

For the American Humanist Association award the primary "bare URL" reference can be replaced by {{cite web|url=https://thehumanist.com/magazine/november-december-2012/features/it-cant-all-be-true |title=It Can’t All Be True |date=October 18, 2012 |work=Cenk Uygur, Humanist Media Award |publisher=[[American Humanist Association]] |accessdate=January 13, 2020}}.

Bare URL references are ugly, with {{cite web}} you can get nice effects, e.g., you can add a short quote=… for a highlight in the source. An additional independent reliable source would be better, but the wikilinked article already shows that this is no nonsense. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

As outlined above, please (1) remove the unnecessary 2nd primary FFRF bare URL source, (2) add the suggested section to the FFRF wikilink, and (3) replace the bare URL for AHA by the suggested AHA {{cite web}}. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully the "semi" will be downgraded to "pending changes", less trouble for interested parties not limited to IPs. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Cenk and the establishment

Wallyfromdilbert, probably should have looked a bit more before i pressed the revert button on the changes made. To many IP disruptions and alike from before. Anyway, i am ok whether its establishment outlook or just establishments in the article. The IP's claims that establishment means something else for Cenk is unfounded. I uploaded Marmura, p.100, [10] in case its hard to come by on google books, so anyone can check. Marmura [11] by the way is WP:RS. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was just trying to find a compromise that avoids the dispute. I would not be opposed to "establishment outlook", although I think "pro establishment media" is unnecessary. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

:Wallyfromdilbert if you guys read the source, it is a very bad source. It says the following: "He [Jesse Ventura] also deeply distrusts the existing two-party political system and has interviewed other critics of establishment politics on his programme including Cenk Uygur of TYT"

NO mention of Cenk's critique of establishment media. NO mention of even establishment media. So why is it sourced that way? In fact, that one sentence is literally the ONLY time Uygur is mentioned in the entire book, yet it is sourced TWICE. Complete disconnect. Honestly, it makes more sense to remove the sentence until it is properly sourced.

Also Resnjari I don't have an "axe to grind" with Cenk. I get most of my news from new media, including TYT. You simply do not do very good work, and seek to personally attack anyone who undoes your sloppiness as "disruptions" or "trolls." It is not that hard to write an unbiased paragraph with proper sourcing. If you can't properly source something, then don't put it in. Also do not get lazy and assume that people will accept a passing mention as a proper source. Rather than getting into edit wars and launching personal attacks, just do better work! - Daduggan

Daduggan, like what better source do you prefer? Stephen M. E. Marmura is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at St. Francis Xavier University, Canada [12]. The book is published with Springer, a reputable publishing house. Hence he meets WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. I know TYT, i have viewed their content. Nonetheless i can't go and place my own take on it. Its not how editing wiki works. Otherwise i would have added a sentence or two about Cenk and his ancestry of which he has talked about on his shows. However no RS has published on that, so no addition is made. I say that as an example. Mamura is fine. You need to self revert because all you have expressed is a personal opinion without anything substantive to place into doubt Marmura, his credentials or academic works.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Daduggan, I'm fine with removing the sentence. You should probably take note of your own advice, too, and avoid making comments about other editors. Your comments seem unnecessarily combative, and it's easier if we all just focus on the article content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, i don't agree with removing the sentence. Its properly sourced and based on RS and its about the topic at hand.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Daduggan makes a good point about it being one line without any context in the book. Do any other sources mention this perspective by Uygur? They would also help determine what language to use. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, Cenk Uygur is not covered by many RS sources that are academic, so when he is covered, its worth having in the article. Othewrwise if one uses the rationale that Cnek is only cite twice in a book or one sentance then the case can be made that nearly most sources should be striped from this article which would leave no article left. The sentance that was in the wiki article and is based on the one in the book which is RS. There is no source falsification nor is the scholar questionable. You can check for yourself.Resnjari (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Resnjari You are not listening to what is being said here. Marmura himself is credible, but look at what he actually said. You can't just take a small sentence from a credible source and use it as a source for whatever you want.

Marmura said: "He [Jesse Ventura] also deeply distrusts the existing two-party political system and has interviewed other critics of establishment politics on his programme including Cenk Uygur of TYT"

From that passing reference you said, "Uygur over time became disillusioned with traditional media and its establishment outlook" You cited that passing reference as a source.The source in question DOES NOT SAY THAT. I am not questioning Marmura in general, I am questioning sourcing him for something he did NOT SAY. I would like to see your rational for going from what Marmura said to what your original sentence said. Daduggan

Actually, you called into question Marmura in previous comments i.e "if you guys read the source, it is a very bad source. It says the following: "He [Jesse Ventura] also deeply distrusts the existing two-party political system and has interviewed other critics of establishment politics on his programme including Cenk Uygur of TYT"", "Complete disconnect. Honestly, it makes more sense to remove the sentence until it is properly sourced." [13]; "If you can't properly source something, then don't put it in." [14]. Well first off you read page 105 [15] which mentions Ventura and the bit you quote from the book. This sentence was clearly referenced to page 100 and you can check all the revisions on the Cenk page. It will show that is the case. Anyway on page p.100 Marmura wrote in a paragraph about Cenk Uygur: Its founder and CEO Cenk Uygur was a former employee of MSNBC who grew disenchanted with the mainstream news media’s establishment orientation. (SEE PAGE 100, THE LINK IS HERE > [16]) and the sentence which you removed again said: Uygur over time became disillusioned with traditional media establishments. [17] I fail too see what's is wrong here. Neither the sentence or academic source are contradicting each other, nor is there source falsification. It appears these edits are based on WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything else. Please revert yourself.Resnjari (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted. You will make more friends in life if you appear less sanctimonious. I do not have a vendetta against Cenk and the issue is not that I simply don't like it. It's that the phrase "establishment media" is not clear, unbiased language, it is not clearly defined by Marmura either. "Traditional media establishments" gets the same point across while assuaging any concern with bias. As for the source itself, although it says page 100, clicking it leads the user to page 105 for some reason, making it appear as if it was falsified. That is what I meant by bad source. Your love for Marmura and your rabid over the top defense are cute, I'm sure he will be flattered. I apologize for any misunderstanding, but if you learned better communication skills to get your point across, and also learned to accept other people's point of views it would have been solved earlier. "Traditional media establishments" it is. Daduggan (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Well there has been a lot of IP disruption in the past about other things on this page, so i have low tolerance for it. Maybe i was little too harsh at first. That said, the ref structures lead to the main source as a url link to the book. At times not all pages come up on google books, well the ones relevant to a topic, even if i want them too. Because google books only lets through some pages, not all, its because in the end the author and his publishing house wants to make money as well and scholarship is not free. The screenshot on page 100 is of a digital copy of the book that i have access too. I did not think that such a mundane and insignificant sentence would cause issues. All article sentences based on Marmura check out. I hope this assists. If you decide to become a long term editor, you will become accustomed to google books. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"progressive"??

Is that a code word for a far-left, anti-american, self hating snow flake??

Please stop using such biased terms to describe people. You are either a conservative, liberal or socialist.

62.226.64.171 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Examples, Progressive talk radio + Category:Progressive talk radio are no "SJW-bias", and on The Gateway Pundit you can see that there is more than only "conservative" also on the right. –84.46.52.79 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Progressive has a definition and is not some kind of code word. I recommend that you stop trying to attack editors who ostensibly edit in good will. Bgrus22 (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "establishment" and "corporate bias"

Throughout the article, phrases such as "establishment" and "corporate" are left without quotes in order to depict Uygur's views. Although saying Uygur would view the media as having a corporate bias or establishment bias would be both an unbiased and accurate depiction of its views, the way it is stated in this article is problematic. An example is the following: Uygur over time became disillusioned with traditional media and its establishment outlook. The phrase "establishment" does not have a clear, unbiased meaning. It is totally arbitrary, and in most cases it is used as a pejorative, especially how Uygur uses it. Leaving a statement like this would suggest that traditional (mainstream) media clearly, and objectively has an "establishment bias." This is something that can neither be clearly defined, or proven and sourced. Whether you agree with him or not is not the issue, for the sake of avoiding bias, this statement should be qualified, or put in quotes. Uygur over time became disillusioned with traditional media and what he saw as its establishment outlook. Or better yet Uygur over time became disillusioned with traditional media and its "establishment" outlook. Uygur has a huge online following, both followers and detractors; rabid fans and trolls alike who are likely to edit this page and put their own spin on things according to their biases. We must be wary on pages like these, covering a public figure with a huge following, to not let instances like this slip through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daduggan (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The best answer to this complaint is to point out that Wikipedia has an entire article entitled The Establishment and another entitled Anti-establishment. I think the term 'establishment' in a political context is self-explanatory. CherylJosie (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking for Consensus on Far Left or Left Wing

I think considering the TYT article itself says left wing, and the fact that there is no citation for the far left claim, it should be pretty safe to change this from far left to left wing. The "progressive" claim seems substantiated, and in terms of the american political spectrum, progressivism and social democracy is left wing. Browk2512 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversy Tab?

I think it’s a bit indicative of Wikipedia’s clear left wing bias that this page doesn’t have any information on some of the controversies Cenk has faced, including not wanting to Unionize at his own company despite being a big advocate for Unionization across the country. I would have added the tab myself. But I assume one of these Wikipedia “gate keepers” would have taken it down for no reason. Biaskiller45 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Biaskiller45:Be WP:BOLD while following WP:BLP and WP:RS and skip the WP:SOAPBOX ranting Slywriter (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is rife with mentions of controversies, including his previous comments on the Armenian Genocide and remarks about women. If his comments about unions have been mentioned in reliable sources then they probably could be mentioned somewhere in this article with WP:DUE weight. However, (per WP:CSECTION) a specific section designated for all controversies won't fly.LM2000 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason why a specific section for controversies won’t fly? I understand there’s protocol but I have seen plenty of pages for celebrities that have a section dedicated and called “controversies.” I myself am no editor, but I can provide reliable sources that do not fall in the category of any of the banned sources (I.e. Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, etc.) I would be happy to provide them. Biaskiller45 (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@slywriter Is there a reason why a specific section for controversies won’t fly? I understand there’s protocol but I have seen plenty of pages for celebrities that have a section dedicated and called “controversies.” I myself am no editor, but I can provide reliable sources that do not fall in the category of any of the banned sources (I.e. Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, etc.) I would be happy to provide them. Biaskiller45 (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Biaskiller45, the reason why a specific section for controversies won’t fly is explained at WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. Specific sections dedicated to "controversies" threaten neutrality of any article. It's better to have noteworthy "controversies" in the appropriate biographical section of an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

More Genocide Edit Warring

I noticed several recently reverted edits claiming that Cenk is an active genocide denier, and I also noted the recent excellent edits clarifying his history on the matter. However, the secondary sources just don't capture the essence of his current position or his evolution, and IMO some of them seem to violate WP:NPOV because those sources are themselves biased. That was understandable in the absence of an unequivocal statement from Cenk on his current position, but things have changed.

Cenk has self-published a vehement retraction of his prior statements on the matter, so I incorporated a single quote and a link to his YouTube channel to that retraction, complete with a time stamp to the segment where he specifically addresses the topic and disavows his prior statements unequivocally.

I'm not a frequent editor, and the intricacies of primary sources elude my comprehension. I hope my contribution is adequate to the task. My solitary intent is to make it crystal clear to the casual reader that Cenk has completely repudiated his former statements on the Armenian Genocide by quoting that single statement and referencing it in its original context. IMO this primary source meets the notability requirement, since so many people take note of his history on the matter and keep engaging in edit wars over it. In the absence of a secondary source quoting his unequivocal statement and explanation of the history of his evolution, I don't see an alternative to a primary source that adequately addresses the controversy. CherylJosie (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I did some reading and apparently there may be two issues I was not aware of. The first is that edit warring seems to imply a three reversion rule and the recent edits seem to come from multiple accounts over a protracted time span. The second is that the primary source I included by definition includes statements about other individuals because it discusses a genocide, and that it also contains unrelated content. I found another edited version of the video segment on YouTube but don't feel confident in its staying power as a reference, and don't know what to do, so I solicit advice and/or intervention on the part of an experienced editor who may feel motivated to clarify the situation. Thank you. CherylJosie (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The Problem With the Denial

Cenk has admitted that "The Young Turks" were guilty of the Armenian Genocide but he still refuses to change the name of his channel. This taints all the good reporting that's done by others in his network. What if a YouTube channel were named "The Brown Shirts?" Would that be OK? Even the Washington Football Team changed their name. Ironically Cenk chastised them for their previous racist name but he's fine with keeping the name of the perpetrators of a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.160.146 (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hypocrite

Ideologically backing trade unions..... unless in his very own company:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/progressive-young-turks-founder-cenk-uygur-asked-staff-not-to-unionize/

62.226.93.53 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Good find. Just throw it in somewhere. And be sure to not use subjective terms as hypocrite in the text, as the people in here are very very serious and extraordinarily objective in how they write articles ;) ;) Iskube (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Uygur's position on Armenian Genocide

why does this article maintain that his position is 'not known' when he clearly states it in this 3 year-old video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpDwFdp58-Q Unless anyone has something to dispute this I will amending this article to reflect actual fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2021‎ 145.130.113.142 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 August (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source that makes that observation. Failing that, if you could find a statement that Uyghur says he no longer denies the Armenian genocide, we can say that he has said that. He does not actually say that he does not deny the genocide in the video. Kasparian said that Uyghur released a statement on this issue and it would be helpful if you could find it. BTW, please sign your posts. TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently he is muslim again...

apparently he is muslim again. should this be added to the article https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tzv4plwtOQ&t=276s starts at 4:20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.117.159 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Already in the article. TFD (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the article says 'Uygur was born and raised in a Muslim family, but now describes himself as agnostic atheist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.117.159 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't quote the entire sentence: "Uygur was raised in a secular Muslim household, but became more religious during college before becoming agnostic although he still identifies as a Muslim." The final clause of the sentence is even sourced to the same YouTube video you supplied.

Also, please sign your posts instead of relying on bots and other editors to do it for you.

TFD (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been reverted. Says he's agnostic atheist now. Iskube (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In this video as well he says "Muslims like me", speaking of present day events, not the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt75kg-3uQA (at 3:30). --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

On the use of "Marmara" as a description of the place of his birth

It's not typical to refer to the city of Istanbul as part of the Marmara region. While this use is factual, the 7 regions of Turkey are only geographical distinctions and don't have any legal or otherwise effect on their inhabitants. Stating that "He was born in Istanbul, Marmara" is more or less the same with saying "He was born in New York, East Coast". I think it might be better just refer to his birthplace as Istanbul like the Orhan Pamuk or Daron Acemoğlu pages. Denizkavi (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Journalist?

Referring to Cenk as a journalist is incorrect. He is a political commentator. As I understand it, he doesn't even claim to be a journalist. What are other editors thoughts about correcting this mistake? 2601:18F:4101:4830:F886:2905:1DC1:5771 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Religious views?

In the early life section it is claimed that he "still identifies as a Muslim", while in Personal life the opposite is stated: "He identifies as an atheist". The last source is more recent. If he is making conflicting statements that should at least be noted. 137.26.93.242 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"I run the network and I’m Muslim" -Cenk Uygur on Twitter, 12 October 2022. But, yeah, he is making conflicting statements. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Bestiality

Anyone who isn't semi retired interested in adding to his controversies his horrible comments on women and support of legalising bestiality? I posted here earlier but someone removed the comment without addressing it or even taking 5 seconds to look into the matter. It's a video he published on his Young Turks platform: The comments have merit since he's intent on getting involved in politics, is running for president, and yet he's open about wanting to legalise bestiality and has horrible views on women which he's also been open about on his platform. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

He did apparently say something of that sort, but an offhand comment like that does not necessarily justify "support for bestiality", especially as its own standalone section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Your comment makes clear you did not look at the source or video i added. Not only did he announce his support for legalising bestiality, but he then defended it when pushed back by Ana. the comment was notable enough that CNN mentioned it as being controversial enough to harm not just his own political ambitions, but those associated with him - such as Bernie.

Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the source. Do not assume what others are or are not doing. The story is that Bernie endorsed Cenk, and then retracted it when these comments came to light. I remember this from when it happened. The story isn't the comments. The story is the endorsement and retraction. An entire section for an offhand comment that got no coverage when he made it is WP:UNDUE and your presentation of it in the article was not WP:NPOV. Your comments above from October 13 suggest you are not approaching this neutrally. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And the endorsement and retraction is already covered in Cenk Uygur#2020 U.S. House of Representatives candidacy. Uygur's candidacy was initially endorsed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders who had to retract his support after sexual comments Uygur had made in recent years about women and provocative statements about fundamentalist Muslims and Jews from eight years prior were discovered.[14][84] If you want to suggest adding bestiality to that sentence, that could work. An entire section in addition to what's already in that section is excessive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That could work, as it's referenced in media, and significant enough to have gained notoriety. Clearly meets notability requirement of his character as a politican-attempt and an announcement of a policy. Thanks for finally engaging in a debate ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

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: [18]. 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)