Talk:Jane Sanders

Doctorate

Anyone find her PhD dissertation? Should be added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wait, did she even write a dissertation? Is this a real PhD? is this [1] a "real" doctorate, or a "doctorate certificate, it sounds like some kind of quickie PhD. Is Union Institute some sort of mail order degree mill?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ironically, Marcus Bachmann also has a doctorate from Union: "Ohio Board of Regents, which said, “Expectations for student scholarship at the doctoral level were not as rigorous as is common for doctoral work.”" [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dissertation here: [3]. For anyone with an evening to kill.

It does not appear to have been cited at all. The only scholarly citation that came up in a quick search on her name is this: "Socialism in Burlington, Vermont: Implications for Social Welfare; S Soifer - Journal of Progressive Human Services, 1990 - Taylor & Francis

... Burlington, VT: Author. Driscoll, J. (1985, November 7). Phone interview with Jane O'Meara Sanders, di- rector, Mayor's Youth Office, Seattle, WA. ..." As I understand it, mid-career professionals send for these Union Institute PhDs. At a glance, the dissertation looks like the sort of thing that might fly at a second-tier Ed school. Still, it is a dissertation. I guess Burlington College, with no endowment and almost no students, figured hiring the Senator's wife would work for them. The trustees more or less brought the financial crisis on themselves.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

So, months after I wondered aloud, The Atlantic puts its weight behind the idea that her PhD is indeed form a "university" regarded by many as a [[diploma mill]. I think it belongs in the artcle. Reason is, if you claim to have a PhD, but it is a non-resident, mail-order degree form a reputed "diploma mill"... that info needs to be on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It is also troubling that the dissertation is dated 2000, when reports claim she was awarded a PhD in 1996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.144.44 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not troubling in the least, as "published" has no bearing one when a degree is awarded. Many dissertations or theses aren't published at all.JesseRafe (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the dissertation, she began her PhD in 1996, and substantial portions are about events in 1997. Further, it isn't published, but seems to have been submitted for her PhD in 2000. With these facts, I think it should be disputed that the actual PhD was awarded in 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.254.187 (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to point to your sources are on these claims and we can incorporate them into the article as cited references. JesseRafe (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources

Additional sources for further development of this article include:

• Horowitz, Jason (28 December 2015). "Jane Sanders Knows Politics, and How to Soften Husband's Image". The New York Times.

Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Presidential primaries

"Details of the College's default and settlement with the Diocese emerged during the 2016 Presidential primaries"

Primaries don't begin until February 9. Do they mean Iowa caucuses? Kersten (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I meant something like: primary campaign season.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated allegations

There have been repeated attempts to add unsubstantiated allegations of fraud to this biography, which have been made by her husband's political opponents. This is a clear violation of our policy on biographies of living people. It is the obligation of any editor who wants to add contentious material to justify the edit and gain consensus on this talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Federal officials have acknowledged the complaint about Jane Sanders. I don't see why it can't be pointed out that there could still be an investigation. At the moment, they have yet to respond. Ytrewq111111 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason is that the allegations are unsubstantiated. Suppose I knew your real name and spread around an unsubstantiated allegation of criminal misconduct against you to your family, friends and employers, and then tried to insert it into a worldwide encyclopedia? How would you feel? What you are doing here is the same. Please stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

Recent edits (April 2016)

An editor has recently reverted (multiple times) edits, claiming they were "lousy with weasel words" and not "NPOV". I've reviewed those edits and, after failing to find the alleged "weasel words" or NPOV violations, reinstated them. I also note that the same editor removed a "failed verification" tag, from a source which did not support the cited content, without explanation. If the editor could please review their edits more closely, it would be greatly appreciated. If there is still concern, please detail exactly what "weasel words" or NPOV violations you believe exist so that we can discuss them. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's undue weight and significance to a minor detail (Personal attack removed) by twisting and emphasizing words and aspects of the reporting. As it is, it is fine. This page has had many vandals and trolls trying to make this small news story into a big deal, (Personal attack removed). JesseRafe (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you once again to refrain from making personal attacks upon your fellow editors. Regarding your editing concerns, I'm going to need you to be more specific. Most of the edits you reverted were to the content about Sanders' presidency at Burlington College. While you may feel that skewed content about this "temporarily prominent" (that's telling in itself) living person is fine as it is, Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. That is why violations such as The college's "finances took a turn for the worse" under Sanders's leadership have been removed or reworded to conform to what the cited sources actually say. I don't disagree with you that one single aspect of a person's life shouldn't receive undue attention, but your replacement of the slightly longer text with an inaccurate, non-neutral older version is not a solution.

Once again, if you think you see wording that is not a NPOV presentation of information as it is conveyed in reliable sources, please indicate that exact text here. Likewise, if you feel you see "weasel words" in the present content, please indicate the exact text here, so that we can address it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If after you have assured yourself that there are no weasel words, and that information from the cited reliable sources has been neutrally conveyed — but you still feel there is undue weight given to the subject matter, I think a weak but valid argument could be made to trim the following text (as it concerns the college after Sanders left): but by fiscal year 2013 the rating had dropped to 0.4 ("not financially responsible"). With the College unable to collect on some promised pledges after Sanders had resigned, and the enrollment increase plans failing, the Diocese settled the loan debt with the College in 2015 for $996,000 less than the agreed amount, and with $1 million of the repayment made in shares of an unidentified LLC company.

Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh I think we can credit FDR with winning WWII, even though he died before VE Day. And, yes, the outcome of the fiscal choices of a college president can go on the page, even if the consequences play out after that president is forced to resign. Sanders, after all, was asked to resign (Redacted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We'll never know what the outcome would have been of the fiscal choices made by Sanders, as she left just months into her 5-year plan, which was then replaced with the president Plunkett's plan. Why Sanders stepped down from the position was never made public, except for the disagreement between her and the board of directors on the future direction of the college. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

can you stop editting people's comments on the talk page here? it is making you seem very suspect in how you are censoring so much content, even on the talk page... I think the revision should be reverted. It is clear the editor is trying to paint Sanders in a particular light, emphasizing certain points and downplaying others. Ytrewq111111 (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

lede

Burlington, we have a problem. The lede consists almost entirely of the fact that she was a college president. That alone gives an positive but somewhat false impression, since readers may assume a college with more than ~100 students. But the larger problem is that under her administration, due to massive financial over-extension, the college was driven into impossibly large debts, Sanders and the college parted ways (she seems to have been asked to resign) and because of her decisions the college has closed, failed, gone bankrupt. To give a college presidency as a credential in the lede, and remove from the lede the fact that her financial overextention caused the college to fail, is not informative or NPOV. I have restored the deleted information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

"To give a college presidency as a credential in the lede, and remove from the lede the fact that her financial overextention caused the college to fail, is not informative or NPOV." --What is your source on this? Where is this "policy" stated? This is just your POV and therefore obviously not NPOV. People's careers are always in their ledes. Relevant information about their careers are in the "Life and career" or similarly named section in the main body. As this is a BLP article and a hot topic, I see you are an "agenda editor" against Sanders and am removing this from the lede, again, but not from where it belongs in the body, because in the lede it is both stylistically awkward and undue weight. JesseRafe (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with JessseRafe. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• I created this article in good faith - spouses of all major candidates in this Presidential primary season had articles (I created a couple of the other missing ones), plus I was curious and, as I often do, as long as I was looking her up anyway I started an article. As this page reveals, I began to run into red flags almost as soon as I began: that dicey mail-order PhD from an institution with a shady reputation as a diploma mill; the dissertation that was more of a personal essay and that has not (as far as I could find) ever been cited; the financial mess she created at the college she ran. At that point, sources on events at the college weren't conclusive. Now they are. Frankly, I don't see how we can leave the information out of the lede. As it stands, it is misleading because it conveys the impression that she had an ordinary career as a college President, when, in fact, she destroyed the college. It may be time to have an RFC about this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

2008 Incident

I've removed info re the 2008 incident since it seems that it was settled without finding fault with Sanders. I can see where it might belong at the college article but it has little to do with Sanders's life bio. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

POV issues

Article needs to be more specific about the quality of the institution that granted her a (distance learning) PhD, and be more explicit about her role at Burlington College, especially in the lede, where she is described as a college president (Redacted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Which "reputable sources" have made this accusation? Jarble (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jarble, thank you for being willing to talk about this. These issues are being taken seriously by the national press, and I do hope that User:Gandydancer and [[User:Gandydancerhave an obligation to defend their postion. Mine is that if her college Presidency is in the lede, the information about (Redacted) teh quesitons being raised about that loan need to be in the lede too.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Atlantic here: [[4]] break out qotes:

• "In announcing the closure, the school blamed the "crushing weight of the debt" from the purchase of a new campus in 2010, during Sanders’s tenure. Burlington said its bank had pulled the school’s line of credit. The college was already at risk of losing its accreditation—which is essential for receiving federal funds and conferring legitimacy—if it could not resolve its financial difficulties."
• "Asked whether Jane Sanders was to blame for the closure, President Carol Moore and Dean Coralee Holm declined to answer, even as they acknowledged that that the college’s press release, in naming the land purchase as the reason for the closure, implicitly pointed a finger in her direction. Smith and Holm also declined to comment on whether there was a federal investigation into the college, or whether the FBI or other authorities had interviewed faculty, staff, or administrators, or if they’d sent any subpoenas. Those “no comments” may raise eyebrows, since it’s generally assumed that if the answer was no, administrators would simply have said so."

• Washington Post here:[5] break out quotes:

• "Burlington College said its financial troubles are connected to Mrs. Sanders’s 2010 purchase of 32 acres of lakefront property, part of a botched expansion plan."
• "The Sanders campaign has ignored repeated requests for comment on Burlington College’s failure. The uncharacteristic silence is telling."

• Washington Post then offers this roundup form outer reliable sources:

• The Burlington Free Press: “In response to reporters' questions about a possible law enforcement probe into the college's finances, [President Carol A. Moore and Dean Coralee Holm] declined to comment.”
• Politico: “The college was also on the Education Department’s list of colleges that are subject to extra scrutiny — known as ‘heightened cash monitoring’ — as recently as March 1, for issues relating to ‘financial responsibility.’”
• Vanity Fair: “The financial failure of Burlington College presents a jarring contrast with the upbeat, optimistic message of the Sanders campaign … While Sanders has inspired millions of young supporters with his promise to eliminate college debt, his wife’s decision to hike tuition in order to pay for a costly campus expansion—a big factor in the rise of college tuition throughout the country—casts Bernie’s hopeful policy proposals in a more complicated light.”
• The Atlantic: “Jane Sanders holds a doctorate in Leadership and Policy Studies from the Union Institute, a nontraditional school that critics sometimes call a diploma mill. Union made national headlines during the 2012 campaign because Marcus Bachmann, husband of then-Representative Michele Bachmann, also received his doctorate there."
• CNN: A loan application that Jane signed apparently overstated the amount of pledged donations Burlington College had when acquiring the land. The school took a $6.7 million loan. The Vermont Journalism Trust first reported last year that she told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase: “The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014 … Burlington College also cited a $1 million bequest as a pledged donation that would be paid out over six years, even though the money would only be available after the donor’s death.”
• The Washington Free Beacon reported in January that, when Jane was president, the college also enrolled students at a woodworking school run by her daughter and spent more than half a million dollars on the endeavor, which ended not long after she left.
• Also this, unrelated financial malfeasance

• Pittsburgh Tribune Review: "Jane has also profited off Bernie’s campaigns: She received $91,020 between 2002 and 2004 for "consultation" and to negotiate the purchase of television and radio time-slots for Sanders' advertisements, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported in 2006."

This is the non-NPOV issue: Your own! You are pulling out of thin air this rationale and being beyond stubborn about this and I must assume it's for political non-neutral reasons. Your sources and quotes are irrelevant because your reasoning is faulty. It is mentioned in the article, that's that. As I've said multiple times, literally every biography has the person's career or careers in their lede. That's how it's done. It's usually in their first sentence. This makes sense and is POLICY. There is nothing to support your conetention, "well, if the mention her career in the lede, they should also mention some blah blah blah that happened after she left her place of employment" NO! That's literally the antithesis of what goes in the WP:LEAD, that's minutiae and trivial. For a good recent discussion, please see the Talk page of Stephen Rannazzisi who is famous for being a comedian and actor and is slightly embarrassed for lying about being in the WTC during 9/11 and one stubborn editor would not give up on putting this in the lede. It is not important and not a defining characteristic like nationality or birthdate or family or job. JesseRafe (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• In other words, you want the lede to say She was named Captain of the ship! , but NOT to say, She steered the College into a shoal of debt and it sank'. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

That's an asinine comparison, but to play along with your trolling: Lede: X was a notable ship captain, known for commanding vessels W, Y, and Z. Full stop. End of that information in her lede about the ships. If W, Y, or Z were notable, they'd have a wikilink to their article. The article for Y might say, "Y is a ship. It had been captained by A, B, C, X, and D. In some year Y sank" The only thing close to a reasonable argument would be if the college folded WHILE SHE WAS PRESIDENT. Same as only the captain who sinks the ship is notable for the ship's sinking, not any one who had ever commanded it before. JesseRafe (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain Sanders loaded the good Ship Burlington with an unsustainable burden causing it to list heavily to port, capsize, and sink. According to reliable sources, she made false claims about donations to Burlington in her application [6] to a bank requesting ballast while commanding the ship; and a federal investigation of this malfeasance is thought to be underway [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You do know what "speculation" means, right? "Thought to be" - you're so full of blatant misdirection, intentionally distorting things for your agenda and BLP violations, please stop. JesseRafe (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am citing reliable sources. Hope other editors will weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Technically, you are, but not in a way that makes sense nor that support your allegations and campaign. And they have. Both in thanking me (which, admittedly, you can't see) and in places where you don't acknowledge having seen them, such as "I'm in agreement with JessseRafe. Gandydancer (talk) 11:07 am, 18 May 2016, Wednesday (9 days ago) (UTC−4)" the FIRST time you started a section about adding non neutral POV material to the lede. JesseRafe (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing

• POV editors whitewashing major issues in violation of WP:OWN. I hope that editors ocming fresh to this page will look at the sources, material that has just been deleted and consider how we achieve a fair and accurate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Please name these editors, and I'll help you report them on the appropriate Administrator noticeboard. This is not the appropriate venue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

• An instance of whitewashing is the pretense that she raised 1.25 million. In fact, this includes the promise of a $1 million bequest, but the money was promised by a still-living person, as the source cited makes clear. In other words, the money ought to have been annotated on the college's building loan application as a pledged bequest - since it was never knowable that it would be given during the term of the loan, and wills can be changed at will. In this case, the money has apparantly not been given since there is no mention of it in later documents and the College itself no longer exists. That leaves the puzzle of why an editor is putting this information back into the article, relying on that old source that flags it as a hoped for gift that improperly listed by Sanders.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You're repetitively repeating yourself to the point of repetitiveness. A bequest is, by definition, a promise by a living person to give money when one dies, which is, by definition, a future event.
  • That the college no longer exists is not relevant to Ms. Sanders' biography except to editors determined to smear a living person by suggesting she somehow caused its failure. Find a source that says what you're implying or drop the original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• RS (Redacted) were added to article, and arbitrarily deleted. As was information (Redacted) on federal loan applications filed with her signature. Perhaps when the dust has settled in this campaign, we can have an objective article that gives fair attention to her college presidency, her admirable ambitions to grow this small college, (Redacted).E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If the implication is that non-factual information or non-encyclopedic POV information will be easier to include in this biography of a living person once she is out of the public spotlight, I strongly doubt it. And please remember that our WP:BLP policy requirements apply to article Talk pages, too. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing was to highly reliable national media. And to Vermont media. This is a POV issue. It is extremely difficult to maintain NPOV pages for 2nd tier figures who have activist supporters. We have too few editors to keep our 2nd tier articles NPOV. A situation enhanced by aggressively partisan editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Federal loan application

• Note in particular that allegation from CNN. Lying on a federal loan application may well be what the federal investigation that the College authorities are not confirming is all about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In today's news [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

added this to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting unexplained deletions of national news story in blue-chip sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why this 'content' was introduced in this manner? We don't do "alleged" in BLPs, which is what the header you added said, and we don't do speculation, which is what your comment just above suggests we do. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I just reviewed the VTDigger.org website source you proposed as a citation for the assertion of fact: "overstated". After closer review of that source, it appears it is just speculation, and the "two examples" they cite aren't really examples of intentional overstatement at all. And they admit their examples are "unlikely to be considered material" by any non-conspiracy theorist, before they go on to explain their conspiracy theories. What actual encyclopedic information were you hoping to convey to our readers with this new content? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Having reviewed your addition of a "WaPo editorial opinion piece" as a citation to the inappropriate content addition, I note that it is all about Trump and Bernie Sanders, and says nothing about Jane Sanders with the exception that she received a severance package - something already mentioned elsewhere in the article. I assume you had an actual purpose behind adding that citation? May I ask what it was? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

VTDigger is the highly regarded Vermont Journalism Trust, a non-profit in need of an article. The WaPo editoril raises questions about the Sanders' failure to release tax returns that would show income from her widely questioned Burlington College severance package. [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about how VTDigger.org website is regarded. As for the WaPo opinion piece, I reiterate: It was about Bernie & Donald, and said nothing new about Jane Sanders ... so what was the purpose of adding it? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post: "The senator from Vermont has released a single year’s tax return — for 2014 — and only then after pressure from reporters. Before releasing his full 2014 return, he argued that his tax information is not particularly interesting. As with Mr. Trump, this has given rise to speculation about possible reasons for the delay and limited openness. Is Mr. Sanders, for example, attempting to avoid more scrutiny of his wife’s severance package from Burlington College? The liberal-arts school she headed subsequently was forced to close due to mismanagement and a dire lack of money."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above, I read it. Then I asked you a question, which I will keep repeating until it is answered: As for the WaPo opinion piece, I reiterate: It was about Bernie & Donald, and said nothing new about Jane Sanders ... so what was the purpose of adding it? The bit about her receiving a severance package is the only content about her, and that's already a matter of public record. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the two editors working to keep this information off the page requested sources to support the material I propose using to make the lede more accurate and to expand the page, then, instead of encountering the material I brought, Xenophrenic attempts to discredit a source that he is apparently unfamiliar with (and did not bother to look up) and fails to read the WaPo editorial I linked to before attempting to dismiss it. I am arguing for balance on this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Am I the 'Xenophrenic' you are referring to? And if so, where, exactly, did I "attempts to discredit a source that he is apparently unfamiliar with? Please be clear and specific in your response, because it is likely going to be raised in another venue, along with your other comments about editors on this Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• BLP is a red herring in this case because Jane Sanders is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Therefore: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
• Wait These two editors have been on WP since before Bernie Sanders got elected to the Senate. Why am I having to explain the rules of BPL as applied to WP:PUBLICFIGUREs? Now I feel like they are just wikilawyering me to whitewash this page. Sheessssh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if she is a public figure (arguable, but easy enough to determine), this doesn't stop being a Biography of a Living Person, so your red herring just turned into a straw man. You still have to provide encyclopedic content backed by multiple high-quality reliable sources. (Do you consider VTDigger.org a high-quality reliable source, your personal "high regard" for it notwithstanding? You are prompting me to 'attempt to discredit it' after all.) You still need to avoid speculation (and outright synthesis, as displayed in your sentence about the two 'overstated' pledges). I asked you above, What actual encyclopedic information were you hoping to convey to our readers with this new content? You haven't answered. Would you rather I speculate? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The complaints against her came from a Trump campaign operative. Mention this?

According to The Hill reference [10] in this article, the original accusation that she falsified loan documents came from Donald Trump's Vermont campaign manager, Brady Toensing. "Toensing sent multiple letters to the FBI and federal officials in 2016 urging an investigation into Sanders's management of the college's finances." Toensing says he was also the one who told the FBI that Sanders had intervened with the bank. Our article just says "in 2016 a complaint was filed". Does the fact of who filed the complaint belong in the article, or is it irrelevant now - since there IS an investigation? --MelanieN (talk) 03:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant for context, of course. The "investigation" has existed for a year and a half, but the reason behind it is no less relevant. I added it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Adding" it is one thing, but you rewrote the entire paragraph, making it entirely about Toensing, and omitting the fact that there actually is an investigation. I will re-rewrite it to restore balance. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You are correct that "adding" Toensing is just one thing, and I never said otherwise. That is all you asked about with your question above, and that is all I responded to. But if you'll read my edit summary, you'll discover I also upgraded sources and added or changed wording. I also removed the undue header (feel free to re-add if this should ever rise above mere allegation), and I noted the Sanders' response, and the fact that this has been ongoing campaign rhetoric since January 2016.

Since you have now excised much of that reliably sourced information, it looks as if you and I may disagree on what is "balanced". We should discuss these differences. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There also appears to be some question regarding just who is under investigation. You added text indicating that both Jane and Bernie were under investigation, while some sources indicate that Bernie is not under investigation. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I did and do feel that your complete rewriting of this material, to emphasize Toensing and all-but-ignore the FBI, is inappropriate. Let's not edit war; let's discuss this in terms of Wikipedia policy. We are supposed to follow the Reliable Sources for weight. The Reliable Sources are about the FBI investigation, without which we would never even have heard about Toensing's complaint. Your current edit mentions the FBI investigation only in passing; your initial edit didn't even do that much. You have made it sound as if this was just some partisan complaint against the Sanderses which they denied. If that was all it was, it wouldn't even rate a mention in a Wikipedia article. The only reason it is here is because it resulted in an FBI investigation, and that is what the paragraph should be about. Let's see if we can work out a mutually acceptable way to handle this, maybe draft a paragraph here on the talk page that we can all accept. I will list the two versions below, to start the discussion. @JoetheMoe25 and Malik Shabazz: Pinging the other two editors who helped create this paragraph, to see if we can establish a consensus on how to handle this. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Version A (original addition to the article, with Toensing later added as a final sentence; a modified version is now in the article; separate subheading "Allegations of bank fraud") In May and June 2017, it was reported that the FBI is investigating Sanders for possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan she helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. According to the reports, a complaint was filed in January 2016 alleging she had distorted the college's donor levels in the loan application, falsely stating that a donor was planning to give $1 million to the college over several years. It was reported that her husband is under investigation as well, for allegedly urging People's United Bank to approve the loan. Both investigations were launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump.

Version B (inserted and re-inserted by Xenophrenic, currently in the article; no separate subheading) In January of 2016 it was reported that Brady Toensing, the Chair of the Vermont Republican Party and the Vermont campaign manager for candidate Donald Trump, filed a request that the FBI investigate Sanders for possible bank fraud in connection with the $10 million loan she helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to acquire 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. According to reports, the request alleged she had distorted the college's donor levels in the loan application. It also alleged that Sanders falsely stated that a donor had planned to give $1 million to the college over several years. In March 2016, Toensing filed another request for investigation, alleging that her husband urged People's United Bank to approve the loan. Both of the Sanders have called the allegations political "nonsense". As of June 2017, the Sanders have retained counsel while the FBI investigates the matter, but no charges have been filed.

Version C (inserted by JoetheMoe with a modification by MShabazz) In May and June 2017, it was reported that the FBI was investigating Sanders for possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan she helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. According to the reports, a complaint alleged she had distorted the college's donor levels in the loan application, falsely stating that a donor had pledged to give $1 million to the college over several years.

It was reported that her husband was under investigation as well, for allegedly urging People's United Bank to approve the loan. The investigation was launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump. Toensing's complaint also alleged that the diocese suffered financial strain as a result of the loss it suffered when the college was unable to make its full payment for the land; the diocese said that was not the case, and it was "very satisfied" to have received more than the land's assessed value. (Version C copied here by Xenophrenic).

References

IMO the first thing we need to determine is the thrust of the paragraph. Should it be about Toensing's complaints, or should it be about the FBI? IMO it should be about the FBI, since Toensing's complaints wouldn't even be worth mentioning without the FBI looking into them. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Update: JoetheMoe25 has restored the original version, with an added sentence about the Diocese. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The diocese bishop acknowledged the purchase after the complaint was filed and that 32 acres of the land acquired was in the fact the diocese's former headquarters.[11]JoetheMoe25 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the current text is okay, but I'm going to edit it a little. There's no need to say twice that there was a complaint in January 2016. Also, it isn't at all clear to me what it means when it says "the diocese bishop acknowledged that Jane had acquired 32 acres". Was there a question? Land sales are usually a matter of public record, so why did the diocese have to "acknowledge" anything? And why the use of the conspiratorial "acknowledge"? Somebody needs to read WP:NPOV. Also, we don't refer to women, or men, by their first names. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, MelanieN.

...first thing we need to determine is the thrust of the paragraph. Should it be about Toensing's complaints, or should it be about the FBI? --MelanieN

The thrust of the paragraph should be the same as the thrust of the reliable sources. Every cited source, without exception, conveys that (1) Toensing requested investigations in 2016, and (2) there is apparently an investigation underway. So the answer to your question is obviously: "both". Your observation that "Toensing's complaints wouldn't even be worth mentioning without the FBI looking into them" pales compared to the observation that "the FBI wouldn't even be looking into the matter if not for Toensing's multiple requests to do so." We as Wikipedia editors can't selectively chose to convey just half of what every source is saying, and neglect to mention the other half. Do you disagree?

...your complete rewriting of this material, to emphasize Toensing and all-but-ignore the FBI... --MelanieN

Please re-read the wording I added. I mentioned Toensing exactly twice, and I mentioned the FBI exactly twice (who still haven't said whether an investigation exists or not, and haven't even contacted either Sanders). I neither emphasized nor ignored either, because neither did our sources. Your Version A, however, remarkably did not mention Toensing even once.

You have made it sound as if this was just some partisan complaint against the Sanderses which they denied. --MelanieN

No, I did not; our cited sources did, and I only conveyed what the sources said. They went on at length about how in the middle of the United States presidential campaign, a Mr. Toensing - head of then-candidate Trump's Vermont campaign, and head of the Vermont Republican Party, and "political operative and veteran opposition researcher", and partner in the law firm of DiGenova and Toensing (with a reputation for political advocacy and targeting liberal political figures) - filed repeated requests for investigations with the Vermont attorney general and also the FBI (in January, then in March, then in October of 2016). Something glaringly missing from your earlier version. Please re-review the sources and let me know your thoughts on this.

There's no need to say twice that there was a complaint in January 2016. --MShabazz

I agree; but none of the proposed wordings say it twice, so I'm unclear as to what prompted that remark.

If we can settle on "the thrust", as you say, of the paragraph, there are several other issues with the proposed wording we need to resolve, including:

• We can't say "In May and June 2017, it was reported...", because while reports were indeed published in those months, it was also reported in April, and earlier. We don't need to list a whole string of months when news reports were published.
• We can't say "It was reported that her husband was under investigation as well...", when reliable sources specifically refute that (WaPo, Chicago Tribune, and others). I mentioned this above, and I'm surprised that an administrator would leave such a BLP violation sitting in an article.
• I still disagree that the paragraph, which has existed without a header since at least May 8, warrants the undue neon-sign highlighting of a separate header when it is a matter regarding her functions as president of the college. In addition, it is still mere allegation and speculation.
• We need to decide on how much detail we want to go into on Toensing's various requests for investigations. We know from the sources that he requested numerous investigations by the U.S Attorney of Vermont, the FBI, the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, etc. We also know that he filed his requests in January, and March, and May, and October -- with at least three different complaints made, depending on date: Jane misrepresenting donation funds; Bernie "urging" the bank to approve loan; Jane "exacted a severe financial toll on the Roman Catholic Diocese".

I've moved the present problematic content here (see above, most recently "Version C") while we make it policy-compliant. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: Well, that's a load of things to respond to. For starters, I totally disagree with your contention, here and in your edit summary, that there is anything "BLP violating" or "against policy" about this material. There is nothing BLP violative about posting material, even negative material, which has been reported in multiple Reliable Sources. In fact it would be against policy for us to suppress it. And I very much disagree with your removal of the material from the article. It would have been more in line with Wikipedia's policies of collaboration and consensus to simply revert to the earlier, stable version, which as you point out has been present in the article since May 8. I hereby request you to do that while we discuss.

I am OK with omitting the separate subsection heading.

I agree with leaving out the dates of the reports, since they have been spread out through time

As for the Reliable Source emphasis of the material (which is supposed to determine our weight of coverage), just look at the headlines. We have three May and June reports in major national media: The Hill: " FBI investigating Jane Sanders for alleged bank fraud: report"; CBS News: ""Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation for bank fraud, hire lawyers""; and Politico: "Jane Sanders Lawyers Up". We have one local TV station in January 2016: "Group calls for fraud investigation into Jane Sanders' land deals". It's pretty clear what the major source emphasis is in headlines: the reported FBI investigations.

Looking at the actual stories, The Hill reference does not mention Toensing at all just now when I looked at it, and that's very interesting, because that same article was where I originally found the mention of him and posted about it on this page. The article may have been "updated" to remove any mention of him. The CBS News story mentions "a January 2016 complaint" in the second paragraph and names Toensing in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8. The Politico report mentions "Donald Trump's campaign manager" in paragraphs 6 and 8 (quoting Bernie both times) and names Toensing in paragraph 10. The local TV report from January 2016 is entirely about the Toensing complaint, filed on behalf of some parishioners of the Diocese, but that story never got beyond local coverage, and in fact your Chicago Tribune link points out that "the story attracted little attention" during 2016. In fact it appears that what put the situation on the national radar in June was the Sanderses hiring attorneys.; that is the lead of both of our June sources as well as similar stories in multiple other publications.

You claim that "the sources went on at length" about how Toensing, a political operative, "filed repeated requests… in January, then in March, then in October." Really? Those details are "glaringly missing" from both of your versions, and so are any sources "going on at length" about them.

The FBI investigation is the story. That should be our emphasis also. Your proposed paragraph is 90% Toensing's requests for an investigation ("the request alleged," "he alleged", "filed another request", etc.), 7% Sanderses' reaction to Toensing's complaints, 3% FBI. That is not in line with WP:WEIGHT.

As for Bernie being investigated also, several sources said he is; WaPo and Chicago Tribune said (without attribution so we have no idea how they "know") that he isn't. We can simply change our sentence from "It was reported" to "Some sources reported while other sources denied"

Of course the FBI hasn't confirmed the investigations; they never do, it's against their policy. And it's quite common that during a preliminary investigation they don't notify the person of interest (not yet a subject or target) or contact them. So that does not in any way disprove the existence of the investigations. The CBS report quotes Bernie as confirming that "there is a process going on". That is as close as we are going to get to confirming the investigation.

You say that my version A "remarkably did not mention Toensing even once". Actually it's right there in the final sentence.

If we can agree that the focus should be the FBI investiigation, as per Reliable Source weight, then we can talk about how to word this. And please restore the previous stable version to the article while we do so. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, sometimes it's better to discuss specific edits WITHOUT trying to settle philosophical differences. How about this? Moves Toensing into a much more prominent role, and points out that some sources say Bernie is not under investigation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Version D (proposed 6/27 by MelanieN) The FBI is reportedly investigating Sanders for possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan she helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The investigation was launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump. The complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels in the loan application, falsely stating that a donor had pledged to give $1 million to the college over several years. A later complaint by Toensing alleged that Bernie Sanders had improperly urged People's United Bank to approve the loan. Some sources report that this complaint resulted in an FBI investigation of Bernie Sanders, though other sources state that he is not under investigation.

References

I've added most of the May 8th content per your request, because it appears that none of us are contesting that minimal version. (I say "most" because I left out words not actually in the cited source, like "bank fraud" ... so you may want to edit the actual title of The Hill source in your ref-list above.) Of course the text saying Bernie is under investigation, when reliable sources say that he is not, is a BLP violation (see WP:BLPREMOVE), because your cite to CBS is demonstrably a poor source (relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standard). As for your recent proposal, I am still reviewing it. But I see immediately a problem with your suggestion that our article should say the equivalent of "some reports say the Earth is flat, while other reports say it is round". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have deleted a phrase that Malik Shabazz had objected to, about what the donor actually intended. That's interesting about the title of The Hill article. When I added that reference, it did say "alleged bank fraud" in the headline, and you'll notice that the URL still says that. I noted above that they apparently updated the article to remove Toensing; they apparently also changed the headline. Kind of dishonest of them not to say what they changed (there's just a note "Updated: Monday, 1:25 p.m.). I have changed the title of that article to the current version, but we should leave "possible bank fraud" in our text, since the CBS source uses that term. As for whether Bernie is under investigation, after parsing the sources that say he is I agree they are weak (things like "may be under investigation" or "Sanders's office weighed in"). The sources saying he isn't are even weaker (just asserting it with no indication of how they know), but I am OK with striking the last two sentences. If he really is under investigation for that, we will find out eventually. (Not exactly a flat-earth situation, though, since we really don't know what the situation is.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: Any thoughts about this version? BTW while we discuss, someone has replaced the material in the article with a single sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I like Version D. However, I would suggest an addition to the paragraph. A reliable source indicates that she claimed that there was $2.6 million in pledged donations and the school was only able to obtain $676,000 in four years. Also, a current official at the school Coralee Holm, Burlington College's former dean of operations and advancement, has told 'Seven Days Vermont that she (Holm) was unable to find documentation to support the gifts and pledges that Sanders claimed on the bank loan application. See 7 Days and Judicial Watch and NY Daily News. I would amend the last sentence of Version D to say: The complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels in the loan application, falsely stating that there were $2.6 million in pledged donations but the school only received $676,000 in four years.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SlackerDelphi, but that might be apples and oranges. The issue is not what they actually wound up collecting (for one thing, I read somewhere that some donors backed out of their pledges because she was no longer the president). The issue is what she said on the loan application vs. what pledges she actually had in hand at the time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Some brief observations: When citing news sources, we should never draw our content from the headlines (or URL wording of articles), as headlines are frequently non-neutral (and often inaccurate) which are designed to be provocative and draw the reader to the article, where the actual context and reality is supposed to be located. The Hill article is a good example, and I note that it doesn't mention "fraud" anywhere in the body of the article. The Hill also says the focus of the investigation is "allegations that" or "accused of", (without actually naming Toensing as the alleger & accuser). The Politico article (and most other sources) likewise says the focus of the investigation is of the allegations, or of the loan acquisition, rather than of specific individuals. By the way, the CBS source should be scrapped as sloppy, since it contains gross inaccuracies (the afore-mentioned claim that Bernie "is under investigation", or the nonsensical "the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations", when agents don't do the alleging, etc.). (And I won't even click on the link to the recently proposed Judicial Watch source; we should use higher quality sources.) The location of the word "falsely" makes that word look like a statement of fact, rather than part of the allegation. With the above considerations, and your struck portions removed, a minor rewrite of your proposal "D" would look like this:

Version D.2 (proposed 6/30 by Xenophrenic) The FBI is reportedly investigating allegations of possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan Sanders helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The investigation was launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump. His complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels in the loan application, which stated that a donor had pledged to give $1 million to the college over several years.

References

I wouldn't object to such wording being added to the article, if there were no objections from the several others now involved here. But do not be surprised if I later petition to also add: Both of the Sanders have called the allegations political "nonsense". As of June 2017, the Sanders have retained counsel while the FBI investigates the matter, but no charges have been filed. I feel that adding a paragraph of allegations without the response by the article subject is a little odd. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I am OK with your version D.2. One comment: If we're not going to say "incorrectly stated" or "falsely stated" about the $1 million pledge then we shouldn't even mention it. How about "His complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels and pledges in the loan application." About sources, remember that when you look at the Hill article you are looking at a revised version, where they replaced the original "bank fraud" with "possible fraud" and removed Toensing's name. I see no reason to reject the CBS version, which seems just as valid; we have no idea whether it's accurate or inaccurate to state that Bernie is under investigation. I'm not suggesting we open that can of worms, just that we might retain the CBS article as a source.

I am also OK with adding your proposed sentences about the Sanderses' response and having retained counsel, except that I object to "no charges have been filed". Obviously if charges HAD been filed we would have said so. Worse, by even mentioning the possibility of charges, it seems to me to have the opposite effect you want; it puts that possibility, "ooh! charges!", on the table where it wasn't before. No reliable source has even mentioned "charges" that I know of. One other tweak: The plural of "Sanders" is "Sanderses". --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The plural of words that already end in 'S' -- forever my downfall. I can't object to any of your most recent tweaks and suggestions, with one possible exception: I'd still like to replace the CBS source with one that still supports our content, but doesn't have all the blatant errors. Like referring to "federal agents' allegations", which is fiction (or simply confused writing). I replaced the CBS references with Politico references, since the CBS reference is citing it anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

All right. As long as we have at least two sources (Politico and the Hill) as required by BLP, we should be OK without CBS. --MelanieN (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to the latest proposal (Version D.2). It seems to be neutrally worded and supported by all the reliable sources. I wonder if you might want to start the paragraph with "As of June 2017" or "According to news reports in 2016 and 2017" or something that puts a date on it per MOS:CURRENT.

I have to warn you, though, that adding something about hiring lawyers "even though no charges have been filed" seems a lot like an insinuation like the subject has something to hide and is inappropriate for an NPOV article in an encyclopedia bound by BLP, even if it's a factoid that's widely reported in the press. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should not mention charges in any way. Hiring lawyers is so widely reported (in many cases the lead or headline of the story) that I think we do have to include it. I don't think it implies anything in the Washington of right now; all the best people are doing it. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think D.2 with a date added is fine. I would not object to a mention of hiring lawyers but I don't think it's needed. Gandydancer (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Attempt at a final version

OK, I think this is where we are:. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Version D.2.1 (proposed 7/1 by MelanieN) According to 2017 news reports, the FBI is looking into allegations of possible bank fraud in connection with a $10 million loan Sanders helped Burlington College obtain in 2010 to purchase 33 acres of land from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington. The investigation was launched after complaints were filed with the FBI in 2016 by Brady Toensing, chair of the Vermont Republican Party and Vermont campaign manager for then-candidate Donald Trump. His complaints alleged she had misrepresented the college's donor levels and pledges in the loan application. Bernie Sanders called the allegations politically motivated and "nonsense". As of June 2017, the Sanderses have retained counsel while the FBI investigates the matter.

References

Changes I made: it was Bernie Sanders, not "both", who said politically motivated and "nonsense". That quote is from Politico. I am leaving in the "lawyer" sentence because Gandy is OK with it and Malik "thanked" me for my edit, suggesting that he is OK with it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I see that we are citing the Politico article for almost every sentence. If someone wants to remove it from some of the sentences - that are also cited to other sources - it might make the article read better. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad you included the response, though would that be "politically" motivated rather than"political"? Gandydancer (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree with Gandydancer's proposed spelling correction. My specific objection to mentioning lawyers was the second half of the sentence that had been proposed ("As of June 2017, the Sanders have retained counsel while the FBI investigates the matter, but no charges have been filed."). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the grammar correction. I'm going to go ahead and put it in the article. Thanks for the collaboration, everybody, it's always nice to see people discuss and reach agreement collegially. The way things are SUPPOSED to happen here but often don't. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Include info re person that asked for the investigation

Waiting all of six minutes for me to get my ref in before calling me "lazy" is not a very pleasant experience. (grrr) Anyway, IMO the fact that the info was initiated by Trump's campaign manager during his campaign and 6 yrs after she had left the school is important. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is live. If you don't have the reference, don't press "save changes". You copied from the published version and it had [1][2][3] in it. That's what shitty mirroring websites do. If you were going from an older version, copy and paste from the actual code and capture the refs. That takes a few more steps. Taking the option that produces poorer results because it requires fewer steps is objectively lazy. The whole FBI section was poorly written and it is now one sentence and reads fine. JesseRafe (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Goodness me! As the leading editor of both the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren articles, with a GA for Warren, I somehow have struggled along with my laziness and lack of abilities to get a few things done around this place. I had a successful career and enjoyed good relations with my fellow workers; now I'm retired and I view this place as my office and the other editors as my co-workers. In all of my years of work none of us treated each other in the manner that you seem to feel is perfectly appropriate. I've been here for over ten years and I'm pretty well-seasoned by now so it just rolls off my back, but if I were a new girl on the block I doubt that I would have had the courage to continue with this article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

JesseRafe, please see the talk section immediately above this one, where we are working to come up with a consensus paragraph about the investigation. We almost certainly ARE going to include the fact that Trump's campaign manager made the initial complaint. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good. Please see the actual edit I made. The wording was clunky, had unnecessary phrasings, had fake reference footnotes, and the ref wasn't even in the logical place. JesseRafe (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors and editing process

Note that reliably -sourced information on the bank fraud was repeatedly deleted during the 2016 campaign by highly POV editors who WP:DONTLIKEIT. This sort of POV deletionism happens diring campaigns, and reveals a major flaw in our editing process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the allegations of bank fraud were published by multiple reliable media in the winter-spring of 2016, along with reports in WP:RS that trustees asked for her resignation as College President. But POV editing whitewashed this information. sigh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have complaints about your fellow Wikipedia editors, this is not the proper venue to lodge them. Likewise your complaints about Wikipedia's editing process. If you do decide to litigate complaints about "whitewashing", "deletionism" and "DONTLIKEIT" editing by "highly POV editors", you would do well to first carefully compile and consider your evidence. I suspect what you perceive as POV editing and whitewashing, another editor might see as BLP policy-compliant editing; where encyclopedic content is presented instead of tabloidism, verifiable factual content instead of salacious allegation and innuendo and campaign rhetoric. With that in mind, let's get back to article improvement (see below). Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions - July 2017

I've partially reverted a portion of the recent edits, because of concerns including the following:

• An undue header & section was created for content which belongs instead in the section about her administration of the college. This was discussed at length above.
• Wording was added in Wikipedia's voice asserting as factual that Sanders was asked to resign due to revelations by donors that the amounts and timing of donations listed by Sanders in applying for government-backed loans to the college differed from the amounts and timing of their pledges. The tortured run-on wording is the least of the problems. I don't think that paints an accurate or complete picture of events as conveyed by our sources. That wasn't the only factor in her resignation, according to sources - so why the omission? One reason she was forced to resign was When the donations fell short of the $2.6 million promised by Ms. Sanders - or said alternatively in our sources, the board was made aware that the rate of donations that were pledged was not near what was received In fact, according to sources, the trustees asked Sanders to resign, in part because of the fundraising flap and Mr. Dunn said that the overstatement of pledges was a factor in Ms. Sanders’s termination but that there were other management issues as well. “I don’t believe that there was fraud in terms of willful intent,” he said. “I believe that there was information that was misrepresented.” Seems relevant. So she was let go for multiple reasons, just months after securing the deal, and at least one trustee doesn't suspect fraud: Dunn said that although Sanders’s fundraising figures were inaccurate, he thinks she had good intentions. “For me, personally, I don’t believe she had malicious intent. I don’t think it rose to that level,” he said. “Jane had an agenda that she wanted what was best for the college, and she stretched it beyond its capabilities.”
• The recently added wording also stated as fact that the pledged amounts given by Sanders was different than what she was told, which was an assertion clearly attributed to some trustees.
• An edit was made to change enrollment projections to "Sanders' projections", when the original cited source says College "Officials" (plural, are responsible for the projections.
• Oh, and perhaps most importantly, we spent a lot of time last week hammering out the "investigation" paragraph, something that you might not have been aware of, but some of your changes go directly against that process.

We should work out some of these discrepancies. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Updated photo(s)

Could we get some Updated photo(s) of Jane? She has lost weight and looks great - and she appeared publicly after the 10`9 coronary episode. MaynardClark (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)