TL;DR: The material provided in the lead by user:VF01 is potentially useful, but the data referenced is severely out of date and not clearly marked as such, violating WP:V. Additionally, the statement is written in a way that directly suggests a "motive" behind the use of the term without citation, is worded to suggest conflict within the article ("worth noting", see WP:NOTED and MOS:OPED) and contains an assertion that is improper WP:SYNTHESIS without a current secondary source to corroborate its validity. Because of these flaws, I have reverted the edit.
The assertion made in the lead is, in my view, improper synthesis and editorializing because it does more than state information factually from within the primary sources, instead coming to a conclusion:
"Bernie Sanders has more support among people of color than white people, and multiple studies have corroborated the claim that Bernie Sanders has more support from women than men"
that is not supported by recent secondary sources or even by the cited primary sources - the Morning Consult polls measure candidate favorability, not support, among various groups, and the Harvard/Harris poll doesn't mention Sanders at all. There is one cited secondary source, a Vox article, but it's from early 2019, well before any primary elections, before many candidates declared their intention to run, before any debates or dropouts, and definitely before any significant or meaningful polling took place.
Because there are no reliable secondary sources cited that corroborate the conclusion drawn from the primary sources, and there is no immediate and obvious conclusion that can be drawn from the primary sources, the statement is in violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:V, as well as being in violation of MOS:OPED for making unreferenced statements and using suggestive wording: "the motives behind" and "it is worth noting".
Without recent secondary sources (from at least later than early March, after which a well-documented shift[1][2] occurred in the Democratic primary landscape) and relevant primary sources, this statement is improper and unsourced synthesis and should be removed from the lead (but could potentially be significantly rewritten and properly cited to fit in the "analysis" sections).
Please DO NOT restore the reverted material to the article without first attaining editorial consensus to do so here on the talk page.
Rdf7 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Rdf7 -- thanks for your comprehensive and well-written response to my edits. For the meantime, I will leave this page as is, as you have pointed out the Wikipedia policies I am in violation of. I will attempt to re-create a similar sentence at a later date in accordance with the policies you have cited. Cordially VF01 (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for your good-faith work in editing this page! Rdf7 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)