Jump to content

Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

"Gutman"

Someone added that his father "was born Eliasz Gutman". Aside from the fact that this is not necessarily a reliable source, I'm not sure it's even saying "Gutman" was the original surname. Eliasz Gutman was the son of Leib / Leon Sander. "Gutman" may have been a stepfather's surname. Can someone take this out of the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So adding in a note about Barry Goldwater and changing "Jewish American" to "Jewish" was "disruptive" and "original research", but no one will take out the inaccurate and poorly sourced information about Sanders' father's original last name? Keep up the good work, guys. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Well, I guess not... To lock this article till the 29th because of the never-ending "Jewish" problem is not a very good idea, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I removed that info and a sentence from an editorial source that gave info about an uncle. This is Sanders's very short bio and he has led a long life filled with interesting information - there really is not room for something that happened years ago to a relative. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection (editing dispute)

With the page about to go live again in just a few hours, I hope that you all will be able to act like mature adults and not continue the ridiculous edit war that caused me to protect the page. But, just in case you were planning on continuing to battle on this extremely visible article, let it be known that I will not protect the page again if those involved continue that behavior. Instead, I will enforce the permitted arbitration enforcement sanctions on any and all editors that do not abide by WP:EW regarding the "Jewish" matter, from here on out. This article has already come under media scrutiny once before, so I won't have a few of you make us all look like jackasses. - Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Coffee, Sir Joseph has already started edit warring over the issue and changed it back to his preferred version almost as soon as the article was unlocked. When that was reverted and he was reminded there is no consensus yet, he reverted my reversion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It seems you were already taking care of this with the editor in question while I was writing the above comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the contentious edit here. If that wasn't appropriate please let me know and I'll self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' Hitler remark

"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews."

– Although the gist is true in a very broad-brush sense, Sen. Sanders is a bit off on historical detail. Hitler was never 'elected' to anything.
  • Hitler ran for president of Germany in March 1932, and finished second behind Hindenburg, winning 36 percent of the vote to Hindenburg's 53 percent.
  • The Nazis' high-water in a free Reichstag election was 37.3 percent, in July 1932. However, the Nazi Party's share declined in Germany's last free election, in November 1932, to 33 percent.
  • Hitler came to power on Jan. 30, 1933, not as a result of an election victory, but because a cabal of reactionary politicians persuaded Hindenburg, then 85, to appoint him chancellor, figuring they could 'manage' him. (They were very, very wrong.)
I leave it to others to decide whether Sanders' Hitler remark should be deleted or retained, or perhaps annotated in a footnote. Sca (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
These historic criticisms should be directed to Sanders. What is relevant for wikipedia is that fact that Sanders said this sentence and the meaning of his sentence was not to discuss on details about Germany history, was about importance of politics. --Bramfab (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Technically, prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed. Frequently, they do not get a majority of seats and govern in minority or coalition. It is extremely rare for them to get over 50% of the vote. Yet we routinely say they are elected. David Cameron for example got a plurality of seats with 36.1% of the vote in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. In the United Kingdom general election, 2015 he won a majority of seats with 36.9% of the vote. Yet his Wikipedia article says, "He was re-elected as Prime Minister in the 2015 general election," and reliable sources generally express it that way. Ironically he has never received the same percentage of support as Hitler in July 1932.
What makes a PM "elected" is that they are able win the confidence of a majority of elected legislators, which Hitler did.
TFD (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Understand your rationale but don't believe it's valid for a large proportion of English speakers, particularly Americans (306 million native speakers of English), for whom 'elected' generally connotes popular vote. Further, the import of the all-too-frequently stated misconception, "The Germans elected Hitler," is simply false. As the presidential election results show, more than half of the German electorate voted against Hitler personally the one time they had the chance. Sca (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
See an article in the Washington Post: "Cameron, just reelected leader of a European nation...."[1] The Atlantic: "Stephen Harper in Canada. Tony Abbott in Australia. John Key in New Zealand. And now, impressively reelected, a second-term David Cameron in the United Kingdom." (Like Cameron, Harper was "elected" with a minority of seats and "reelected" with a minority of votes.) NBC News: "Newly Re-Elected British Prime Minister Visits The Queen".[2] In fact in the U.S., the people do not elect the president, that is done by the electoral college and in 2000 the candidate with the most votes lost.
It is not the purpose of this article to explain parliamentary government to Americans. And all English-speaking countries other than the U.S. have parliamentary systems. If Bernie Sanders uses the same descriptions that are routinely used in reliable U.S. sources, there is no reason for us to comment on it. How would you describe Cameron's reelection? The Queen appointed him five years earlier and he continued in his position after the general election.
18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Preceding unsigned comments posted by The Four Deuces (TFD). Sca (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't control how journalists use the word elected.
I understand how a parliamentary system works. I also understand how a democratic republic works. And I understand how the U.S. Electoral College functions. (An anachronism that should be repealed, IMO.)
What I can't understand why some people apparently want to perpetuate the myth that Hitler was elected by a majority of the German people. This has become, to an extent, an urban legend. It's not true. Sca (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I know what an urban legend is. The reality is that Hitler's party won the most seats, formed a coalition with the Conservatives and had the confidence of the Reichstag, representing a majority of deputies elected with a majority of the people. If you want to educate Americans about the parliamentary system, then this is an odd place to start your campaign. This article does not after all say Hitler was elected, but that Sanders says he was. Why not start with the Cameron article? Change "re-elected" to "following new elections in all parliamentary districts, the Queen accepted Cameron's advice that he remain as her prime minister and First Lord of the Treasury." TFD (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sophistry. In my view we are here to serve the public with information that is readily comprehensible, not to demonstrate our own putative intellectual superiority. Sca (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I suggest your war against sophistry begins with explaining that Cameron was not reelected prime minister. Go and edit that article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The reality is, the appointment of Hitler as chancellor was not an open political process, but was stage-managed behind closed doors by Papen, Hugenberg and Kurt von Schröder. The Nazis, after they became the only 'legal' party in Germany, habitually referred to this process as die Machtergreifung – the seizure of power. Sca (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The same process is used in all parliamentary democracies. In 2010, Gordon Brown attempted to put together a coalition behind closed doors, as did David Cameron. The non-democratically elected monarch then appointed Cameron her premier and members of both Tory and LibDem parties as her other ministers, even though neither party had a majority of seats. Hitler was appointed premier by the democratically elected president because the other right-wing parties agreed to support him. He assumed dictatorial powers when the Reichstag voted 441-84 in favor. Sure the suppression of left-wing parties made the vote more lop-sided, but he would have won it anyway. TFD (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sca, NSDAP was allied with another nationalist and anti-semitic party that wanted war with Poland, DNVP. Together they had over 50%(NSDAP 43.91% and DNVP 7,97%) of votes in elections(and their policies were supported by other parties as well in part). It's an urban myth that Nazis and their allies didn't enjoy majority of support in Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Sca is basically right, and the statement from Mr. Sanders is plainly wrong (both by year, and by the basic facts), which should be annotated in the article (or the statement deleted).
Whether or not the Nazi regime enjoyed majority of support in Germany (and at which time) is debatable. As a fact, both Hitler in the presidential election 1932 and the Nazi party (NSDAP) in the last parliamentary election before Hitler's rise to power (Fall 1932) gained about 1/3 of the popular vote. Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Hindenburg in January 1933, without an election. By that time, the NSDAP and its coalition partners did not have a majority in the parliament (Reichstag), nor did they seek one for their legislation.
Some try to cram the events of 1932-1935 into the scheme of a working parliamentary democracy, which Germany wasn't any more by that time. Since 1930, legislation was largely run by executive orders of the president, without consent of the parliament. The Reichstag was in agony, caused mainly by the combined anti-democratic forces of Nazis and communists. In a parliamentary democracy, a minority government has to seek for a case-by-case majority for legislation. Hitler instead kept running legislation on the president's executive orders (or through direct legislation by the government).
The last multi-partisan parliamentary election was in March 1933, more than one month after Hitler's appointment. By then, the regime had already arrested (or killed) communist and social democratic candidates, and bullied the electorate with their paramilitary troops of SA and SS. Shortly before the election, the Reichstag had been burnt down (for which the Nazis accused the communists). The psychological impact should not be underestimated. Even then, the NSDAP failed to gain an absolute majority of the vote. And even though Hitler's coalition (not the NSDAP alone) had a majority in the Reichstag after this election, they did not use it for legislation. Instead they kept on using executive orders. Finally, when the Reichstag voted for the enabling act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which has been mentioned here before, the government had to manipulate the parliamentary procedure rules (making the members it had arrested before count as 'present') and pressurized the parliament with the (illegal) presence of armored paramilitary.
There were no free elections after that. Germany was turned into a single-party state. Hitler used plebiscites for his 'legitimation' which don't really prove anything about the real will of the people in a dictatorship.
Leaving Mr. Sander's statement unannotated, is misleading IMHO. --Mottenkiste (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Absent a source commenting on his statement specifically, adding a comment ourselves would be synthesis at best. And I'm not sure I agree with you; in a parliamentary system, it is common to refer to whoever manages to build a coalition that puts them in power as "winning an election" even if they only actually got a plurality rather than a majority. Regardless, our own debates over the meaning of the term are irrelevant -- you need a source for your criticism that discusses Sander's statement specifically before we can put anything in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Article 48 (Weimar Constitution) was the same as the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 or the War Measures Act of Canada 1914. It allowed the head of state to issue decrees on the advice of the first minister. In all cases, the first minister had to have the confidence of the legislature and Germany had the additional safeguard that the head of state was elected rather than hereditary. In all cases the decrees were used to jail political opponents without charge, and in both the UK and Canada elections were suspended. However Hitler won the March election, he was already chancellor.
I am not saying that one cannot make an argument that Hitler, or any other first minister was not really elected, especially when they head coaltion or minority governments, but it is against neutrality to annotate someone's words they are reasonably supportable. It reminds me of all the attempts to correct the Obama article to say he is not African American because his mother was white and his father was not American.
You appear anyway to miss the thrust of the comment. Dictators may come to power even in countries with constitutions and free elections. Hitler came to power with the support of elected representatives, rather than as a result of a coup. He already tried that, didn't work, and hence used the electoral process to obtain power.
TFD (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Aquillion: I need sources for clear historical facts? What kind of encyclopedia is this? And how do you prove something did *not* happen in the first place?
The facts are: There was no election in 1932 won by Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler came to power without an election. The only election (edit: won by Hitler and the Nazi party) which could (arguably) be considered 'free' took place when they were already in power (with the aging president still in place, who played a dubious role).
@TFD: No, the chancellor did not have to have the 'confidence of the legislature'. And Hitler did not come to power with the 'support of elected representatives' (at least, it did not play any important role), and he did not 'use the electoral process to obtain power'. Hitler and his 'movement' were clearly anti-democratic and anti-parliamentarian. The only point where parliamentary action played a major role in Hitler's ascent to power was the enabling act, which resulted in parliament conceding all legislatory power to his government.
Mr Sanders' statement, quoted in the article, is incorrect. Either he doesn't know better, or he is lying. Given he's running for President, I'd consider both relevant.
BTW: If the historical facts prove anything, it's certainly not the importance of elections, but quite the contrary. --Mottenkiste (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Article 54 of the Weimar constitution said, "The Chancellor and national ministers must have the confidence of the Reichstag for the exercise of their offices. Any one of them must resign if the Reichstag withdraws its confidence by express resolution." TFD (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
By 1932, that existed merely on paper. Because (a) the parties of the Reichstag weren't any longer able to agree on a majority government, making a motion of no confidence only a means of destruction, and (b) the president could dissolve the Reichstag at any time, preventing a no-confidence vote from happening. Which Hindenburg did 2 times in 1932. The Reichstag elected in July 1932 convened only once and was immediately dissolved, because the communists wanted to stage a no-confidence vote against the (v. Papen) government. In the meantime, the government could happily work without backing of the parliament (or without any parliament at all). --Mottenkiste (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Article 25 of the Weimar constitution allowed the president to dissolve the legislature, which is the same for most if not all parliamentary democracies. While it is unusual to have two elections in one year, the UK held general elections in Feb and Oct 1975. Canada held 2 elections in 1926. Hindenburg called the second election after the Reichstag supported the Communist non-confidence motion in a vote of 512-42. TFD (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you do need sources for historical facts (if something is 'clear', it should be easy to find sources for it); but more importantly, you need secondary sources to apply analysis to someone's statements. You cannot say "I feel that Bernie Sanders was wrong when he said this, because [fact]" without providing a source that specifically says that -- not a source for the fact, but a source making the conclusion you're trying to make. This is necessary for a number of reasons (no matter how obvious it might seem to you, not everyone will necessarily agree with your interpretations; and beyond that, you need to show that the criticism is WP:DUE -- that it has coverage in reliable sources proportionate to the attention you want to focus on.) Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own personal criticisms of someone's statements, or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding what you feel are common misconceptions. If Sanders (a high-profile candidate for president) genuinely made a serious error regarding history, and if that error matters enough to include in the article, then it should be easy to find a source saying so specifically; without that source, it is only your personal critique and interpretation, and cannot be put in the article. Again, read WP:SYNTH for the relevant policy. I know it's frustrating when it seems like something is just "obvious", but it's essential here because otherwise everyone would want to insert their own personal arguments into articles like these. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"First Jew to win a primary"

The lead says that Sanders is "the first Jew to win a major party's primary". Barry Goldwater, however, was also of Jewish heritage and won multiple primaries for the Republican Party's nomination. I changed the lead to "second Jew to win a major party's primary, after Barry Goldwater in 1964." These edits were quickly reverted saying that Goldwater was not a religious Jew. Goldwater, indeed, was not of Jewish religion. So I changed it to a less "diminishing" sentence: "first Jew by religion to win a major party's primary." That was then reverted with an edit summary saying that Sanders is not a religious Jew. Is there any allowed way to word this? SirLagsalott (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WOw, complex issue here considering the discussion we've seen on this issue on this page. (Jewish or not Jewish).. there is not much information on Goldwater's page about this. It says he's an episcopalian but gives little to no info apart from stating he occasionally referred to himself as Jewish. I would say a reasonable text that would not be a problem would be "the first Jew to win a major party's primary since Barry Goldwater in 1964." That way it's not _specifically_ about religion, because for us to go into religion on this question, we'd have to know more about Goldwater. (When did he convert? Was it just for public perception or ... was it a sincere conversion? etc. I'm actually surprised that's not in the article. That's a rather important personal detail.) Centerone (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The only "Jewish or not Jewish" discussion here has been by those who falsely claim that others are saying that Sanders is not Jewish. Nobody has actually said that. It is a red herring to distract the reader from the fact that Sanders says he is not religious. BTW the Barry Goldwater page says "Religion = Episcopalian" in the infobox, which of course does not preclude him being Jewish. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
You're really making it hard here for people to respond to you in a civil manner. Quit being a jerk, please. Yes, you SPECIFICALLY have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that sanders is not religiously Jewish which I SPECIFICALLY was responding to in previous discussions. You have been repeatedly proven wrong on this by not only the cited and referenced information and quotes, but the rules of the very religion. Considering that you and others have gone on and on and on in regards to Jewish identity across the spectrum I was suggesting some language which I felt could accurately represent the situation in regards to Jewish identity in relation to Barry Goldwater without delving deeper into investigating his personal, familial, cultural or spiritual journey considering that information is not in the Barry Goldwater article. Did you REALLY need to cast aspersions on my TRUE statements that YOU specifically have stated that Bernie Sanders is not religiously Jewish, which is patently false, which is not really specific to the solution I was suggesting here in relation to Goldwater? Seriously, get over it. Centerone (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Before making any changes to the lead, please look at these two sources, which are cited in the article in support of the statement that Sanders is the first Jew to win a major-party primary.

"the first self-identified Jew to win a primary. Though Barry Goldwater, who garnered the Republican nomination in 1964, had a Jewish father, he was raised and considered himself to be Episcopalian."

"the first Jewish candidate—and the first non-Christian—to win a presidential primary"

Nobody has provided a source that says Goldwater was considered the first Jewish candidate to win a primary, so you can't write that. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater also referred to himself as Jewish (see this). BTW, Sanders is the fourth candidate of Jewish heritage to win a primary. The other three were Goldwater, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark. I think the article should at least mention Goldwater, the way many news articles about Sanders' win did. It's complete without that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This is all very interesting, but it seems like original research. - MrX 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree that the article should mention Goldwater. He was, by heritage, half-Jewish. His family surname was actually Goldwasser and his grandfather changed it when immigrating from Poland to the United States. [3] [4] [5]. One need not be practicing the Jewish religion to be considered Jewish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All Hallow's Wraith and Winkelvi, where are the sources that describe those candidates, and not Sanders, as the first Jewish candidate to win a primary? Original research if ever I saw it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Was that the point? I thought the point in reverting that edit was that Goldwater wasn't Jewish. Which he was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say the article should say that Goldwater was the first Jew to win a primary. I just said that Goldwater and his heritage should be mentioned here, the way they were mentioned in many news articles about Sanders being the first Jew to win. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between Jewish heritage and being Jewish. The lead says first Jew. It doesn't say first person with Jewish heritage, so I don't see a reason to include Goldwater, and certainly not in the lead. If you want to include him in the article, maybe, but I still see no reason. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Goldwater considered himself Jewish and plenty of reliable sources support it. That's what counts. As Wikipedia editors, we don't decide who is and isn't Jewish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Your link clearly says Goldwater was Episcopalian. Read the first ref you provided. "The Senator was raised as an Episcopalian" and more importantly as per the rules and WP:SELFIDENTIFY, "Columnists could write that the Senator was half-Jewish, but by the matrilineal line of descent in Judaism, Barry is not Jewish because his mother was a practicing Episcopalian." [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://swja.arizona.edu/content/goldwaters
Note: There's already a discussion about Goldwater here. I am on record as opposing any mention of Goldwater in the article.- MrX 01:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Every link says he was Jewish by heritage. At least one says he was so proud to be Jewish that he went on a quest to find his Jewish ancestors who may have died in or were part of the camps. Another says they were Episcopalian because his mother took them to an Episcopal church. Another link is from an online Jewish archive. Not one link says he denied his Jewish heritage. Again, WE don't decide who is Jewish. Every source I provided (and I will happily provide more, if you'd like) says he was half-Jewish. End of story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Half-jewish and Jewish heritage again, is not the same as being the first FULL Jew to win the primary. It most certainly should not warrant a mention in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is not a "FULL" Hispanic, yet he is called "the first Hispanic" repeatedly in his article without any asteriks. The article should state, as it did before: "Previous winner Barry Goldwater had a Jewish father, though was raised an Episcopalian". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Barack Obama is not a "FULL" Black man, yet he is called the first Black U.S. president. And the rest of what All Hallow's Wraith said. Plus I'm going to add once again: WE, as editors, don't decide who is what. Sources do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Winkelvi, so WHERE ARE THE SOURCES THAT SAY GOLDWATER WAS THE FIRST JEW TO WIN A PRIMARY or that SANDERS WAS NOT THE FIRST JEW TO DO SO? Put up or shut up already. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Why are you screaming? Your point is not the point All Hallow's and I are making, so yelling isn't doing anything other than showing you are missing that point because you're pushing yourself so aggressively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x6 Please look, once again, at the two sources cited by our article (quoted in relevant portion above). Both state unequivocably that Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win a primary. If you have a source that either says he wasn't, or that Goldwater was, please produce it. Otherwise, please stop engaging in original research. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the sources need to be RS, Wikipedia also goes by verifiable edits, not truth which can sometimes seem odd, even though in this case it makes perfect sense. You need to find sources from the Goldwater era showing "Goldwater first Jew to win primary." There aren't any. What we have in this article are sources that show "Sanders first Jew to win primary." That is RS. Anything else is RS and SYNTH. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And many of those sources mention Goldwater, as we should also. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps as a sidenote or a an explanatory footnote, but not to remove what the reliable sources say: that Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win a presidential primary. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
John Kerry is also Jewish so I don't know if being the fourth Jew to win a primary is as notable enough for inclusion as being the first or second Jew to win a primary. [6] Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Then it should be a sidenote, as it already was. People kept removing it, though. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That reference says John Kerry is at most ¼ Jewish blood (only that much if Mathilde Frankel was Jewish). Other references show he is neither Jewish religion (he's Catholic) nor Jewish ethnicity (inherited through the maternal line), and does not identify as "Jewish". "1st Jew" seems to be about religion. Let's not bring race into it too! --Scott Davis Talk 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I am ¼ Jewish too and identify as such. Do you have to inherit African American ethnicity through the maternal line to be considered ethnically African American? No, you don't. Same applies for Jewish ethnicity. It does not matter what side he gets his Jewish blood from from an ethnic standpoint. By the way, I'm pretty sure some sects of Judaism recognize Jews through the paternal line as well (not that it matters since we are talking about ethnicity, not religion). If "1st Jew" is about religion, then it needs to be clear about that in the article. By the way, "Jewish" is not a race; it's an ethnic group. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not American, so frankly cannot see why the issue of whether or not to describe Bernie Sanders as Jewish is worthy of anywhere near the amount of text that has been written on this and other talk pages. To me, a person is part of an ethnic group if they choose to be identified that way, and the group accepts them. From the sources quoted ad infinitum, Sanders is Jewish in cultural, racial and religious senses. The "maternal line" comment related to a source quoted somewhere above about Jewish lineage, I have no idea what is required to inherit "African American" as distinct from any other kind of African or American ethnicity. my wife has an American ancestor, but does not consider herself American any more than she considers herself English, Welsh, Scots, Irish or Prussian. --Scott Davis Talk 08:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Pardon for not having entirely read the whole discussion. But in case if the detail in the title isn't mentioned, I believe it should be if notable. And if Barry Goldwater won multiple primaries for the Republican Party's nomination as SirLagsalott says, then it should be placed in the article. (N0n3up (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC))
Barry Goldwater was Episcopalian, but an ethnic Jew. We can say Bernie was the first "religious" Jew perhaps. ()
I had stated that earlier but it was reverted on the grounds that he was not Jewish by religion. A lot of the page editors appear to believe different things. SirLagsalott (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

John Kerry's paternal grandparents, Fritz Kohn and Ida Löwe, were both born Jewish. I have no idea where this weird idea comes from that he only had one Jewish grandparent. Why do so many people believe this? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do so many think religion is the only part of being Jewish that sets any of them apart? Sanders has said he's not religious, Goldwater was a practicing Episcopalian, and Kerry is a Catholic. Yet, all of them are ethnically Jewish. I'm not seeing why this is an argument, but that's me. Perhaps the "first Jew" thing needs to be either left out or qualified. Sanders is being referred to by the media as the first Jew to win, however, Kerry and Goldwater preceded him. Or something like that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Yawn. 'Semitic'-obsessive prejudice again. Why is it that people of mixed descent are always 'Jewish' ethnically if one or more of their forebears was Jewish, while others were not? For fuck's sake, this is precisely the sort of thing that led to the German classificatory system as it was worked out in the 30s.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani—please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. For instance "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like we need a WP:CRYSOAPBOX to go along with WP:CRYBLP... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop. Alluding to Raul Hilberg,The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) 1973 pp.43-53., is not soap-boxing. If you can't see that, and confuse an allusion with a personal view, you don't know anything about the subject, and thus fail to understand the implications of what people appear unwittingly to be regurgitating here.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Considering this is the lead, weight is an issue. Certainly religion, ethnicity and gender provided barriers to election in the past and it is significant for subjects that have shattered the glass ceiling, such as Kennedy (Catholic), Obama (African American), Clinton (female.) Joe Lieberman was a serious candidate for president and ran as VP, which shows that ceiling was broken. I do not see it as significant, and certainly it has not received the same attention, therefore does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia goes by verifiable and RS. The news sources all say Bernie is the first Jew to win a Presidential Primary and that should be in the lead. I do not know why it was removed. I would ask if his highness gives permission to put it back in, but I'm just a lowly Jew, so I would ask someone who is not of the Jewish ethnicity or religion or heritage or common ethnic background. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion. The most relevant policy is neutrality. "Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." So for example the article Special theory of relativity does not mention that Einstein who developed the theory was Jewish. The article Jurassic Park does not mention that the creator of the series was Jewish. Facts should be presented in accordance with their significance in reliable sources, not what you happen to think is important. TFD (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what it is you're trying to say. Why the heck would a page about a theory or a page about a film mention the religion of the people involved in the creation of them? This is a page about an individual who is a politician and a Presidential candidate. Religion is usually held as quite an important aspect of the lives and public perception of people in these positions. Centerone (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
a politician and a Presidential candidate. Religion is usually held as quite an important aspect of the lives and public perception of people in these positions.
I know, right? How sad is that? It must be driving that kind of voter crazy when they look at Sanders and discover he isn't religious. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you say "he isn't religious". In point of fact he is religious to a limited degree. "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, “I know the blessings,” and recited them in Hebrew." Do you fail to see the admittedly limited Jewish religious observance displayed in this act of 1983? You seem to argue that sources point out that he is not religious. Yes, he is not observant of most Jewish ritual behavior. But sources are pointing out the connections between the Jewish religion and political positions he takes. The sources in fact are saying that his activity is broadly consistent with the Jewish religion. In particular many sources trace his exceptional concern with the downtrodden with his religion. Many sources connect his exceptional concern for righting social inequities with religion. In short, it is the religion that matters, not the ethnicity. And that is according to reliable sources. That is not merely my own opinion. I can present many sources connecting Sanders' working method to Jewish religious beliefs. Your personal opinion matters less in these considerations than the findings of reliable sources. Example: "...Sanders’ ideology no doubt springs from many sources, his overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is as Jewish as the poem that graces the Statue of Liberty..." Most of the sources that you are dismissing as merely saying that he is not religious are also making the point that religion informs the political positions of Sanders. This is of obvious interest to the reader therefore satisfying the requirement for "relevance" found in WP:BLPCAT. As concerns his admittedly spotty record of Jewish religious ritual observance, we can add to his Chanukah observance the observance of the Jewish ritual of Tashlich and the visitation to a friend on the occasion of the Yartzeit of the man's father. Are you failing to recognize in Chanukah, Taschlich, and Yartzeit the religious element? He never renounced his Jewish religion. It is his Jewish religion that matters here, not his Jewish ethnicity. Sources are specifically drawing connections between the Jewish religion and the political positions embodied by Sanders. It should not matter for Wikipedia purposes how observant he is, but Sanders participates in Jewish religious rituals to an admittedly limited degree. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. You have (again) made statements which aren't true. So of course I will correct them (again), and await your amended response.
you say "he isn't religious".
No, I really did not. You make it sound as if I expressed a personal opinion, when I did not. What I did say is that "It must be driving that kind of voter crazy when they look at Sanders and discover he isn't religious." Reliable sources, not me, have described Sanders as not religious. Sanders has as well. Some even trumpet that he may become our first non-religious president. Bernie himself has waived off religion, and commented that he has drifted away from religious ritual and ceremony as he grew up. He'll clarify that he is still spiritual, but if he's "religious" about anything, it's that "we are all in this together" and he'll express his empathy for the downtrodden, and his insistence on righting social inequities, but then he reminds us that "this is not Judaism".
Your personal opinion matters less in these considerations than the findings of reliable sources.
There you go again. You see, Bus stop, when you make comments like that, it removes any remaining credibility from whatever arguments you are trying to present. It also poisons the discussion. You know that every argument I advance is one conveyed by reliable sources, and not from personal opinion, yet you still routinely attempt that tactic of distraction.
I can present many sources connecting Sanders' working method to Jewish religious beliefs.
I have no doubt that you can find a few (I've probably read them), but not "many" in relation to the far greater number of sources which distinguish his public works and positions from religion. The one you are fond of citing, the college student's essay on how Sanders' "empathy" for people is a Jewish trait that had to come from Judiasm, presents 'interesting' opinion. For every article like that, there are dozens which explain that he isn't religious - it has no significant bearing on his life - he doesn't "wear it on his sleeve", it's separate from his public life. As for his "empathy", all the theories of college students notwithstanding, he will tell you in his own words about his empathy - and conclude, "This is not Judaism." Given a choice between Sanders own words and Salon opinion essays, I think we should defer to Sanders.
Are you failing to recognize in Chanukah, Taschlich, and Yartzeit the religious element?
Uh, no - why do you ask? He went to Hebrew school as a child and was raised in a Jewish environment, does it surprise you that he would be acquainted with certain customs? Or that a couple times over the span of many decades he might observe a ritual or custom to honor a close friend, or make a point about freedom of religion expression?
He never renounced his Jewish religion. It is his Jewish religion that matters here, not his Jewish ethnicity.
I've never read that "he never renounced his religion"; source citation, please? It is "likely" that he never had to; he already told us that that he has drifted away from that as he got older and isn't really religious anymore. In fact, he married outside of the religion - his wife is Catholic, and he has been quoting and praising the Pope a lot recently. I think I read that his wife said he has a Christmas party... Oops, "holiday" party every year. Hmmm...
It should not matter for Wikipedia purposes how observant he is
It doesn't, of course, unless he is so not religious and it has so little bearing on his public life and notability that it would be against policy to put an organized religion label in the |Religion= infobox field. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

ANother article referencing his Religion

"As for the Jewish holidays on the Sanders aspect of the household, step-daughter Carina Driscoll remembers Sanders all the time being very personal about his faith.

“Bernie would observe his traditions in a means that we actually did not see very a lot of. The matzo crackers and gefilte fish would come out and we might be like, ‘Uh-huh. In order that’s occurring.”

Says Sanders: “Spirituality is one thing I feel individuals ought to maintain usually maintain to themselves so it’s not one thing that I speak about an entire lot. However I’m proud to be Jewish and being Jewish is an important a part of my life.” "

I believe this is from People Magazine, I'm not sure if it was on their website at a time because the article I found on their website suggests buying their magazine with the full article. I found it here: http://starsppl.com/enjoyable-grandpa-bernie-sanders-5-enjoyable-issues-we-discovered-hanging-out-on-the-candidates-home/ Is there any doubt that he's talking about religion in this quote? I didn't see this mentioned in the previous intense discussions, so I wanted to drop here here as a potential reference. Centerone (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the original source from People magazine: http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-fun-grandpa Centerone (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the question and the transcript source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/democratic-town-hall-transcript/index.html and here is the question Anderson Cooper asks: "COOPER: You know, I want to follow up, because Jason also mentioned faith, which is something you've spoken a little bit about. You're Jewish, but you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion. What do you say to a voter out there who says -- and that who sees faith as a guiding principle in their lives, and wants it to be a guiding principle for this country? " So Anderson Cooper 1) References Bernie Sanders being Jewish in a 2) Question about religion and faith and then Bernie Sanders responds that religion and faith are a guiding principle in his life: "It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is." then goes on to say that strong religious and spiritual feelings are the very reason he's there and doing what he's doing. "I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings. " Centerone (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Self identifying as having very strong religious and spiritual feelings is not the same thing as self identifying as having a particular religion. Self identifying as having very strong religious and spiritual feelings in response to a question that contains the words "you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion" strongly implies that Sanders is not a member of a particular religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Anderson Cooper DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY references Judaism. The question is basically 'you said X before, can you CLARIFY for someone who feels Y way?' Heck, we could substitute the name "Guy" for "Justin" in this question to get the answer you repeatedly seek! Bernie Sanders does not respond "No, I'm not Jewish". His response is to clarify: Religious practice is a very personal thing, "everybody practices religion in a different way". He goes on to say it's a "guiding principle in" his life and he's very religious and spiritual. Yes, he's not _ACTIVELY INVOLVED_ with 'organized religion' in that he doesn't go to a synagogue, shul, temple, that he is not a member. You can be NOT affiliated with 'organized religion' or a specific place of worship and still consider yourself OF that religion! Just like Jimmy Carter had disavowed any relationship with the Church, does anybody doubt that he is a good Christian? Through his words, deeds, and actions, Jimmy Carter is probably the best example of a good Christian we have seen in a recent President, yet he's blown off the Church. Would you suggest that he isn't a good Christian because he disagrees with the Church and has left it? Centerone (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Just show me a direct quote where Sanders himself self-identifies that his religion is Judaism as required by WP:BLPCAT without the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR exhibited above. BTW, do you have a citation to the claim that Jimmy Carter has "blown off the Church"? If there is, we might want to remove the "Baptist" from his infobox per WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It's neither synthesis nor original research. It's a direct question and an answer. One person asks a question, the second person answers it. The person answering the question does not need to restate the question. The question provides a context for the answer. Centerone (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
For everyone else, his Senate Press Pack is acceptable, but you seem to have determined that was written by someone else and can't be used as information about what he says about himself (what is the WP:RS that Sanders did not author it?), whereas I would cite it as " Bernie Sanders (6 June 2007). "Senator Bernie Sanders". United States Senate. Retrieved 2 March 2016. Religion: Jewish ". --Scott Davis Talk 11:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I recently made this edit, and would like to open up a conversation about it. The ethnicity of Bernie Sanders seems pretty clear, and I don't think it has anything to do with skin color (as someone contended at my talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring? No, I haven't sought to restore the information subsequent to opening this talk page section, nor do I plan to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Meaning you were editwarring before you opened this discussion. Okay, whatever. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
No, I reverted an edit by an editor whom you just characterized as a "troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I reverted an edit that was clearly "trolling", regardless whether the editor is a "troll". But whatever, you're not going to continue reverting people, right? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
At this article, I will be especially careful about it. G'night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would leave it out. Sanders, like all the other candidates, is an American. TFD (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How was I trolling? Jordandlee (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for User:Curly Turkey, but most everyone knows that ethnicity and skin color are separate concepts. Ethnicity refers to a social group that shares a distinctive culture or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"Ethnicity is skin color" is a preposterous statement. If it wasn't trolling then it was a level of ignorance you should hang your head in shame over. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

His ethnicity is completely irrelevant. I'd leave it out. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Other Quotes from Senators

What does it matter what other Senators think of his presidential run? And can you pick and choose? Can I add in quotes from Ernst, Heitkamp, Pat Roberts, McConnell, Rand Paul? For fairness, I would remove the Warren quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.142.160 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_10&oldid=1078432821"