Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Brunch with Bernie

Sanders has been having a give-and-take with a call-in audience, Q and A, type radio show called "Brunch with Bernie" for the last Ten years I think it is. It is claimed that the show reaches at least 20 million devoted listeners on radio and the Internet, according to Michael Harrison. (whoever he is?). That's a lot of voter contact and worth mentioning to our reader. I'll do some research. . Buster Seven Talk 13:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent events

Maybe someone or me should write something about the proposed Sanders Amendment to the Patriot Act. - Dan

• Dan, do you happen to have a good link to this amendment? I will look for it and add it once I find it. 71.207.105.3 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanders' deodorant comment

I added this to the article but someone else removed it. It's gotten a lot of media attention.

Sanders said:

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country."

Original source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102694365

Comments from other sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/05/26/sorry-bernie-sanders-deodorant-isnt-starving-americas-children/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/05/30/bernie-sanders-deodorant-comment-ignores-realities-economic-growth/2OfPVj77EsJlZiPSeH1kQN/story.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2015/05/carr_bernie_sanders_raises_stink_over_deodorant_diversity

http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/05/27/bernie-sanders-save-the-children-fund

71.182.248.162 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Perhaps we should wait and see if the deodorant comment continues to receive attention, or is forgotten in a week or two. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The quote wasn't even put into proper context, as he also stated "The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn't matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty." This is hardly a radical position, as academics have made similar arguments. Not only that, you added blatant POV commentary from "Reason Magazine" which is completely inappropriate. I predict this will be just another flash in the pan like the short lived controversy over that 1972 essay.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

"His entry into the race was welcomed by Senator Elizabeth Warren,saying “I’m glad to see him get out there and give his version of what leadership in this country should be,”. Senator Warren has resisted calls to become a candidate herself.["

Elizabeth Warren is now listed as endorsing Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Go Figure. ---Dagme (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it was an endorsement. All the Democratic women senators signed a "secret" letter to Clinton encouraging her to run. TFD (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

She'd make a good running mate for Bernie... Gandydancer (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Health section

It was not by accident that I included abortion, which is a medical procedure, in the health section. Pregnancy is a medical condition and abortions are done in medical facilities by medical staff. The equipment that is used is medical equipment and if drugs are used, they are medical drugs. I have moved it from the Social issues back to the Health section, where it belongs Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I had moved it to social issues because his stance on abortion doesn't enter into his "family values" agenda, but health care in general does. Also, while you make a good point, abortion is generally regarded as a social issue by all, while the view that it is simply a medical procedure would seem to favor the pro-choice point of view. Any other thoughts? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well actually, when he made his "family values" statement he only included sick and vacation time. Looking at our WP article, I see other things which I think we can go by - abortion is included as well as gay rights, which I did move from the social section as it certainly fits better with family values. I figure that Roe vs Wade pretty much settled whether or not abortion is a social or a health issue in the U.S. when they decided that it is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Gandydancer (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Materials for possible additions

• Sanders is drawing "overflow crowds" at campaign events and is "surging in the polls." Source Additional Source
• He has recently sharply criticised mass incarceration and police brutality in the US. Source
• In an old interview (1989), he elaborates on the CIA's role in suppressing democracy abroad. Source

Thought on any of these?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly #1 and I'd say yes on #2. #3, I'd say no at least for now. Re #1, I knew this was going to happen and the fact that the Sunday political programs that discuss the candidates/election have been so clueless re the fact that he is going to be a serious candidate tells me how out-of-touch people in high places are with we commoners. People are fed up with politicians and are looking for someone that they can relate to. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Paid leave

In order to undo the inappropriate removal of information regarding Sanders stand on "paid leave" by a first time IP, it was necessary to undo HW's retrieval of the references first.. Buster Seven Talk 23:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Campaign finance section

I would like to work with the Campaign finance section and will copy it here:

Sanders supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures.

Sanders has been extremely outspoken in calling for an overturn of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled McCain-Feingold restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions to be a violation of the First Amendment. He has stated that opposition to the ruling would be a litmus test for any of his judicial nominees as president and has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Sanders said:

“ I think the decision of the Supreme Court will go down in history in Citizens United as one of the worst decisions ever. Free speech is your right to talk about any issue that you want. It is not your right to spend unlimited sums of money to control the United States government or state legislatures or governor seats all over this country. That is not what free speech is about. And the American people, by the way, in overwhelming numbers, do not agree with the Supreme Court. ” — Moyers & Company (Oct 2014)

I'd like to get rid of the quote and change it to something like this:

Sanders supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures. He has been extremely outspoken in calling for an overturn of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled McCain-Feingold restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions to be a violation of the First Amendment. Sanders has stated that opposition to the ruling would be a litmus test for any of his judicial nominees as president and has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling. He warns: "We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates." [1]

Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - for reasons of brevity and clarification about the thread title, "Campaign Financing". I do think his Citizens United is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever statement is as declarative as a politician can be. Does it fit somewhere else? . Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gandydancer. I see you found "somewhere else". . Buster Seven Talk 20:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes...but for some reason my Provelt ref-maker will not work and someone needs to fix that ref for me as I don't know how to do it any other way. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Mideast

I'd like to include: Sanders has come under fire from progressives for supporting a 2014 Senate resolution to send funds to Israel during its attack on Gaza.Sanders also displeased some progressives when he voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran,

Any objections?Jimjilin (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You need secondary sources that say these criticisms are significant. Counterpunch for example criticizes everyone, but we do not present that in every article about U.S. politicians. TFD (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

State what Sanders supports and what he votes for. Mentioning how progressives feel or whether they were disappointed is unnecessary and irrelevant.. Buster Seven Talk 05:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

How about: Sanders supported a 2014 Senate resolution to send funds to Israel during its attack on Gaza.Sanders also voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act, which stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran.Jimjilin (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Vote for the Iran Freedom Support Bill was in September of 2006 and was by unanimous consent of ALL senators so no record of individual votes was made. Criticism of his vote was insignificant at best.. Buster Seven Talk 06:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't unanimous mean everyone? And I didn't mention any criticism.Jimjilin (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I re-interpreted displeased some progressives when he voted for the Iran Freedom Support Act as "He was criticized". My bad! . Buster Seven Talk 21:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, Counterpunch represents a small minority of progressives, if indeed they are progressive. You would need a secondary source that showed their view was significant. And if Sanders supported a unanimous resolution, it is obvious there was no significant or indeed any opposition from progressives. TFD (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disagreed. We do not need sources that verify sources unless one is a primary source. We know well enough that this is relevant. There is no reason to exclude this little fact from the page. In fact, it borders on censorship to do so. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing two separate policies: reliable sources and weight. Articles must not only be factually correct, they must also be written from a neutral point of view. That means not giving undue weight to opinions that mainstream sources generally ignore. If people want to know how CounterPunch sees the world, they can read it themselves. TFD (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter to me how well this info was sourced, I'd still object because IMO it is not notable enough. As I go about my editing I see hundreds of things I'd like to see in the article, but in order to keep it short enough to be readable we must take only a tiny bit from all the information that is available. Gandydancer (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the issue is certainly notable. I provided three references. It was mentioned in Dissident Voice and Counterpunch and the more mainstream Huffington Post!Jimjilin (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless it was mentioned in NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS, it is not notable. Notable btw is not the relevant policy, it is weight. TFD (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wording in the lede

Our lede presently reads:

Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is an American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont. He has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election. An independent politician since 1979, Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist[4][5][6][7] who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12]

I recently removed the copy:

who favors the creation of employee-owned cooperative enterprises[8][9] and has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy.[10][11][12]

While there is nothing wrong about this copy, I do not believe that it should be presented in the 3rd sentence of the lead. Sanders has made it very clear that his main concerns are the destruction of the middle class by the actions of the super-rich and his first priority is the creation of jobs that offer a living wage with benefits comparable to every other industrialized country in the world. I moved the info re employee-owned business to the Jobs section but was unable to figure out a place for the "has praised Scandinavian-style social democracy", though I'm sure it could be done if editors believe that it should be included somewhere. As it is, it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article and the lead should reflect the article. I've been editing this article for a few days and have read, by now, a tremendous amount of info related to Sander's run and have watched several videos. Today I watched his Minneapolis speech which went on for about one hour. In that time he did not devote any time to praising "Scandinavian-style social democracy," nor have I seen it in most of the news articles that I have read. While I'm not saying that he does not greatly admire it and does not feel that Americans would be surprised to find how far behind we are, to mention it in the lead gives one the idea that he wants to shove European Socialism onto Americans. That is not fair to Sanders, IMO, and does not well-convey the message that he is trying to give to Americans as he talks about his vision for the country. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It belongs somewhere in the article but not in the third line of the lead. warrior4321^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 00:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Somewhere, but not there. . Buster Seven Talk 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I support the current version. His self-styled "democratic socialism" is largely based on Scandinavian social democracy. He openly states this in interview after interview after interview (seriously, watch these; I can find dozens more). Anyone who claims that he hasn't extensively discussed this issue has not been paying attention. Not only that, given that "democratic socialism" is a rather nebulous term, it only makes sense to leave the current version to clarify for readers exactly what Sanders self-styled "democratic socialism" represents - to do otherwise is being unfair to Sanders in my view. So if you move his support for Scandinavian social democracy to another section you'll have to move that he's a democratic socialist along with it (I would not support such a move), as they are inexorably linked.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm with C.J. on this. "Socialism" is a word that can mean many, many things, and is especially confusing for Americans who are not familiar with other politicians who embrace the label and only associate it with what they learned in school about the Soviet Union and China. A case could be made to move the bit about cooperative enterprises as Sanders emphasizes that much less, but his admiration of the Nordic model has long been at the core of his philosophy and his message. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not change it then to something along the lines of Sanders' ideology of democratic socialism has been strongly influenced by Scandinavian-style social democracy, which has been praised and endorsed by Sanders.? warrior4321^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Gandy Dancer. There is nothing unusual about supporting employee-owned cooperative enterprises (Law firms, accountancy firms and Goldman Sachs are all employee-owned cooperative enterprises.) And it was an interviewer that questioned him about Scandinavia. The policies he supports are in effect in every developed nation except the U.S., whether they are governed by socialists or conservatives. TFD (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think warrior's proposed wording, or something similar, could be a good compromise. Perhaps: Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist and often emphasizes the similarity between his policy proposals and those of mainstream social democratic governments in Europe, particularly in Scandinavia. And I agree, TFD, and the average American reader - even one that is politically inclined - is not aware of how common his proposals are in Europe. Quite often I've seen Sanders bring it up even when not specifically asked. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I like that. Gandydancer (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the wording and generally polished the lead. I'm still not completely satisifed with it, but I do think it's a substantial improvement. Please let me know what you all think. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, nice job. Could someone come up with a paragraph for the body of the article? Gandydancer (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Replacing references

Care must be taken when replacing references. This diff shows that multiple references were replaced in Early life and Education by one "Book reference"...[2]... which then created a "cite error" because a "named reference" was removed. In other words, the removed reference had been used elsewhere in the article. More care must be taken by us editors if we are going to replace references. . Buster Seven Talk 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only that, I don't know how many other readers actually read the references, but I do and when a book is used that I am not able to read I am not very happy about it. I looked for that book and the page mentioned was not available. Gandydancer (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed. The ability to read the reference right away is an important feature in the enjoyment of pursuing knowledge on the subject matter. I'd much rather follow the trail that an Internet reference provides rather than having to get my hands on a Book reference. . Buster Seven Talk 19:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I remain very unhappy about this Buster, but apparently you and I do not have support for our opinions. This book has only two reviews and one of them states:

Good idea but would not rely on all the facts, which should be referenced. In just looking at my father's entry, there were some egregious factual errors like getting who our mother is wrong! Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

If you would still like to read it, the page in the book is present on Google Books. warrior4321^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Sanders "Jewish" and does he have dual-citizenship?

Bernie answers both questions about himself Buster Seven Talk 12:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

At the same Breakfast meeting he stated that "Family Values" will be a "major theme of my campaign". Should "family Values" be added to his political positions? Specifically, 12 weeks of paid Maternity leave, paid sick leave, 10 days paid vacation. Buster Seven Talk 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely it should be included. BTW, have you ever checked the Paternity leave article? Gandydancer (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll add it to the article now. This is the first time I've seen the quote. I was the one who removed the Religion News Service link for lack of a quote, and I've made quite a few edits to the article recently before creating this account. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Very, very nice edits. Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! You've done quite nice work on the article too. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've looked at a few other's pages and I'd say that this one is the best. Clinton's, for one, is so long I just get tired even looking at it. I know what she stands for since it's pretty much a carbon copy of Obama, but even if I didn't i don't think I could stand to read the whole thing... Let's keep this short and sweet... Gandydancer (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I added some stuff to hopefully help settle the dual-citizenship question, but it was removed w/o explanation. I'll re-add if it's acceptable for everyone? @Gandydancer:, you're right that that wasn't the best source to use for the stuff regarding his stance on Israel, but I think there's a good deal of corroborating information out there. How do we feel about Vox? I've heard mixed reviews about reliability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've restored the content removed by User:MaverickLittle. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Family values agenda

I have moved Sanders' positions on abortion and LGBT issues back to the social issues section. My intent here is not to be difficult or start an edit war, but Sanders has been very specific about his "family values" agenda being about economic issues that impact families. I don't think that it is appropriate for us to take too much creative license with what he has said. His Wikipedia page exists to inform the public, factually, on where he stands. I'm sure that lots of us who edit here support Bernie and feel strongly about particular issues, but WP:NPOV is bigger than all of us. By all means, we can discuss a better way to organize Bernie's political positions, but it is not appropriate to include abortion and same sex marriage under his "family values" agenda because he has been very clear that it is NOT about those issues. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. I have a little different take on his position in that I assume that he is taking the Liberal Democrat position on Family values which would, of course, include gay rights and affordable access to health care for all. Since your position differs, I moved child care and college tuition issues to Social issues since they were not strictly mentioned by Sanders either. I moved health care from economic since I believe it to be a very poor fit, and I also have again combined health with women's reproductive rights while discussion is ongoing. Gandydancer (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I just did a bit more restructuring, creating an "education" section for child care and college funding. My hope is that we can expand this to include his views on public education, CommonCore, school choice, etc. As far as whether his views on abortion should be under health care or social issues, I ultimately don't feel particularly strongly about it. In my opinion, most readers of the article would be likely to look under "social issues" for such views, but I'm sure that a significant subset would tend to look under "health care." HappyWanderer15 (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Related to GAY RIGHTS: Sanders penned a letter in 1972: "Probably the most alarming aspect of the Nixon administration has been the gradual erosion of freedoms and the sense of what freedom really means. The Liberty Union believe that there are entirely too many laws that regulate human behavior. Let us abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or 'right' on people. Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)." http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-was-for-full-gay-equality-more-than-40-years-ago/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.228.120 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanders advocates removing confederate flag from SC statehouse grounds in speech on Charleston Massacre

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/bernie-sanders-rise-of-right-wing-hate-groups-shows-were-still-far-from-being-a-non-racist-society/ Is this noteworthy enough to be added to the article?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think so. It could mention the flag issue but then refer to his views on hate groups in general. How about this quote:

Sanders, an independent and 2016 presidential candidate, also raised the alarm about the growing number of right wing extremist groups in the US, “groups that are motivated by hatred – by hatred of African Americans, by hatred of immigrants, by hatred of Jews, by hatred of Muslims, and anyone else who is not exactly like them.”

Gandydancer (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think we should get bogged down in detail, and it is best to avoid quotes. This time of thing belongs in a campaign article. I imagine Sanders has always opposed hatred of minorities, and most if not all mainstream politicians claim to as well. TFD (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

To answer your concerns and the points you bring up, first I don't feel that discussions about Sander's position on hate groups is a "detail" at all but rather something that we would want to include with our list of his stand on other issues such as health, etc. Re the use of quotes, at times, such as here when the discussion is using terms such as "right wing extremist groups" or "hatred of ...", etc., a quote is the only way to go. As for your statement, "I imagine Sanders has always opposed hatred of minorities, and most if not all mainstream politicians claim to as well", sure, but there is a very different way that progressives, such as Sanders, sees these issues compared to the way they are viewed by the people that he refers to as right wingers. And actually, one need not even go so far as to call all of these people right wingers. Remember a few years ago when the issue of undocumented workers was in the news with some politicians speaking out against the use of undocumented workers only to be found to be employing them as housekeepers, gardeners, etc. (Which issue opens the door to why this country has found itself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to our dependence on cheap labor.) I could go on to mention the very thinly-veiled racial hatred statements made by some southern politicians and Republican candidates, but this is enough for now. Gandydancer (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I sure don't know what to make of the total lack of response to this issue. This event has turned out to possibly be one of those rare events in our history that will make a profound change in the way we see at least some racial issues. I consider myself very liberal but until I listened to Obama's speech even I was not aware of how differently the flying of the flag was seen by millions of black and white Americans who were more closely affected by the Civil War than I (thought I) was. Here we are with more comment on whether or not Sanders is or is not Jewish than on this issue - what gives? Doesn't anyone have anything to say? Gandydancer (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Israeli-Palestinian conflict section

A new paragraph has been added to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict section. I will copy it here:

Despite a record of voicing criticisms of Israel, Sanders has been described by the The Jewish Daily Forward as a moderately reliable supporter of Israel, somewhere "between California Senator Dianne Feinstein — an often outspoken Israel critic who is Jewish — and Senator Chuck Schumer, the New York Jewish lawmaker known as a forceful defender of the Jewish state", in terms of his degree of supportiveness. NPR host Diane Rehm mistakenly stated that Sanders held dual US-Israeli citizenship during an interview with him on The Diane Rehm Show. Rehm apologized and later explained that the false information had come from the question of a listener who was interested in internet speculation regarding Sanders's citizenship. When asked about other members of Congress who might hold dual citizenship with foreign countries, Sanders replied "I honestly don't know but I have read that on the Internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it's been on the Internet. I am obviously an American citizen, and I do not have any dual citizenship". This section is already very long, by far the longest section in his positions section. The first part of the new para discusses info from an unnamed "longtime Hill-watcher who focuses on Israel issues" which I don't think meets our standards. The last part of the para seems to come from a blog post. While this info may have been added in good faith, I don't feel we should keep it in the article. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with Gandydancer. The repetition of the false claim that Sanders is a dual citizen should not be in this particular article. This Diane Rehm incident has been covered in the Diane Rehm article. We should not repeat a stupid claim in the article about Sanders. We don't need to be repeating "Internet speculation". The wording you quote above sounds sympathetic to the moronic claim. Please note that the claim itself (dual citizenship of the U.S. and Israel) is used to invalidate the opinions and thoughts of the person being falsely accused of dual citizenship. Also, the wording above mischaracterizes the source of that "Internet speculation", which most believe to be a pro-Palenstinian/anti-Israel source, at best. References to that Rehm incident should be removed from the article about Sanders.--ML (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the rest of the new para because it contains a quote from an unknown person (in a BLP) and the source has a very small circulation of readers (again for a BLP). Gandydancer (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree the Israeli citizen story does not belong in the article unless it becomes an issue. As for Sanders position on Isreal, it think it is unencyclopedic to source his position to an op-ed. Just state it factually. He supports the two-state solution. If Israel becomes an issue, then it can be expanded to provide nuance. TFD (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I did not remove it because I had only thought about the bogus dual citizenship issue. But I should pulled it also. We might want to include a discussion but that source was not right.--ML (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the argument - to be clear, the 'claim that is being repeated' is not that Sanders holds dual citizenship, but rather (the entirely not-false claim) that Rehm had the issue of his citizenship wrong - the result of an apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status. This section was meant to rectify that misconception. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you might not understand because you just made an incorrect statement. You stated that there is a (and I am quoting you above) "apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status". That statement is simply not true. It is not widely held. Also, it is very well known that neo-Nazis and jihadists make false claims against Jewish people that they are dual citizens to undermine their support of Israel. Please review the discussion of this topic on the talk page of Diane Rehm here: Discussion of false claim that Sanders is a dual citizen. Also, please provide a reliable source that says that there is a "apparently widely held misconception about his citizenship status". I am requesting a reliable source, not your personal opinion. Also, Sanders himself says that he is offended at the repetition of "Internet speculation" so why are we repeating the "Internet speculation" in the article concerning Bernie Sanders? What justification do you have for this repetition of this false claim? How does repeating something is scurrilous make this article better? What is your justification for the inclusion of the repetition of "Internet speculation"? I just find it a violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your definition of "widely held"? It is apparently widely held enough for Sanders himself to say (and I am quoting you above) "that he is offended at the repetition of 'Internet speculation'", and widely held enough to fool Rehm and her staffers, which seems significant. IMO the fact that this misinformation is out there in any significant extent makes it worth debunking here, particularly in the case of such a widely reported phenomenon that he and others have commented on in RSs, right? To clarify, I intended to debunk that false repeated internet speculation, not repeat it. If I am overestimating the importance of doing that, or if my initial addition was not clear in doing that, let me know. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Adventurous, I think that you make some good points but all in all I agree that it is not significant enough to include in this bio. Gandydancer (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your reply. But don't you suppose many people who read that type of misinformation might visit this article looking to find information which either supports or disproves it? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I thought a lot about that too. I think that if those people read the article it should be quite clear that it is just a rumor. IMO it is best to not respond to rumors in this bio unless they have been widely reported - and this one has not. Gandydancer (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this should be left out for now. If it becomes an issue, then we can throw it back in, but for now it looks like it won't extend beyond the current news cycle (or possibly the past cycle; haven't heard about it for a while now). It's not a significant issue, and therefore doesn't fit in with the summary style. ~ Rob^Talk 17:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the input, all. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion: Jewish

It should be obvious to any good faith editor that the Infobox should read "Religion: Jewish" but some are determined to insert other terms. All sources, and there are many of them, support terminology such as "Religion: Jewish" for Infobox use. Here are just a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Basically Wikipedia adheres to the findings of sources. If other terminology is felt to be preferable or more appropriate I hope editors can bring sources to support their choices. Bus stop (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware of the discussion I have initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Religion: Jewish, Bernie Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they say "Jewish", but as far as I know, "Jewish" is not a religion, but the Jewish religion is Judaism. Why not use a noun? Dustin (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. It is typical to use a noun for religion in the infobox. To call their religion "Jewish" is grammatically incorrect. ~ Rob^Talk 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be my understanding that we should follow the precedent of reliable sources. They, in fact, tell us the opposite of what you are saying. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability determines what information we put into the article. The information tells us he is Jewish, which is equivalent to him practicing Judaism. That fulfills WP:V/WP:RS. Grammar dictates how we use this information in a sentence. The entry in the infobox completes the sentence "Bernie Sanders' religion is ______". Jewish would form a grammatically incorrect sentence, similar to how "My mother's religion is Christian" wouldn't be correct. The fact that reliable sources are not exercising proper grammar, while embarrassing, doesn't effect affect our word choice. WP:RS only relates to content. ~ Rob^Talk 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rob and Dustin. A person is Jewish, but the religion is Judaism. And to edit war over it is lame. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Is the infobox standard for US politicians who are nondenominational Christians, "Christian" or "Christianity"? The choice is just a matter of style.--Pharos (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that Sanders has stated that he is "not particularly religious", the infobox cannot legitimately state that he has a religion at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Many sources state that he is Jewish, and he's said as much in interviews, even if he isn't particularly observant of his religion. Do you have a source where he states he is no longer Jewish? ~ Rob^Talk 02:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

He clearly self-identifies as Jewish. Lots of people do. Including atheists. Jewish identity is a complex matter, and cannot be reduced to a simple assertion that 'being Jewish' makes you a follower of Judaism. Because it simply isn't true... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump—you say "Jewish identity is a complex matter". This would be incorrect, at least for Wikipedia purposes, and in fact incorrect for most purposes, although exceptions can be found in which "complexity" is displayed. Our aim should be to adhere not only to the findings of reliable sources, but it would be a good idea to adhere to the actual language of reliable sources. That language, as this case demonstrates, is reflective of common use. Or are we to assume that all the sources got it wrong, but we know better? We are expected to communicate using the standard language that exists outside the world of Wikipedia. We are not expected to concoct new ways of speaking. The reality of this attribute of identity as it pertains to Bernie Sanders remains the same no matter what language we use. Our job is communication in the language that is in most common use. I've brought a few sources to show how this attribute of identity is linguistically depicted in sources. It is my opinion that the sources are too numerous to ignore. It should be noted that you have not brought any sources of your own. Bus stop (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If you end up deciding that the "Jewishness" being referred to by the sources isn't necessarily religious, then I guess I wouldn't be too opposed to a removal of the parameter. Either way, "Jewish" is inappropriate for the infobox as a religion. Dustin (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." And I can't see how "not particularly religious" can be seen as self-identification as a follower of Judaism, or any religion at all. It is far too ambiguous. He comment on the matter belongs in the article, where our readers can see it for themselves, without any effort on our part aimed at shoehorning him into one category or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably a supermajority of American Jews who celebrate major holidays would self-describe as "not particularly religious", that doesn't imply that they aren't part of the common religious tradition. Just as in the US one can be "not particularly political" and still a Democrat or Republican.--Pharos (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I misunderstood what you originally said, and thought you were advocating for referencing irreligion in the infobox. I'd support removing the parameter entirely. I don't think the parameter should be used at all unless the subject's religion is a significant part of their notability, so I'm almost always fine with dropping it. Religion is generally too complicated for the infobox anyway, as you pointed out. ~ Rob^Talk 03:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If his official Senate website says "Religion: Jewish", then I think that meets the standard for article inclusion, though whether US politicians should have religion in their infobox generally is another question.--Pharos (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Without taking a position one way or the other about Mr. Sanders's religious affiliations, I would just point out that the sentence "Joe's religion is Jewish" is perfectly grammatical, just as is "Joe's mood is happy." Grammaticians would explain this structure as an elision, the deep structure being "Joe's mood is [a] happy [mood]." That is, the referent of the adjective "happy" is "mood", and the referent of the word "Jewish" is "religion". --Ravpapa (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a preference for "Judaism" over "Jewish" but that is not, in my view, a reason for a big fight. More important is that the article reflect the fact that Judaism is a big tent, that there are no dogmatic litmus tests, and that Sanders has repeatedly self identified as a Jew of the non-dogmatic variety. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps add a note after the religion? One way or another, Bus stop is simply pushing unusual wording for no serious reason so I still cannot support usage of "Jewish". "Jewish" is neither a religion nor a noun; it is an adjective used to describe followers of the actual religion, which is Judaism. So "Bernie Sanders is Jewish." is a correct sentence, but "Jewish is a religion." clearly is not (the reason? That is an adjective!). It should work out such that "Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism." is the infobox's implied statement which would be correct and wouldn't imply that "Jewish" is the name of a religion. Dustin (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I see not reason to have religion in the info-box. TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Dustin V. S.—what would lead you to believe that all reliable sources have misconstructed their Infoboxes and none have correctly constructed their Infoboxes? You have not brought even one source. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Provide even one source explicitly saying "Jewish is a religion". If you actually find one, it is wrong. Jewish is not a religion. Dustin (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Dustin V. S.—Please look at the following sources. They are reliable sources. And they use the Infobox format. I have omitted sources that are not in the Infobox format.

Nationaljournal.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish"

CNN.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

NNDB.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

Sanders.senate.gov has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

Media.cq.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

Friendsoftheuschamber.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

Takeaction.hollywoodchamber.uschamberpartners.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

The book "November in New England" by Justin Trask Haskins has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

Sources need not conform to what you see as an idealized Infobox form. I don't think the Infobox is a Wikipedia innovation. We are merely borrowing a preexisting format. To me it is 100% obvious that we should be following the precedent set by sources rather than inventing our own language. We should be aiming to duplicate the language that is found in sources such as the above. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please reread my post above. You are arguing a grammatical point, and you are wrong. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that either one is grammatically correct, and that this is basically a style issue. Personally, I would favor an infobox style of Christian, Jewish, Muslim rather than Christianity, Judaism, Islam, because we're talking more about personal identity here than theology.--Pharos (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanders' position: He now says he is not actively involved in organized religion'. When it comes the impact of religion on his life, he said, "I find myself very close to the teachings of Pope Francis" Burlington Free Press. The result from this recent RfC was: "unambiguously in favour of omitting the [religion] parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious". petrarchan47คุก 18:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

His official Senate website literally says "Religion: Jewish", and that is his given religious identification. It's clear he's not a member of any synagogue, but then neither is President Obama a member of any church.--Pharos (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a rationale as to what value is added to this article by having the religion in the infobox at all over the article body? Even if he is unambiguously identifying as Jewish, his statements that he is not currently involved in organized religion and is not particularly religious demonstrates that Judaism does not have any serious impact on his political activity, which is why he's notable. It would seem that including something in the infobox that has no bearing on his significance is providing that aspect undue weight. ~ Rob^Talk 20:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Sanders' religious identity is not substantially relevant to his notability, and so shouldn't be over-emphasized, for example in the introduction. But the weird thing is that de facto the standard for US politician infoboxes seems to be to include religion, whether or not the person has ever served as a pastor, etc. I'm not sure at all I agree with this standard, but I think it should be consistent for Sanders and others.--Pharos (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this could be a candidate for an RfC? I don't have any experience in that area. ~ Rob^Talk 21:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I do think so, especially if it were framed as an RfC around US politicians or some other defined group, given that the default in the past has been to include it for these articles.--Pharos (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I have the background on the community's opinion on this or the knowledge of procedure necessary to create this RfC myself, but if someone else were to do it, I'd certainly be interested in participating. I agree that framing it for US politicians is probably the best idea, as anything smaller is unnaturally restricted, and anything larger could include countries where religion is extremely important for politicians (see post-war Iraq, for instance). ~ Rob^Talk 05:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like the most relevant wikiproject to get in touch with would be Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress.--Pharos (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly the info-boxes shown have a field for religion but they lots of other fields we do not use either. If this were the 1950s, when everyone belonged to a denomination, attended church weekly and religion was a big issue in politics then I might agree to including it. We might even include race/ethnicity as they were big issues too. But it seems too unimportant to include. TFD (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Race and religion are fairly important in some elections still, although that doesn't mean they should necesssarily be in the infobox. I do think we should set a standard for this, but I don't think "weekly church attendance" or subjective judgments of level of observance is it. Either we include it for noone, for everyone who has a stated religious identity, or only for those who are members of clergy. See RfC suggestion above.--Pharos (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sanders's religious affiliation might not be particularly relevant to his notability, but then neither is his marital status or the fact that he is the father of four. Of those three details, his religion is definitely the most interesting, as presidential candidates of Jewish extraction are rare birds. As such, it should definitely be in the infobox (especially since he identifies himself as Jewish in every other official context). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dudley Dudley

just endorsed him. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders married and divorced another woman before marrying his current wife

[Personal attack removed from header]...That it won't work. I swear. The liberals that CONTROL wikipedia can't even use google. The man has been divorced [personal attack removed]. But this guy immediately deletes that from the article without bothering to confirm it's truth. 162.216.14.26 (talk)

If you want to add it, it's up to you to provide a reliable source. ... discospinster _talk 21:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and obvious political attacks. Dustin (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CNN: "Marriages: Jane (O'Meara) Sanders (1988-present); first wife (name unavailable publicly, now divorced)" - it also says that he has a child from the first marriage. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

His son Levi is his only child. The other children are his stepchildren. [4] NYTimes article SW3 5DL (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I love this LIBERALS DELIBERATELY leave out UNPLEASANT info about their heroes, but rush to judgment about conservatives.This discoSPINSTER dufas is trying to BLOCKADE the truth. And the person who was FOOLISH enough to actually find a reliable source doesn't realize wiki has NO intention of posting anything harmful to their icons...reliable sources or not. The liberals that control wikipedia are like the Old Soviet Style MOBSTERS.162.216.14.26 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

What is unpleasant or harmful about a divorce in 2015? Who cares, except you? When you write in an unhinged fashion, do not be surprised if people wonder if you are off the rails. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Instead of braying loudly as you have been doing, I found a reliable source and added information about his first marriage and divorce to the article. It would be nice if you would withdraw your insults, but I am not holding my breath. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

biggest crowd so far

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/07/03/sanders-draws-more-than-2500-to-iowa-stop-tops-for-this-presidential-cycle-so-far/ SW3 5DL (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

it's IA only, there were 10K in WI

George_S._Patton's_speech_to_the_Third_Army#The_speech

maybe a Berniementum §? Lycurgus (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Also 7500 in Portland ME, as many as could fit in the space, others outside. Funny some supposedly liberal media but actually corporate media (e.g. MSNBC) are completely ignoring, at least as of this moment. Lycurgus (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not completely ignoring it, they did cut live to Portland for a short clip on the air. And they domention it on their poorly read website. Trackinfo (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw later it was just out of their current news cycle. I only went to their website, don't have cable for tv, but yeah a live cut in the middle of programming is significant. Lycurgus (talk) 11:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

so if there were such a § it would go in the campaign article, and that would be a good time to move the bulk of the position stuff there too, leaving a summary here. Lycurgus (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sen Sanders family history, more research needed...

The article states " Bernie Sanders was born on September 8, 1941 in Flatbush, Brooklyn, New York, to Eli and Dorothy (Glassburg) Sanders. His father immigrated to the US from Poland after his family was killed in the Holocaust." Whereas most historians are agreed that the deliberate murder of Jews did not become official policy of the Nazis until 1941, it's confusing to state definitively that Eli Sanders sired a child in New York in 1941 having fled an event largely contained to the future. This does not mean that he did not flee anti-semitism or the 'unofficial' (Einsatzgruppen) killing of civilians in Poland in 1939 and 1940, one purpose of which was to rid the Polish state of intelligentsia and leadership, and was not strictly limited to Jews. It just means more research needs to be done and clarity achieved. Depending upon where in Poland Eli Sanders emmigrated from, it's also possible he was fleeing Soviet Occupation (also purveyors of virulent anti-semitism). I would like to suggest the sentence be changed to reflect the lack of clarity: Something along the order of: "His father immigrated to the US after the deaths of many in his family in a war ravaged Poland that was becoming the geography of the Holocaust. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to a National Journal article,[5] his family died after the immigration. TFD (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes the wording in the article even more confusing and misleading. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

moreover, did the parents pass thru the UK on the way here -- giving birth to brother larry as a UK national -- or did he immigrate there as an adult?

article need not go into a LOT of detail about the brother, but a note or two about how the heck bernie is american while his brother is british is in order! i'm totally konfoozed!! 209.172.23.59 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

POV Pushing

This sentence is at the closing of the tenure section; "Republicans have described Sanders as "an ineffective extremist" for successfully sponsoring only one law and 15 amendments in his eight terms in the House." It strikes me as an unnecessary POV pushing sentence, how is this subjective position encyclopedic and necessary? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In New England, especially Vermont, that's a compliment. Go Bernie. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Compliment or not, its a subjective description that does not have place in an encyclopedia unless there is something that warrants its inclusion. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were a prominent attack ad that received national attention during the presidential campaign, that would warrant inclusion, but the "ineffective extremist" quote is not encyclopedic. It's received no significant attention. ~ Rob^Talk 19:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernie's first marriage

The Daily Mail has a piece about this first marriage. I know several threads above mention it Thought I'd post this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3155396/Bernie-Sanders-1960s-love-life-revealed-wife-woman-son-sugar-shack-home-lived-revolutionary.html

SW3 5DL (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, please note the following Politico article which states that Sanders' son is NOT the product of his first marriage (which would make this Wiki article wrong):

"In his chosen home, a state that at the time was morphing from one of the country’s most resolutely conservative to one of its most reliably liberal, the New York City-raised Sanders found an environment that suited him: a tolerant, loosey-goosey era and place, but with an abiding Yankee sense of privacy. It allowed him to focus on what fueled him without being forced to discuss publicly significant details about his personal life – like his meager finances, his bare-bones living arrangement, and the fact that the mother of his one biological child is not his ex-wife. That’s a surprise to some who have known him for decades. It’s also very much a product of an unwritten compact between Sanders, his supporters and local reporters who have steered clear rather than risk lectures about the twisted priorities of the press."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927.html#ixzz3fUfwLdMM

98.179.183.59 (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against including that info, but you need a good ref with the name, dates, etc. Remember that this is a BLP. I have removed the information. Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help (more reliable story on Sanders marriage and children)

I have no time to do the edit, but here's a reputable journalistic source for some of this stuff:

BERNIE SANDERS’ EARLY DAYS IN VERMONT: HIS LIFE, LOVES AND CIRCUITOUS ROUTE TO POLITICS JESS WISLOSKI AND ANNE GALLOWAY

http://vtdigger.org/2015/07/09/bernie-sanders-early-days-in-vermont-his-life-loves-and-circuitous-route-to-politics/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.89.49 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Introduction w/ unnecessary information

The introduction has information that shouldn't belong there, based on how I read the Wikipedia instructions on "biographies of living persons" and "active politician running for office".

Specifically:

On July 1, 2015, Sanders's visit to Madison, Wisconsin drew the largest crowd of any 2016 presidential candidate so far, with an estimated turnout of 10,000.[27][28] According to a June 25 poll, Sanders is running in a "dead heat" with Hillary Clinton in his neighboring state of New Hampshire, trailing her 35% to 43%.[29]:

These read like a daily news feed (or, worse, a press release), not worthy of being included in a bio of a public figure. I'm sure he washed his hands and brushed his teeth, too. Are we going to update that everyday?

They should be removed.--JohnAKeith (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that, too. Polling info is probably better managed over on Bernie's campaign article. Although I do like having it here, it probably isn't appropriate for a BLP. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC),

Sources

I am very strongly against the use of The Daily Mail for use in any BLP for anything at all. If the information is so hard to find that one must resort to this tabloid it does not belong in our article. To have replaced a previous ref with this site just to add a couple of unnecessary details makes no sense at all, IMO. Thoughts please. Gandydancer (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Politico story is far superior journalism, including confirmation by a spokesperson for Sanders, and also that the Daily Mail is a sensationalistic rag. If we can find a better source for the first wife's maiden name, the Mail source should go. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Objection. The Daily Mail is a respected, fact checked newspaper. In addition, the Daily Mail is superior to Politico especially in this case because the Daily Mail reporter used public records to document the marriages, the birth records, etc. So no, in this case the Daily Mail is the source, and if you both read the article you'll see that. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Please note, Gandydancer told this IP he could not use the Poltiico story yet now claims Politico is the superior source. Doesn't make sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927.html#ixzz3fUfwLdMM 98.179.183.59 (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against including that info, but you need a good ref with the name, dates, etc. Remember that this is a BLP. I have removed the information. Gandydancer (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail does have the name, dates, etc., based on public records and that is stated in the Daily Mail article. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to dig through the previous edits so correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly the info that I deleted contained each child's name and DOB, which is not in the Politico source. As for the Daily Mail, I can't imagine where you are getting your idea that it is such a great source. Going to the RS notice board, just pulling up the first of those listed in the archives I find this:

The Mail certainly has enough of a reputation for fabrication and selective distortion that I wouldn't consider it a reliable source in any context. Any genuine news story will also have been published in the legitimate press; I can't envisage any circumstance in which it would be appropriate to be using the Mail as a source, other than in an article about a Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday story. FWIW, as of four years ago the WMF line on the Mail was that it is "trashy and unreliable and should be treated with grave caution in all cases - and generally discouraged as a source. Political or editorial stance is irrelevant, too. It's about the quality - which is too low for encyclopedic work", and I can't imagine that's changed. – iridescent 00:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ask them yourself if you still have any doubts. Gandydancer (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My first choice would be to source it from the New York Times or the Washington Post. But they don't have this information on Bernie. As for the comments you sourced from the RS board, it's just opinion and nothing more. The Daily Mail is based in the UK which has very strict libel laws, much stricter than American law. They check facts. Unless you can come up with a secondary source that says the Daily Mail is a discredited newspaper because it relies on "fabrication and distortion," then it's still just opinion. There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits the use of the Daily Mail as a source. The reporter states clearly in the article that he used public records. As I said, my choice would be to use the NYTimes/WashPo, but until they write an in-depth article that provides the information, the Daily Mail is working just fine. And I don't see any reason for you to engage a battle over it. I'm not going to engage with you. I'm going to remember what George Bernard Shaw once said,"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." But I will continue to search out other sources for the benefit of the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not "respected" and there are many discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard that establish clear consensus that citing it should be rare and with great caution. We do not need to include his children's and stepchildren's exact date of birth or place of birth per WP:BLP policy. It is clear in this specific case that the Mail relied on public documents so I think it is acceptable for now for the first wife's maiden name. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is weight, not reliable sources. If no U.S. sources report this information about one of the two major Democratic candidates, then it is not important. TFD (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

SW3 5DL I have not shown any battleground behavior here and I'd appreciate it if you'd strike your pig reference. Hopefully we will be able to move forward in a more productive manner. I brought the use of the Daily Mail to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ and there is wide agreement that this news source is not appropriate for use in this situation. You may argue your perspective with those editors, but for this article the matter has been decided and I will remove that source from this article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Bernie not actually a registered Democrat?

According to Time mag, Bernie isn't actually a registered Democrat. http://time.com/3956492/bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-ballot/. Apparently, he'll need to register in order to be on the ballot for the New Hampshire primary. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Vermont election law does not allow people to legally and formally declare membership in a political party. Neither does Texas. Sanders stated that he is running as a Democrat when he filed with the FEC. He has caucused with the Democrats in Congress for many years. He has won Democratic primaries in Vermont. He will maintain his independent identity to the extent possible, but I consider the chance that he will be kept off the New Hampshire ballot as negligible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Even the Time article says that. Bernie's his own man. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

moved section

I moved the section on 'college funding' up with student loans under the Economic section of Bernie's political positions. Making college affordable and doing something about the predatory lending practices in student loan financing is not an education issue. It's an economic issue. Education issues are curriculum, access, head start programs for the disadvantaged, etc. But a student loan is 100% finance. Bernie visits all the colleges in the area and keeps up with happenings in student loan finance. He came to my college in New Hampshire and I'll never forget it. He was thoroughly informed and he knew exactly the set up and what students are facing at graduation. He's the only one in congress trying to do do something about this. Readers coming to his page will be looking for his position on student loans, it needs to be in economics. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I tried to compromise with this editor and kept the student loans section in the Economic section and returned the "free college" stuff to the Education section but he was not satisfied with that and returned all mention of college to the Economics section. I don't agree. Gandydancer (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you agree? What's your rationale about the, as you call it, "free college" stuff. "Tuition free" sounds economic to me but maybe you know better. Can you give us a rationale? Why didn't you first use the talk page before you reverted my edits, especially since you gave no rationale in your edit summary. Where's the discussion of your compromise? You simply saw my edits and decided to make trouble by reverting them without any rationale because you knew I come back and put them back. You're here to stir the pot and disrupt this page. Same thing with your objection to the Daily Mail when it is patently clear it's okay to use the DM for that particular edit since the reporter stated he used public records. You didn't even bother to read the article you just objected out of hand, like you're doing right now. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have returned the following info that you deleted because I feel that it is important:

Sanders is in favor of public funding for college students. He believes "we live in a highly competitive global economy and, if our economy is to be strong, we need the best-educated work force in the world." He further maintains that many other developed nations in Western Europe have long taken this approach to higher education. Sanders expects his plan to meet strong opposition from the Republican Party, but says it is ultimately "the American people" who will determine its failure or success. Gandydancer (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the quality of the encyclopedic content is far more important than which section the material is located in. There are excellent arguments for including this content in either education or economics. I urge all editors to avoid bickering about trivialities. Instead, adopt a collaborative attitude and bend over backwards to stay away from conflict. The article will be better as a result. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Cullen, I do not believe that I was "bickering" about "trivialities". Gandydancer (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly the problem. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

new poll

This is a new survey from Monmouth Uni: "Mr. Sanders was well back at 17 percent, but his numbers have increased since his 7 percent showing in April and his 12 percent support in June." SW3 5DL (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting, too. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-shows-donald-trump-how-its-done-2015-07-15 SW3 5DL (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

counterpunch

is that quote from counterpunch truly necessary?

I agree the Counterpunch quote is superfluous. I myself actually subscribe to Counterpunch, and I might even agree with the quote. But the fact that someone, somewhere, criticized Sanders doesn't seem relevant to his bio... I'm sure we could find a thousand other critical comments from various sources.

That said, if someone developed a subsection along the lines of "Sanders' relationship with the American Left" or the like, that might be interesting. As the only self-described socialist in Congress, it's probably interesting to know the range of opinions socialists/leftists have about him, and how he interacts with that group. But a subsection would need more than one snippy comment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Flagrant Vandalism

On April 6th, Pasboudin made a heavy edit to the article, erasing a number of factual examples of events in regard to Sanders' positions with the Bush Administration. Pasboudin explained with, "is this a wikipedia entry or richard tarrant's campaign site?" (see history). He gives no further explaination, and thus shows his intent is to inject POV in violation of wiki rules. The examples given are factual, have citations, and are not disputed by Pasboudin. He has erased these examples serveral times, showing further intent to vandalize the article.

The examples given are not only cited, most citations come directly from Sanders' own website, and use direct quotes from him as their basis. I cannt think of any more neutral examples of a person's beliefs and positions than their own words! My suggestion is that should Pasboudin disgaree with the examples cited, he add his own rather than erasing others' work. -- User 71.161.193.55

Road to Good Article status

I've spent the last week, improving various issues with this article. I've gotten it out of the maintaince categories. I've improved a lot of the references. I've fixed some content here and there. Although it still needs work, I think this article is close to being able to qualify as a Good Article. Let's examine the Good article criteria. There are three immediate failure items:

1. Has cleanup banners? No banners. We are good. Y
2. Far from meeting any one of the six good article criteria? I don't think so. As discussed next we have an issue over copyright for Criteria 1a but it's minor and can be fixed. Y
3. Contains copyright infringements? Unfortunately, yes. Earlier I found plagiarism under the Bernie Sanders#Nuclear energy, which I quickly fixed. Spurred on, I quickly found that the Palestinian conflict section is also in violation. I suspect that there are more sections that need to be carefully examined and users warned. N

So at the moment, we would get an immediate failure but I think we can fix this easily enough. It will involve a number of hours of work but not too much.

As for the good article criteria themselves, this is my first impression:

1. Well-written? Overall, yes but maybe has copyright issues. N
   1. clear and concise? Yes. Respects copyright laws? Not fully but easily fixed. Spelling and grammar are correct? Yes. Overall, going to have to say we fail this criteria. N
   2. Complies with the manual of style? Seems to. I expect no major issues to be discovered. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research? Think okay. Y
   1. References in proper format? Pretty much. Y
   2. In-line citations good? So-so. In particular, there are some direct quotes still needing citation. Also, some refs could use better sources. N
   3. Original research? Doesn't seem to contain original research. Shouldn't be too hard to fix any identified. Y
3. Broad in coverage? Y
   1. Main aspects addressed? Y
   2. Focused on the topic? Y
4. Stable? Subject is changed fast so new material is being added quickly but older material is stable. Y
5. Illustrated? Well enough. Y

So with some work we could get this to pass our GA criteria. The article is long however and it would help to come up with a strategy to get it to pass. Let's take a divide and conquer approach. Sign your name to one or more sections that you wish to help improve (add better references, check for copyright violations, etc.). There are over 100 active page watchers for this page. Together we can improve the article without overburdening any particular editors. I myself rarely get longer blocks on time to focus and tend to edit in spurts. I don't know if this plan will work but even if we don't get enough participation, the article will still improve so nothing is lost if the goal of GA status is not achieved. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

PS Use status icons like Template:Check mark to indicate the progress on your section (others are visible in Check mark's documentation). Jason Quinn (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

PPS Multiple people can of course sign up for a section but that will require coordination between those users. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

PPPS In particular, I think it would be really great if we made better use of the |quote= parameter in our cite templates. It's so much nicer when references give the exact material supporting the text. Even when a valid reference, it saves people from wasting time downloading and reading the source. When the reference is a bad one, if there is no |quote= used, it can send people on a wild-goose chase looking for supporting material that doesn't' exist. When possible make heavy use of that parameter in your section's references. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I fixed a copyright vio in the gun control section. I'm not aware of any others in the run for pres section, but I may not be fussy enough. Gandydancer (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

   1 Early life and education
   2 Early political career
       2.1 Liberty Union campaigns
       2.2 Mayor of Burlington
   3 U.S. House of Representatives
       3.1 Elections
       3.2 Tenure
   4 U.S. Senate
       4.1 Elections
       4.2 Tenure
           4.2.1 Budget
           4.2.2 Senate Budget Committee
           4.2.3 Committee assignments
   5 2016 presidential campaign
   6 Political positions
       6.1 Economics
           6.1.1 Income and wealth inequality
           6.1.2 Taxes
           6.1.3 Wall Street reform
           6.1.4 Trade
           6.1.5 Jobs
           6.1.6 Employee ownership
           6.1.7 Student loans
           6.1.8 Free tuition at public universities
       6.2 Environment
           6.2.1 Global warming
           6.2.2 Nuclear energy — Jason Quinn (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
       6.3 Transparency and corruption
           6.3.1 Campaign finance
           6.3.2 Media reform
       6.4 Foreign policy and national security
           6.4.1 Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
           6.4.2 Israeli–Palestinian conflict
           6.4.3 Iraq
           6.4.4 Surveillance
           6.4.5 Veterans
       6.5 Education
           6.5.1 Early childhood
       6.6 Health care
       6.7 Social issues
           6.7.1 Family values
           6.7.2 Gun control
           6.7.3 Criminal justice reform
           6.7.4 Same-sex marriage
           6.7.5 Immigration
           6.7.6 Church and state
   7 Personal life
       7.1 Religion
   8 References
   9 Further reading
   10 External links

His Main Image

I know we prefer the official portraits of politicians as their main image but not if that image is outdated or odd. I personally find his senate portrait 'distasteful', its obviously over 8 years old but the grin on his face with a slight squinted left eye makes him look like a 'creepy' old man. When that pic was taken, he was 66, he looks much different now..compare his currently used 2007 portrait with the recent image I tried to add. We got rid off a few "official" portraits of known politicians cause they were outdated and the only reason we kept Sanders and a few others was because there was no better or free image available. This man is an actual front runner for Presidency, we should probably avoid making him look bad. I even got Donald Trump a better image even though he doesn't deserve it...LOL ..--Stemoc 02:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

In Bernie's case the main portrait is the more suitable. Trump got the better one because it must have been the best of what we got at commons. I find the other images of Bernie to be a bit unsuitable. Maybe during his campaign we'll find a better image like Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal's main images. But for now Bernie's official portrait is the best of what we got. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)