Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Political Positions Redirect

I've set the Political positions of Bernie Sanders article to redirect to the political positions section of this article. I did this because there was never consensus to migrate Bernie's political positions to a separate article, and the political positions article was essentially a carbon copy of what is included here on the main article. Of course, inconsistency between the two was starting to arise because people would edit here and not there or vice-versa. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:SS:

A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original. It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article. Templates are available to link to subtopics and to tag synchronization problems between a summary and an article it summarizes.

Also, WP:SPLIT is more appropriate for this article:

If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it is often appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).

The reason it makes sense to remove the redirect is to slim down what is already a huge section in the main Bernie Sanders article. One thing that can be done is just summarizing what Political positions of Bernie Sanders says in the main article. Buffaboy ^talk 20:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Buffaboy. The "Political positions" section is way too lengthy for this article, the purpose of which is to serve as a bio of Sanders and an overview of the most most notable events and occurences of his life. Per the policies cited above, the section should be pared down to a paragraph or two summarizing Sanders' political views, and the redirect should be removed and the "child" article restored.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am also in agreement. I just wanted to establish consensus before unilaterally doing so. Your comments are appreciated and I'll plan to work on it over the next couple of days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyWanderer15 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past and there was not an agreement to move the political views information. Please gain consensus before doing so. Gandydancer (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I remember, which is why I brought it up here. There seems to be a bit of an impasse, although Wikipedia policy is fairly clear on this issue WP:SS. Of course, WP:IAR is always in play, but it doesn't seem to me that there is good reason to invoke it here. I proposed converting the main article to summary style and taking great care to move all current information from the main article to the political positions article. In the meantime, I believe that the political positions article ought to be a redirect to ensure consistency and that new edits are not lost in the shuffle. Perhaps an RfC is in order? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I've summarized Sanders' main positions and combined the information from this article with the information on the political positions article. This is something that was going to have to happen at some stage, so we might as well insure consistency now. Please feel free to improve and expand (but not too much!) HappyWanderer15 (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Political positions of Bernie Sanders

I think its getting to the point where we should split off the political positions section into its own article titled Political positions of Bernie Sanders (currently a redirect) and rewrite the section in summery style. The reason for this is that Sanders political positions are getting significant media attention because of his presidential bid. The coverage of his political positions will only grow as time goes on and will require more detail for completeness that can be covered in its own article. What are peoples thoughts on the subject? Winner 42 Talk to me! 04:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is standard for other significant candidates who are expected to receive major media attention (see Hillary Clinton/Political positions of Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush/Political positions of Jeb Bush). As for how the fork should be done, I'd trend more towards Hillary Clinton than Jeb Bush. Less is better in the main article, with great detail saved for the dedicated article. ~ Rob^Talk 05:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

agreed, and I would be quite happy to work on in when I find some time. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well, and I agree with Rob that "less is better in the main article". IMO the main article should not make any attempt to cover all of Sanders' opinions even briefly but perhaps only state his basic message re income inequality which of course, results in the inability of the middle and lower class to pay for what should be considered basic needs in a country as wealthy as the US. And even in the split article, IMO it should remain fairly brief as compared to the other candidate's political positions articles. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

♫ summery time ... and the livin' is easy ♭ - It would be more appropriate to just link a page from his site with the position statements and reference that. Lycurgus (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And there's already a Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 so that would be the likely merge target, depending on what is done in other similar articles. Lycurgus (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Before making such a move editors should consider that there will be a significant drop in readership if this section becomes its own article. Look at the stats on Rand Paul's page and his political positions page for example. This is why I vote No.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for that. The article is not yet out of hand. Let's "wait and see" for now. Gandydancer (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you wanna compare people coming to look at Rand Paul with those coming to look at Sanders although I believe there is going to be a surprising amount of conservative and republican crossover as George Will's article of a few days ago indicates in his inimitable way (for a chuckle look up how he reviewed ET the Extra Terrestrial as 'subversive'). There's a general rule of topic dominance here and the main article here should be about the main subject, not something that's already got a substantial other article. But agree there's plenty of time for this, doesn't need to happen soon. Lycurgus (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that we need to commit to one approach or the other at this stage. There has been a separate political positions article created that has almost identical content to the main article. From this point on the potential exists for inconsistency between the two pages. I propose including a paragraph-form summary, which I would be happy to write, in the main article with a link to the political positions page for more detail. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

One problem with this is that, as I stated above, practically no one is reading the political positions page. Yesterday 40,839 people visited Bernie Sanders, compared to only 429 who visited his political positions page. Those numbers might increase now that the content has been removed from the main article, but not by much. Not only that, but some important policy positions are omitted from the summary, such as his "family values" agenda, which is pretty significant.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Understood, C.J. I'm all for expanding and improving upon the summary. I would imagine that the number of visits to the political positions page will increase now that it is linked on the main article, and it is something worth monitoring over the coming days and weeks. It's important to note that just because somebody views the main article, they are unlikely to be reading all of it. What's important is that Sanders's core policy positions are concisely laid out, and that further detail is available for those who seek it. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to see that you ignored Griffin and me and went right ahead with your ideas on what was best for the article. I do not much care for the summary and you are giving a double message saying feel free to improve it "but not too much!". You should have waited for consensus. We are both reasonable and could have come together on something. I have put a great deal of time into the article as well, and it is disheartening for me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Nothing about this is meant to be disheartening or discouraging, but it seems to me that I had the consensus of those who had commented, and you hadn't offered an alternative solution. By all means, improve on the summary as much as you can! What we should watch out for is excess expansion, because we do want people to read the more detailed political positions page. A particular concern of mine that nobody addressed in spite of my bringing it up numerous times was the reality that constructive edits were getting lost in the shuffle between the main article and political positions page. I had to work hard to make sure that no information from either article was lost in the migration. This inconsistency only would have gotten worse over time, and if I hadn't written the summary and move the detail to the political positions page, somebody else would have per WP:SS. This is the standard format of other Wikipedia articles of presidential candidates who have taken a large number of verfiable positions (e.g. Hillary Clinton - featured article, btw - and Rand Paul). I'm still open to an RfC, in any case. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

While you seem to believe that your opinions and actions represent what is best for the article you need to consider that others have spent a lot of time on the article and have their own ideas about what we want to present for all of the work we have done here. I would not call ignoring the wishes of the other two top contributors to represent consensus. The last I knew, Griffin pointed out the view numbers and I suggested that we "wait and see", which is a reasonable position. You may have thought that the article was out of control but I did not. I liked having two articles with the second less-viewed one a handy place to put less important items, such as Cuba (which I added) or other topics that new editors may find important but more informed and experienced editors felt not so much. You say you had to work hard to make sure no information was lost--don't assume that you are the only one watching the article very closely as it is at the top of my watch list right now. In summary, I felt that my "wait and see" plan was better because for now because during the early days of his campaign I'd like readers to see, for instance, more than just that he supports veterans since, after all, do any of the other candidates not support veterans? But how many of them won "awards", etc.? I have no interest in an RfC and will live with this change while hoping that the view numbers on the split go up. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I litterally see no reason to split bernie's wikipedia page up except to make it more difficult to find his positions. Are people really complaining the scroll bar is too long on his page? If anything, it's too short. Other candidates have much bigger pages so logically, it does not seem consistent to do some sort of preemptive strike against his policy positions. I mean, is the reason this http://www.sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Constitutional%20Amendment%20FAQs.pdf isn't mentioned in the wikipedia page because of lack of space? no? If we really want to make a 2nd page (no reason to, but if we did want to) full of policy positions, we should fill THIS page the people expect to see policy positions on AND THEN if people complain, and only then, that it's too much to read, seperate it after discussing it with everyone in a deliberate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandirs (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, hence my interest in making his article as well done as possible. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political platform. Well-done encyclopedia articles are concise, well-written, and factual. By all means, let's include the proposed amendment in the summary. I agree that it is very significant. His position on overturning Citizens United is already included, but I think that linking the amendment makes sense. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I stand partly corrected. There are reasons, well one reason, it being concise. That being said, is being concise really needed? As I noted though, ... this is one of the shorter wikipedia pages for a candidate running for president. It would be more factual to include ALL his policy positions like the other candidates wiki pages do, and it wouldn't affect how well it was written either way. There's no need to silence Bernie's policy positions or make a separate-but-equal page just for policy divorced from Bernie, I don't see the need. Policy positions of all the other candidates are actually on their page, so it just seems much much much much much more logical for a strong supporter of Senator Sanders to give him equal treatment to other candidates on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandirs (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of points of view from which one can look at your (very good) question. Strictly from the perspective of a Sanders supporter, it might be desirable to make as much information as possible available on the main page (or it might not, as I'll soon explain). One can make this argument pointing to media marginalization and the desire for a counterbalance to that. The problem there is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a campaign platform, and that its integrity as a source of information depends on it not being used as one. People (many of them undecided voters) look to Wikipedia for the facts, plainly and concisely presented and without embellishment. This is especially true when it comes to politicians. What's more, using the page as a campaign platform in such a way (dumping as much detail as possible onto the main article) wouldn't even be beneficial to Sanders as a candidate. If you watch Bernie's speeches and read his correspondence, it is very concise and to-the-point. That's not to say that his proposals lack substance; it is simply a skillful means of sharing his larger vision as a backdrop of context for those who would like to learn more. In a nutshell, that's what I think the political positions summary should be: a summary of Bernie Sanders's political philosophy and key policy positions, minus the campaign embellishment. Curious readers and potential supporters alike will appreciate such an approach, as it will give them fast access to the relevant facts. It's my position that it will increase broader understanding of Sanders's platform, and will encourage more people to really read the more detailed political positions page. (Remember, a page view of the main article doesn't necessarily mean that most people are reading it all, or even coming close) HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As you said, this isn't a political platform. You said, "facts, plainly and concisely presented and without embellishment" so therefore, would that not mean Sanders should get identical treatment to other canddiates, and NOT have his policy positions moved somewhere else? And What campaign embellishment do you speak of? I think both curious readers and potential supporters alike will appreciate such an approach, as it will give them fast access to the relevant facts without having to click on a whole other link. I still can't think of a reason to move policy positions elsewhere off the wikipedia page of a polititan. Are there any other polititans you feel this would be a good idea for? Any others that did it due to complaints about their policies making the scroll-bar too long on the wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandirs (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to quote: (copy-pasted textwall removed (I think its getting to the point where [...] seperate it after discussing it with everyone in a deliberate manner.) 184.101.251.129 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC))

We had a discussion about splitting off policy positions, nobody supported it because that isn't how wikipedia works. Someone removed policy positions anyway. You realize when you try and HIDE the truth from people obviously it makes them really really cool when they tell their friends in small groups? There isn't even a link to his policy positions on this page. The bias is emberrassingly obvious. Sorry billionaires, but if you had contributed to wikipedia more in the past at some point you would have known what a wiki-entry really looks like. It isn't just people agreeing with each other, they use logic and past precedent to decide if something is actually worthy of it's own article split off or if that is more of a 'silence' tactic by someone who is trying to make him less popular to the people? have you even met someone who hasn't been to one of his rallies yet? like seriously. #feelthebern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susandirs (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

The fact that he's running for the highest political office in the United States should be noted in the opening paragraph. OrganicEarth (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with OrganicEarth, plus it's on Hillary Clinton, there's an RFC link below on the matter on Rick Perry's page as well. It's Bernie's most recent status and deserves the lede sentence. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not in Hillary Clinton, so please read before you make such an assertion. Reverted. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's in the lede sentence in Hillary's article. Maybe somebody could read it to you? And don't be using Twinkle to revert edits on well-established editors making legitimate edits. That's an abuse of the tools and you can lose them for doing that. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no justification for repeating a pre-primary candidacy in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, not promote the subject. Content at Hillary Clinton is completely irrelevant and should be discussed at talk:Hillary Clinton.- MrX 22:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it at the end of the lead, as it currently is in the fourth paragraph, but the article should not start out as "Bernie Sanders is a presidential candidate, and a Senator from Vermont...". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Why not? It is his current status. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's "pre-primary." I don't see that anywhere on WP. Mention of when he declared his candidacy is appropriate for the lede and so is his status. It's not a duplication. The announcement of the candidacy can be moved out of the lede, but his current status is relevant. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Because he's not notable for being a presidential candidate, he's notable for being a Senator. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I may have been unclear in my previous comment. The candidacy should be in the lead, just not twice.- MrX 22:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper. We should be writing bios from a historic perspective. If Sanders doesn't get the nomination, would we retain this material in the lead, even twice. No, of course not.- MrX 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you don't think Bernie Sanders is notable as a presidential candidate? Are you living on another planet? He's cleaning Hillary Clinton's clock int he polls. She draws hundreds at speeches, he draws thousands. Nobody except the people in New England had ever heard of Bernie before he announced his run for the presidency. He's not notable as the junior senator he's notable as a presidential candidate beating Hillary in the polls. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Who are you replying to?- MrX 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:ADVOCACY, and don't edit war. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS. Don't use your buddies to edit war for you. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Cleaning her clock"? I don't think Sanders has polled ahead of Clinton a single time. Clinton is notable for FLOTUS, Senator, and Sec State. Rubio as Senator, Sanders as Senator, Perry as Governor, etc. You or I could run as president (assuming U.S.-born and over 35). Their candidacies are important but they aren't why they're notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nobody except the people in New England had ever heard of Bernie before he announced his run for the presidency." Huh? He did not just appear out of the blue. Progressives have been very well aware of Bernie for a long time. Gandydancer (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the candidate drawing by far the largest crowds this election cycle (compare a high of 28,000 in Portland for Sanders this week to ~5,500 for Clinton at her campaign launch) is running a notable campaign. To say that his campaign is "not notable" sound to me like a fairly naked attempt at marginalization. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Who said his campaign isn't notable? Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 is in no danger of deletion. He's not notable as a presidential candidate; though it is what he is doing, we should avoid WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not understanding how its inclusion WP:UNDUE. The sources are there and he is certainly more known now as a presidential candidate than he is as a senator. I think the developing polls taken on the candidate's name familiarity are an objective testament to this. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We should avoid WP:RECENTISM. However we are talking about a presidential campaign that is extremely conspicuous. This isn't just a flash in the pan scandal or political event. We should also avoid WP:CBALL, editors here shouldn't decide they know who is going to win the election. He is currently the main opposition to Clinton, this makes his candidacy worth noting. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

could we at least get the TERMS right here? lead sentence is lead sentence, not "lede...". "THE lede", otoh, is a special (historic) spelling, used mainly with "bury...".

it is a common mistake to use "lead" in that expression, but the converse -- "lede sentence" -- is a new one on me!

if u mean sentence CONTAINING "the lede", ok, then, it's actually not wrong. if, otoh, u mean FIRST SENTENCE -- as i suspect u do -- it's most definitely "lead". 209.172.23.221 (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• While I get the connection, I think it is a completely different context. Sanders is not Perry. If there was a RFC about developing a standard practice across the board, that would be more applicable. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

any particular reason my question here about his FAMILY was removed? just how is it that bernie is a yank while his brother a brit?

i am insinuating nothing with my question -- i am flat-out CURIOUS. did his parents live in the UK before bernie was born, or did his brother emigrate as an adult? 209.172.23.221 (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Larry Sanders moved to England in 1969, as an adult. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Images

Does anyone have the time to find a few copy right free images, especially any of Bernie and the crowd at his talk in Maine? I did a quick search early this morning but didn't find anything. Maybe someone else will have better luck. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added two recent photos: one of him in a crowd in Arizona; the other a closeup which I took in Minnesota. Jonathunder (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Why dont we just take some images of him from his campaign website? I am sure his team won't mind. Darkninja505 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Long answer: WP:FAQ/Copyright. Short answer, we can't just lift images and import them, we have to get formal permission for any images not in the public domain. Images posted on a campaign website are not necessarily (or even likely) in the public domain. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Images from his campaign website are NOT free, nor for any other politicians running in the elections..--Stemoc 04:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Photos

I believe that we have too many head shot photos of Sanders in the article. I'd like to remove two of them: 1) the photo added most recently is about the same vintage as his official photo and is a tad odd in that his hands are out of focus and 2) the extreme closeup taken in 2015 does nothing more than show the reader what he looks like - something not needed since we have plenty of photos already that have been taken over the years. (Unless, of course, someone could find a really old one from when he still had that head of curly hair. :)) Any disagreements to removing those two photos? Gandydancer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

His hands aren't out of focus. They are in motion and the shutter speed was too slow to capture them sharply. The microphones are about the same distance from the camera and they are in focus, so it's not a depth of field thing. As such, it gives a visual insight into his speaking style. --Pete (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no pictures of a young Bernie Sanders. This should be corrected. He's been in public life for over three decades. I'd suggest replacing the two photos in question with older ones when he had that curly hair--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In a previous section, Stemoc says the main (official) portrait is less than ideal, and I agree. I think some of the more recent ones are better. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the closeup head shot mentioned above - it did not add anything to the article other than what his face looks like in 2015 and we have other 2015 photos that are better. Some other editors made changes as well. I think that the layout looks pretty good right now. Gandydancer (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would be be good to have a younger photo of Sanders, but we can only use photos with an acceptable free license, or photos in the public domain, such as his official Senate photo. Do you know of any such "young Bernie" photos, C.J. Griffin? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Early life and education section

Recently an editor added:

"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. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.”

Another editor made it into a block quote.

IMO this is just too much. Block quotes have the power to make a statement seem to be something that is of very high importance in the article, especially when it's the only one in a section, and this is not a highlight of his early life and education. Even though this information is already included in one of the splits, I can go along with including it, but to use a block quote gives it more importance than it warrants. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewish, again

Jewish:

• adj: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews or Judaism^[1]
• adj: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Jews; also : being a Jew^[2]
• adj.: Relating to, associated with, or denoting Jews or Judaism^[3]

Judaism

• noun: the monotheistic religion of the Jews, having its ethical, ceremonial, and legal foundation in the precepts of the Old Testament and in the teachings and commentaries of the rabbis as found chiefly in the Talmud^[4]
• noun: the religion developed among the ancient Hebrews that stresses belief in God and faithfulness to the laws of the Torah : the religion of the Jewish people^[5]
• noun: the religion of the Jews, based on the Old Testament and the Talmud and having as its central point a belief in the one God as transcendent creator of all things and the source of all righteousness^[6]
• noun: The monotheistic religion of the Jews.^[7]

Now please disregard what format news sources use and tell me whether the name of the religion we are discussing is "Jewish" or "Judaism". Do followers of said religion practice Jewish, or do they practice Judaism? Dustin (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and with regard to the earlier discussion, if we are not using the parameter to denote the religion, then it should not be in the infobox. Dustin (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

A Jewish person is someone that practices Judaism; Sanders's religion is Judaism. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, I slightly changed the above comment, so if in case you would have responded differently, I thought I would tell you. That aside, I agree with you. Dustin (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

For seemingly the most controversial subject on his page, it looks like more users are editing rather than talking about this. Despite not being religious Sanders still identifies as a Jew, so can we at least come to an agreement not to change his infobox and just put the fine print in its corresponding article section? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to be a lot of agonizing over Sanders' Jewishness.

• 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".

• For Sanders we can follow the Infoboxes that sources use, and they invariably use the formulation "Religion: Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Blockquote

The quote where he mentions Hitler is well over forty words, and therefore it's supposed to be in the form of a blockquote, per WP:BQ.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Political positions Redux

Dear editors,

I am restoring a discussion about the section on Bernie Sanders's political positions to the talk page. It had been archived, but it is particularly germane to the GA review I did, so I feel the discussion should be continued.

You can read the GA review here.

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should Sanders's presidency be at the beginning of the lead?

I was one of the editors who preferred the mention of running for president be in the final lead section. My thinking is that this is his bio and it is just his most recent activity in a lifelong string of accomplishments. But I have known of Bernie for years, as have most of the people in my circle of RL relationships. I quit arguing for my position because of your argument and the fact that it would most likely cause very frequent arguments if it were not mentioned in the first para. I am presently satisfied to have it mentioned right off the bat. Gandydancer (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the sections on Tenure and Political Positions be combined and rewritten?

This is something that I've thought about for years and have come to accept that Tenure refers to things that they have actually done while they were seated, while Political positions refers to their views on various subjects. It can be hard at times to separate the two, but I think we need to keep Tenure sections but perhaps improve them if they need improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Sundry editorial suggestions in the GA review

All excellent observations IMO. If no objections come up I think we should follow through with the suggestions -- except for Warren. I think that the para on Warren is important because the voters that were part of the campaign to urge her to run will possibly be the same voters that support Sanders since they have such similar views, and Warren won her bid for the Senate with the same sort of grassroots campaign that Sanders is running. Gandydancer (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the ones I thought needed fixing. I thought that Chomsky is OK as is. Warren OK as is. Re this: "Many national media outlets projected Sanders the winner before any returns came in." Seriously, is this worth mentioning? He was leading by a margin of 2 to 1. Who wouldn't predict it? To call an election even before any returns are in is pretty unusual and I think worth keeping.

Discussion of points made in the review

I note that users are making comments about the GA review on the review itself. I suggest that you keep all discussion of the points raised on this talk page, perhaps opening a separate section for each issue. This way all the discussion will be on the talk page.

I am copying the comments in the review to here, so discussion can continue. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a section on controversy?

I'm not sure but look forward to what the others think. As for Tim Worstall, I would not consider his thoughts worth mention in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Controversy sections are inherently not neutral. Any controversies should be addressed in the relevant section of the article. TFD (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Unencyclopaedic, and rather pointless anyway. A section including topics that someone or other thought was 'controversial' would include most of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No, and I don't know if Bernie Sanders even has a lot of controversy anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we combine the sections on early life and personal life?

Good point. Some bios use Early life, education, and family. Gandydancer (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no one objected I combined them. Gandydancer (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we clarify apparent contradictions in Sanders's positions?

RE gun control. Yes, it is contradictory. Even people in his own state of Vermont have argued this. There is a video where they get into a shouting controversy with him on gun control. I did make a change in the article re the ability to sue gun manufacturers for their products. Re the Brady Bill, he states that he was representing the state of Vermont which has a high number of hunters and a low number of deaths related to killing people with handguns. More info is here: [8] Should more info be included? Should we have a separate section re gun control in his bio? I don't know. I do note that our Political positions article does not mention the Brady Bill. Should it? Gandydancer (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

RE this: Why did he oppose Iraq intervention in 1991, 2002 and 2003 but support it in 2001? The article says: He voted for the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that has been cited as the legal justification for controversial military actions since the September 11 attacks. Sure they used it as justification, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Gandydancer (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

As you say, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists had nothing to do with Iraq. Also you would need a source to say Sanders`positions on gun control are contradictory. TFD (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Religion

Are there any sources that say that Sanders practices Judaism..? You can be Jewish without practicing the religion since it's an Ethnoreligion. Sanders has stated that he's "not particularly religious" which is why I had him as Irreligious until I was reverted. Prcc27 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Irreligious does not mean not particularly religious, it means hostile to religion. TFD (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @The Four Deuces: From the Wikipedia article: "Irreligion is the absence of religion, an indifference towards religion, a rejection of religion, or hostility towards religion." He is indifferent to religion. Either way, he does not practice Judaism and we should at least get rid of the religion category altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Prcc27—you removed sourced information in this edit. Do you have a source in variance with the two sources you removed? If not, then please allow the amply verified material to remain in the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There was certainly a source, and it has certainly been removed. It does not however appear that the source supports the statement it was being cited for - that Sanders is a follower of the Judaic faith. We don't cite sources for things they don't say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi AndyTheGrump—the source supports the assertion. This source reads "Religion: Jewish". Do you have a source at variance with that source? Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah - I was looking at the other source, and had missed that one somehow. It looks reasonable enough, since it is clearly from his own team. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, I'm not sure why the second source - the Christian Science Monitor - is being cited there, since it doesn't say anything about religion as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is the "Judaic faith", Andy? Christianity and Islam are based on declarations of "faith" while Judaism is based on behavior. Various Jews practice a very wide range of ritual religious observance and/or ethical behavior motivated by Jewish teachings and traditions. Clearly, Sanders is toward the "less religiously observant" end of the spectrum, but he self-identifies as a Jew, has never repudiated Judaism, and says that Jewish traditions of social justice inspire his politics. Any attempts to diminish or belittle his Jewish identity are just flat out wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Judaic? "belonging or relating to Judaism" [9] As for your assertions about Judaism being based on behaviour rather than faith, I see no reason at accept it as anything more than an unsourced generalisation. And no, I'm not trying to 'belittle' anything. There is more than one way of self-identifying as a Jew, and and I see no reason why we should be prescriptive about it. As purely anecdotal evidence, a former friend of mine, who clearly and unambiguously identified as being Jewish, was not only an atheist (and keen enough to make this clear even when it wasn't relevant), but actually went out of his way to flout 'observance' to the extent that he once fried bacon in his mother's milk saucepan. Not that it is particularly relevant here, since it is apparent that Sanders actually self-identifies as Jewish by religion - and I have reverted my earlier edit accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are sharing anecdotes, when I was looking into joining my current synagogue about 23 years ago, the fellow with the membership committee who answered my initial questions made it clear to me in our first conversation that he was an atheist as well as a Jew. That gentleman is still an active member in good standing of my synagogue. That is because he conducts himself as a Jew and no one cross examines him about his "faith". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Would he still be Jewish if he were to (hypothetically I hasten to add) stop attending the synagogue, and instead spend his Saturdays frying bacon in his mother's milk saucepan? I would argue that as long as he considered himself so, it wasn't open to us on Wikipedia to suggest otherwise - though I might also be open to including the opinion of others from the synagogue on the question - as opinion. Which is the point I was trying to make. If someone self-identifies as Jewish, we, as an encyclopaedia don't make assumptions as to whether they either believe anything specific (beyond that they are Jewish), or follow any specific behavioural code (though the idea that one can follow a code without actually believing something about it may open something of a can of worms perhaps best left unopened here...). Which is why I considered it wrong to make a bald assertion that Sanders was 'Jewish by religion'. As it happens, I'd erred, and missed a source which confirms just that. The principle stands though - self-identifying as Jewish isn't self-identifying as being 'Jewish by religion' - or shouldn't be taken as such without further evidence, for an encyclopaedia that aspires to neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The opening well-referenced paragraphs of Jewish principles of faith are illustrative of the relatively low importance of "faith" in Judaism, as compared to Christianity and Islam: "There is no established formulation of principles of faith that are recognized by all branches of Judaism. Central authority in Judaism is not vested in any person or group - although the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish religious court, would fulfill this role when it is re-established - but rather in Judaism's sacred writings, laws, and traditions.

The various principles of faith that have been enumerated over the intervening centuries carry no weight other than that imparted to them by the fame and scholarship of their respective authors.

Judaism affirms the existence and uniqueness of God and stresses performance of deeds or commandments alongside adherence to a strict belief system." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I may be naïve (sadly I missed the anthropology of religion unit when I did my degree), but I would have thought that "affirm[ing] the existence and uniqueness of God" was somewhat connected with religion - and faith. Though defining 'religion' is of course tricky to say the least. The point is that Wikipedia doesn't need to - we leave that to the subjects of our biographies, and take their word for it. After they have given their word. We don't decide on their behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The latitude extended regarding interpreting that affirmation about God is strikingly broader than in normative Christianity and Islam. As for the bacon frying in mom's dairy sauce pan, I am reminded of the indisputably Jewish organization Hashomer Hatzair, and Bernie Sanders may possibly share an ideological affinity with them. The anecdote I remember about that group is that in the 1930s, they would have an annual picnic with ham sandwiches at the Western Wall in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur, the most solemn Jewish fast day. Such behavior was an all-out assault on Orthodox Jewish values, but they are still considered to be a Jewish group. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well the second source seems to confirm he practices Judaism. The reason I was concerned is because I'm an Atheist Jew myself and the other source didn't seem to confirm that he practices Judaism. Prcc27 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I missed the .gov source when reverting. My bad. Prcc27 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

For a person to be Jewish, they must be born of a Jewish mother or converted to the Jewish religion. For sources, can one cite a Wikipedia article as the source for another Wikipedia article ("All Jewish religious movements agree that a person may be a Jew either by birth or through conversion." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F) or must it be a source outside of Wikipedia? If it has to be an outside source, what about this: "Gentiles might be surprised that for Jews by birth this traditional test makes no reference to faith or behaviour. Jews may be atheist (many are: apostasy is a venerable Jewish tradition) and still Jews." - http://www.economist.com/news/international/21593507-competing-answers-increasingly-pressing-question-who-jew. Since you did not question the assertion in the article that his mother is Jewish, then you have to accept that he's Jewish too, based on being born to a Jewish mother. If you have any further questions on his religion, you would have to question that of his mother's. - Jeff Corbett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.232.30.80 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"continually" not used correctly

"He continually won reelection with high margins, with his closest bid during the 1994 Republican Revolution, when he won by 3.3% with 49.8% of the vote."

I propose that a word such as "usually" or "often" be used instead of "continually" which is obviously inaccurate if he had that close call in one election.

"Continually" indicates an unbroken run of high margin wins, however, the last phrase of the sentence contradicts that notion.

I propose that instead of making the simple edit myself since this article seems to be locked against alteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.204.117 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've made this change. I changed it as such because if we were to say that he often won re-election with high margins, then I think that more than just one example (56/40) of a high margin should be given. The article locking isn't ideal; sadly, there were too many disruptive edits being made. Have you considered registering an account? Airplaneman ✈ 02:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "high margins" should be lost since it was the significant new piece of information in that sentence, not previously encountered in the article.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I would rewrite the sentence as: "He won reelections, often by high margins, an exception being during the 1994 Republican Revolution, when he won by 3.3% with 49.8% of the vote." Bus stop (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fair. Airplaneman ✈ 17:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I made that edit. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Re use of block quote and then including the same quote in the ref section

I do not believe that we need to use both a block quote and then again use the same quote in the sources. I am referring to this from the refs section:

'I’m proud to be Jewish,' the Independent from Vermont – and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination – responded Thursday at a press breakfast hosted by the Monitor. Though, he added, 'I’m not particularly religious.' As a child, Sanders said, being Jewish taught him 'in a very deep way what politics is about. A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932,' the senator said. 'He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important.'

I do not even care for the use of the block quote in the first place. It is the only block quote used in his bio which to me suggests that it is of great importance, when actually it was a strong reply to the rumor that he held dual Israli-US citizenship. The suggestion that it is over 40 words does not hold up very well since it is very close and in fact there are only 30 words if one does not include one and two letter words. To me even just the block quote makes it seem as though this has been a driving force in his life and then to even mention it twice, in full no less!, is more like pandering for the Jewish vote. He's never repeated this in any speech or other interview that I'm aware of. Only Wikipedia makes such a big deal of it. IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that setting aside the quote as a block quote adds undue emphasis to this one quote. This is just one of a long sequence of elements that are included or potentially could be included concerning his Youth, education and family. If the quote is to be included I think it should be part of a paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've made this edit, removing the block quote format and shortening the quote. Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that it reads much better...though your edit was reverted. I asked that it be brought to the talk page if the editor does not agree with the changes. BTW, I'd remove the excessive wording from the reference but can't figure out how to do it. Could you manage that? Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed that. It had been used to support the Infobox assertion concerning religion but that is supported by the Press Packet from the US Senate. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders and the Draft

There is no information on Bernie's time as an eligible draftee for the Vietnam war, nor what means he used to avoid being drafted. As he is running for President, and would be commander in chief, this is something that is important enough to merit at least a paragraph in his biography. All other Vietnam-era and draft-eligible (male) candidates bios have some mention of this. For instance, here is the relevant paragraph from Donald Trump's bio on Wikipedia:

Trump came of age for the draft during the Vietnam War. In an interview in 2011 on New York station WNYW,[19] he stated, "I actually got lucky because I had a very high draft number."[20] Selective Service records retrieved by The Smoking Gun website from the National Archives show that, although Trump did eventually receive a high selective service lottery number in 1969, he was not drafted earlier because of four student deferments (2-S) while attending college, and after receiving a medical deferment (1-Y, later converted to 4-F) obtained in 1968 after his college graduation, prior to the lottery being initiated.[21] Trump was deemed fit for service after a military medical examination in 1966, and was briefly classified as 1-A by a local draft board shortly before his 1968 medical disqualification.[22] Trump attributed his medical deferment to "heel spurs" in both feet, according to a 2015 biographer,[16] but told an Iowa campaign audience he suffered from a spur in one foot, though he could not remember which one.[22]

Can we put together the basic information on this and include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, Here is some proposed text for the topic:

Bernie Sanders came of age during the early Vietnam era, and was required to register for the draft in late 1959, following his 18th birthday. At the time both student deferments and marriage deferments were available, and Bernie took advantage of them to avoid service in Vietnam, which was ramping up during his period of eligibility. When President Kennedy ended the marriage deferment in 1963 Bernie applied for conscientious objector status. His application was eventually denied, but by that time he was too old to still be eligible for the draft.

I added some info. Gandydancer (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, you need sources that support that information. TFD (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As an experienced editor, of course I'm aware of that. What information is not in the sources I included? Gandydancer (talk) 05:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The only information is about the conscientious objector status request. Which articles discuss earlier deferments? TFD (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

References

His wife's tenure as president of Burlington College

The Wiki article on Burlington College indicates his wife was president of the college from 2004–2011, i.e. "2004-2011 Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders". They married in 1988, so that she served as president during, not before, her marriage to Bernie Sanders. Please correct the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.216.202 (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Photo caption is incorrect

The photo caption that says "Sanders campaigning in Arizona" is incorrect. It should say "Sanders campaigning in Louisiana". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders_%2820033841412_24d8796e44_c0%29.jpg Steve Karp (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Alumnus of Brooklyn College?

I saw this edit and was wondering if a person is considered an alumnus of the institution if they transfer away after only a year of study. Does anyone know? Airplaneman ✈ 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Traditionally one has to graduate, but the meaning has shifted and most educational establishments now seem to accept non-graduates as alumni if they show an interest. According to the American Heritage Dictionary definition, here, an alumnus is a "graduate or former student" (my stress), so my instinct would be to say as defined today, yes. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle name

Does Bernie have a middle name? The article doesn't list one.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not. This is just speculation on my part, but his father came from Poland, and I don't think it's Polish tradition to give middle names. It's also fairly common for Jewish men not to have middle names. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What?? Whatchu talkin bout? Jesus had a middle name! Jesus Haploid Christ! X-D Cause you know, Christ was his surname and all. He inherited his step-father's last name, Joseph Christ, when his mother couldn't get by on food stamps anymore. Jesus didn't have a middle name at birth, so since she told Joseph a story about a magical birth (instead of admitting that she slept around), Joseph gave Jesus the middle name "Haploid".

I think this is a very serious issue. We should investigate to find out Bernie's middle name. Omg! What if it's a girl's name? Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 12:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Y'wot? —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cliftonian: I was highly caffeinated when I wrote that. Please s'cuse. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 13:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A self-described democratic socialist

"General points on linking style", which is part of the manual of style, says, "Items within quotations should not generally be linked; instead, consider placing the relevant links in the surrounding text or in the "See also" section of the article." While we do not put "democratic socialist" in quotes, I think the same principle applies. The article democratic socialism refers to a specific version of socialism, while the expression itself can be used to refer to various versions. I do not think we should judge what Sanders means and therefore will remove the link. TFD (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: After reviewing what you have provided here, I agree with you. Appreciate you having pointed this out, and the trouble you took to explain the distinctions. Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Accusation of minimum wage hypocrisy

I recently created a new section called "Accusation of minimum wage hypocrisy" where I added the following:

In 2015, conservatives accused Sanders of hypocrisy because he paid his interns $12 an hour while advocating raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

User:Calidum erased it and commented "Not appropriate."

I am interested in hearing what other editors think of including or not including this information.

Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

References

These accusations only have weight if they are reported in mainstream media. Another problem is that these are not reliable sources so we do not know what Sanders pays his interns without conducting our own research of primary sources. A third problem is we cannot say conservatives have made these accusations because its only some conservatives and we cannot assess how widespread this criticism is among them. TFD (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

TFD said: " Another problem is that these are not reliable sources so we do not know what Sanders pays his interns without conducting our own research of primary sources."

The first source is Sanders's official government website at sanders.senate.gov, dated September 5, 2015, which says that he pays his interns $12 an hour. How can you say we don't know what Sanders pays his interns?

Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to revert it as well. First, the therightscoop.com is not a reliable source. It seems to be the source that the "hypocrisy" claim is based on. The Daily Caller is also a questionable source, especially for a BLP. Second, this does not seem to meet WP:DUE weight clause of out neutral point of view policy based on the sparse coverage in reliable sources. In other words, it is of trivial significance in relation to Sanders' life and career.- MrX 03:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It is never "trivial" when a politician behaves the opposite of how he wants the government to force everyone else to behave. Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing him of doing something inappropriate, when what he's done is totally in accordance to the law. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I never said he broke the law. I said he was a hypocrite. Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanders introduced a bill that said the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 federal minimum wage should be amended to increase to $9 per hour on 1 January 2016 and gradually raised to $15 in 2020.[10] Furthermore Senate interns are not covered under the 1938 Act. (As of 2013, only 35 senators paid their interns.[11]) That's why criticism is found only in unreliable sources that do not accurately reflect the facts. If mainstream sources take notice of these criticisms then expect that they would also report why they were misinformed.

So the politicians who passed the minimum wage law exempted their own interns. That should be included in the article. Autoerotic Mummification (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That is why policy says we should use reliable sources and avoid original research. Because it is very easy as you have just demonstrated to draw incorrect conclusions.

TFD (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015

I believe it should be added and emphasized that some people, even though he calls himself a democratic socialist, consider him to actually be a social democrat.[12] [13] I assume, back then, the terms were used interchangeably. By reading the articles on Wikipedia on both terms, a lot of people might get confused. Bernie has so far not mentioned anything about implementing a socialist economy. He has mentioned taxing Wall Street speculation, and putting the money towards education.[14] That is something social democrats would advocate. He has not talked about banning such practice. That is something socialists would do. The Democratic Socialists of America's own constitution points this out: "We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality and non-oppressive relationships." Also, he points at Scandinavia as examples of his policies working in other countries, but as it is already stated in the article, Scandinavia countries have social democratic ideologies and not democratic socialism. The American Conservative calls him a "welfarist", but I believe that to also be incorrect. Bernie is a social democrat...

References

Phernandezlima (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Phernandezlima. It is not Wikipedia's job to use political terminology that you think is more accurate or more appealing to the electorate or that you wish that Bernie Sanders ought to start using. Instead, we summarize how reliable sources report his own self-description of his ideology. He calls himself a "Democratic Socialist", reliable sources consistently say so as well, and so that is the terminology that Wikipedia must use. There is no clear dividing lines between the various terms, other than the connotations that you assign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We should not speculate, merely report what Sanders says. TFD (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Biased statements of opinion

Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution." However, under the section Bernie Sanders, U.S. House of Representatives, Tenure the opinion of Rep. Frank was paraphrased without direct attribution; only a footnote was provided. The quote should be clarified. Crayz9000 (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Frank said during his first year in Congress he alienated people. I think before mentioning it we would need to show that there was some degree of acceptance of that view. It seems an odd comment since Sanders set up and led the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which Frank joined, that same year. TFD (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Universalism"

Someone has added "universalism" as a religion to the infobox. Two sources are provided, both versions of the same article. I see the "universalism" thing as a throw-away word by a headline writer. For a religion, we need an explicit self-identification in a reliable source. Sanders calls himself "Religion:Jewish" in his press packet. Unless someone can furnish a similar self-identification as a universalist, I intend to remove that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree take it out. Also whats up with the nationality being listed as American. Shouldn't it be American/Polish or just Polish seeing his dad is from there. He even uses "polish" in his campaign video , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwwwn9zHT-8 . AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

In Poland before World War II, Poles and Jews were considered completely different ethnic groups. We have no information indicating that Sanders' mothers' ancestors came from Poland..Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion is unimportant and does not belong in the info-box. TFD (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, The Four Deuces, but consensus across thousands of biographies is that self-declared religious identity is the sort of defining characteristic that belongs in an infobox if well-referenced. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were unimportant to Sanders, he would not have self-identified as Jewish. His religion belongs in the infobox.Kerdooskis (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It is only a defining characteristic for people who define others by religion. Religion, race, sexual orientation and disability were important considerations in the past but not so much any more. TFD (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

His father and their whole side was still from Poland, which would make his nationality polish though, American seems a little offAlaskanNativeRU (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop this silliness. Sanders is and always has been an American. Where his ancestors came from is neither here or there so far as his nationality goes. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What's your point? This particular discussion is about his religion, not his nationality. Two very different things.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Popular Media section

It seems to me that undue weight is being given to these SNL skits. They make up the entire section. The skits are already mentioned on the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 article in a similar section, which I have no problem with (except that it should be expanded to include other instances of Bernie in popular media). They seem oddly out of place here on a biographical article that should be succinct and contain only the most relevant content.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Also, what about this:

Accolades and tributes[edit source | edit]

In 2015 Sanders was named as one of the Top 5 of The Forward 50.

I could see it if we had a few items, but with just one it almost makes it seem that he must be a slacker... I'd like to delete it. Gandydancer (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been no objections. I will remove them both. Gandydancer (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Coverage may not need to be as extensive, but a brief mention of the very positive reception I think could be considered. It made quite a splash and was the top trend on Twitter that night. petrarchan47คุก 00:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.vox.com/latest-news/2015/11/9/9696436/larry-david-bernie-sanders-snl

• http://www.salon.com/2015/11/08/donald_trumps_epic_snl_fail_at_least_larry_david_played_bernie_sanders_again/

Here is how it is presented in the run for pres article:

Popular media

Saturday Night Live highlighted Sanders in its October 17, 2015, cold open with “Seinfeld” writer Larry David portraying him in SNL's parody of the first Democratic Primary Presidential debate that had aired on CNN October 13. David returned to the show for the first time in 30 years to portray Sanders. His impression of Sanders, widely received on Twitter as very favorable, had him waving his arms and saying: “I’m going to dial it right up to a ten: We’re doomed! We need a revolution! We’ve got millions of people in the streets. We gotta do something and we gotta do it now”.

I just loved the segment and think it to be well-presented here but It does not seem appropriate for his bio, to me... Gandydancer (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandy, i just returned to say i had changed my mind, that it should go to "Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016" instead, lol. I agree it doesn't belong here; i keep forgetting about the other article. petrarchan47คุก 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References