Talk:Bernie Sanders

Merge Media coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge on the grounds that the topic of Bernie Sanders is large (warranting more that one article) and that media coverage is an important and distinct aspect of this topic that make a coherent separate page. Klbrain (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose this merger because there are many controversial political campaigns in general, and he did not get the Democratic nomination in 2016 or 2020. Yleventa2 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I support the merger. See my rationale in old AfD discussions for the 'Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

The merger looks sensible, but Media coverage of Bernie Sanders needs to be cut back considerably and that needs an editor who knows more about the sources that I do in Australia. --Bduke (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not support a merger, instead deferring to the keep consensus from the four AfDs through 2019 and 2020 (2 nocon and 2 keep). Those discussions support the existence of a media coverage page as a separate article subject. Of course, sufficient RS coverage to support an article's existence does not mean there must be a separate article if it could be covered in a more general one. But with the length of that page, it seems we would necessarily lose significant content were we to merge it into this general article on Sanders, so based on the AfD support for that article subject and based on the volume of RS coverage, I support retention of that page and I oppose a merge. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

What are some examples of significant content? He seems to have the media coverage of a typical third party candidate. Yleventa2 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

For significant coverage in RS, see the sources listed by User:The Four Deuces and User:ImTheIP in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination), which was closed as keep. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

That there have been many other controversial campaigns is not a reason for deletion. The justification for articles is coverge in secondary sources. Furthermore, the comment that the article has to be trimmed in order to fit into this article ignores Wikipedia:Splitting. When a section is too large in relation to the article, we are supposed to create a new article.

In the fourth (!) nomination for deletion, excluding the sockpuppet who wrote the AfD and another sockpuppet who voted for it, the vote to keep was 10-5. (No sockpuppets voted to keep.) If a topic is sufficiently notable to support its own article, there is no reason to merge.

TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Notability is relative though. If you look at other pages about media coverage, such as Media coverage of the Iraq War, the events are much more significant on a large scale. The candidacy of Sanders was atypical, but not to the extent where significant change occurred as a result, since he didn't even win the nomination, and was second by a margin of 1,000 electoral votes. Yleventa2 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Lost Springs, Wyoming (pop. 4) has a smaller population than New York City (pop. 8,804,190). That's not a reason to delete the first article. As long as a topic has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write a neutral and informative article, it is notable. TFD (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The articles should be merged. Listen, I understand that Walking Dead made it cool to have a TV show about a TV show, but an entire stand alone article about media coverage of Person X is ludicrous on its face. Everyone complains about the media coverage of candidates. Every candidate gets supposedly biased media coverage. What's next? Should we have Wikipedia articles about popularity polls for favorite ice cream flavor? The act of having a stand alone article for this subject is a political act by Wikipedia--by isolating coverage about Sanders and uniquely elevating it, Wikipedia effectively validates the claims that Sanders has been treated differently by the media than others. And if that's what Wikipedia is going to start doing, then it should close up shop immediately. If anyone wants to have an article that addresses media coverage, the topics should be about coverage about the campaigns themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: per the August 2020 AfD. Nothing has changed in the past year to override previous consensus. The nominator's proposed reasoning, "did not get the Democratic nomination in 2016 or 2020", has no bearing on the notability of the media coverage subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose per Firefangledfeathers; it's true that he didn't become the nominee and thus did not become the president, but media coverage is what ultimately determines notability, and there's a decent amount of media coverage on the subject. Better to describe the topic here than clutter the biographical article with a tangentially related subject. I'm open to seeing the media coverage article trimmed, though. It might be a better candidate for a merger once we've figured out which parts of the article have lasting notability and which parts don't.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion for a while but I respect your civil viewpoint on the issue, thanks. Yleventa2 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose as there is significant notability to the topic, and it simply cannot be condensed into a couple paragraphs. He's been the runner-up for two Presidential nomination cycles in the Democratic Party, and there are many who believe his coverage was unfair due to the ideas he was expressing. On the flipside, there are those who think there wasn't any bias, and that means even more space is necessary to show the other perspective. No reason to merge the articles back together, when it was split for this very reason. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others--JTZegers (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - He's one of the most well known figures of Congress and his media coverage is expansive, interesting, and at times historical in the world of journalism. I oppose a merger. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Portrait?

Hi, can someone verify that the photo used on this page (File:Bernie Sanders Official Portrait.jpg) is, in fact, an official portrait of Bernie Sanders? On Commons, the file was uploaded by one User:Tofusaurus, is listed as "Own work", and has the description "Fictional Bernie Sanders official White House portrait" and the category "Alternate history". As such, I'm not confident that this is the right image to be using. It's not clear to me how this came to be the file used on this page. Based on a preliminary reverse image search, it seems to be a photoshopped version of a photo of Bernie Sanders with the American flag added in the background. I'm going to revert the change and consult with the user who made it. --Sensorfire (✎|‽) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

social security

Why is it people on Social Security disability get the bun end of the stick people on Social Security have already raised their families so they don'tget Child Care Credit or any kind of money for the children we are senior citizens no senior citizens that I know have been able to get any help from our state I live in Missouri there is no way a republican Governor is going to help us let alone where do we start I'm 61 years old I barely can use a computer where do we even start how are we supposed to file for this so-called help when I was young I made more money in the 1980s than I do right now I believe the United States doesn't care about 2600:1700:CFF0:64C0:5D12:73A1:4930:DF9E (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectionworker (talk • contribs)

You can email Bernie at [1] Sectionworker (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2022

The source for citation 312 doesn't include the quote it's a source for. I suggest changing it to https://slate.com/business/2015/11/bernie-sanders-defines-democratic-socialism.html

In defining what democratic socialism means to him, Sanders said: "I don't believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a decent standard of living and that their incomes should go up, not down. I do believe in private companies that thrive and invest and grow in America, companies that create jobs here, rather than companies that are shutting down in America and increasing their profits by exploiting low-wage labor abroad."[312] Newunit13 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 04:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotation puntuation.

Quoted sentences in this article seem to keep periods and commas outside of the closing quotation mark, something that is incorrect in American English. Personally, I wish we were like British English on this matter, but that's besides the point. Tayuro (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

That usage is not incorrect. If the quoted words do not include punctuation then the punctuation should go outside the quotation marks. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

Per these two edits, [2][3] I think it should be made absolutely clear that there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that newer images are automatically preferred to older ones. In the case of a dispute, better grounds for a change will need to be provided - and we are very likely to consider the replacement with a clear image of the subject with one where he is wearing a mask to be entirely inappropriate, without very convincing reasoning.. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Intro

“Officially an independent, he is often seen as a leader of the democratic socialist movement.”

The democratic socialist movement *in the United States*? 130.74.59.67 (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the proper way to word this?

On the existing page: "Throughout his tenure in Congress, he has been listed as an independent. He caucused with Democrats in the House while refusing to join the party, and continues to caucus with Democrats in the Senate."

It is not possible to "join" a political party. One can seek a nomination (sponsorship) of a political party for the occasion of an election or series of elections but there is no "club" one "joins". That's also why a party cannot "expel" someone who chooses to identify with them, e.g. David Duke. In some (31) states a voter may optionally register with a political party "preference" but Vermont is not one of those 31 states, so it's not even possible to "join" in that sense.

The way this is worded serves to feed the ongoing false dichotomy of Duopoly as master of the universe and continues misrepresenting what political parties are. 192.34.130.205 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)