Talk:Bernie Sanders

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)

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)

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

Political Viewpoints

This article needs to separate out Sanders' political stances. They're currently written down as brief mentions under his "Tenure," which is really not appropriate. He is an established politician, so if his stances are added there, it should include his involvement in various legislation and committees, etc., showing his position on those categories. But, as a presidential candidate at large, this should not include his speaking on general matters beyond his current or past work. His expressed opinions in the media or before a public body should be separated from his actual body of legislative (legal) works. And they should be representative of common issues: like income inequality, foreign policy, same-sex marriage, RFRA, climate change, health care, abortion rights, education, etc. What do " LGBT equality"; "Budget" and "National acclaim" have to do with each other? And, especially, under the section "Tenure"?! That doesn't make sense… whatsoever! And then, "Sponsored legislation" and "Committee assignments" are separate…. from Tenure? I'm so confused. In fact, the title "Tenure" appears twice!! Once its under "Elections" and then again under "U.S. Senate"?! This is a mess. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of Contents as of 13 May 2015

1 Early life and education 2 Political career 2.1 Liberty Union campaigns 2.2 Mayor of Burlington 2.3 U.S. House of Representatives 2.4 Elections 2.4.1 Tenure 2.5 U.S. Senate 2.5.1 Elections 2.5.2 Tenure 2.5.2.1 Environment 2.5.2.2 Public disclosure and transparency 2.5.2.3 Media reform 2.5.2.4 Health care 2.5.2.5 LGBT equality 2.5.2.6 Budget 2.5.2.7 National acclaim 2.5.2.8 The Middle East 2.5.3 Sponsored legislation 2.5.4 Committee assignments 2.5.4.1 Senate Budget Committee 2.6 2016 Presidential Campaign 3 Personal life 4 Further reading 5 References 6 External links

I agree that it's all mixed up. I'm really not yet experienced enough to do a quick fix, but hopefully we can straighten it out soon... Gandydancer (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I took a try at rearranging the sections. Feel free to improve... Also, would there be any objection if I'd delete a good part what was added as he was deciding about whether or not to run? I'd guess that it was added as new news came out and is very long. Gandydancer (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Bernie a Democrat?

I don't think so. The DNC has bragged about no restrictions to run on their ticket. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/bernie-sanders-democrat-or-independent/ We know Bernie has made his namesake on being the Independent, but to assume he has officially become a Democrat by running with Hillary, without any truth to his affiliation is wrong.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2015/05/20/burn-sanders-vermont-governor-endorses-hillary-clinton/NwOYhSK0Arh4L7ZDFVoXZL/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit semi-protected (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sanders made a conscious decision, after a long, successful career as an independent socialist politician. He chose to run in the Democratic Party primaries. That means he is now a Democrat, though a very fresh one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My latest confirmation of Bernie's party affiliation at Boston.com still calls him an Independent. Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked and can't find Bernie being confused as a Democrat. Bernie is the Independent Senator running on the Democratic ticket. 05:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit semi-protected (talk • contribs)

A complication is that Bernie is a resident of Vermont, and Vermont does not have any mechanism to register as a member of a political party. You go to the primary and ask for whichever ballot you want. I believe a record is made of which one you picked for a presidential election, but for other offices no record is made of which ballot you chose. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Pulled another article from past 24 hours. They refer to Bernie as an Independent that caucuses with Democrats. Bernie calls himself a "Democratic Socialist." I don't think we should be referring to Bernie as part of the Democratic party. http://wamc.org/post/democratic-vermont-leaders-fail-endorse-sanders-president Edit semi-protected (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

More recent links.

http://wamc.org/post/great-expectations-sanders-staff-move-new-offices

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/05/22/new-hampshire-other-democrats-fight-get-out-hillary-clinton-shadow/gQB6UWTVqYsIv9FLFPZPfO/story.html

I'm concerned about when Bernie has to register in certain states as a Democrat. They won't allow him oppose Hillary without proper documentation. At that point, in those statewide primary elections, Bernie will be a Democrat. My wish would be to have Bernie stay the Independent he's always been, but to "small text" running as a Democrat on top of caucusing with Democrats. Edit semi-protected (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Rudy Guliani ran as a candidate in both the Liberal and Republican primaries, that did not make him a member of both parties. TFD (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC is saying that Bernie is "the longest-serving Independent in Congressional history, but is running on the Democratic ticket".

However, Real Clear Politics is calling him a Democrat. The Atlantic calls him a Democrat, along with Bloomberg. The Washington Times and NYT both say he is "entering the 2016 presidential race as a Democrat". petrarchan47คุก 02:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that Bernie is functioning as a Democratic presidential candidate. But the Real Clear Politics, Atlantic, Washington Times, and New York Times articles mentioned by Petrarchan47 seem to only discuss Bernie functioning as a Democrat, not the formalities of joining the Democratic Party (if there is any way for a Vermonter to join a party; I'm not sure there is a way to do that). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

MSNBC seems more nuanced about the issue. He is an independent running on the Dem ticket, he is not necessarily running as a Dem. He's pretty straightforward about this being a purely pragmatic decision rather than representing a change in party affiliation/beliefs: “I’m not a billionaire. To run outside of the two-party system would require enormous sums of money and a great expenditure of energy and time just to get on the ballot.” petrarchan47คุก 06:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

When sources say he is a Democrat we will say that. TFD (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1864 Andrew Johnson ran (for vice president) on the Republican (temporarily re-named National Union) ticket. Was Johnson still a Democrat? He's shown as such at List of Presidents of the United States & List of Vice Presidents of the United States. I hope this helps. GoodDay (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The way Sanders is referred to in the infobox now (Independent who caucuses with Democrats) is fine. Based on my understanding of the sources, he has never officially (or unofficially for that matter) declared that he is a member of the Democratic Party. Apparently Vermont law does not require a declaration. As far as I know he has never received the nomination of the Democratic Party for any office. Even now, he is seeking the Democratic nomination but has not received it. The sources that say he is running "as a Democrat" are using a kind of shorthand. What he is really doing is running for the Democratic nomination for President. If he actually receives it, we can revisit the issue then - though I suspect that at that point he might declare himself to be a Democrat anyway. So I think we can keep things as is. Neutron (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sponsored legislation

I'm closing this section as I'm sure that he has introduced more than four pieces of legislation with the first one going back to a 2007 global warming bill. I suppose it could be added again with a less hit and miss section. I just moved it all to the positions section for now - where I'm sure it needs some additional work... Gandydancer (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be an improvement. Cheers! Edit semi-protected (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

National acclaim section

That section was related to his "filibuster" speech rather than national acclaim. I moved it to the Budget section. Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wealth Inequality

Unless I'm mistaken wealth inequality (could also be called income inequality) is a major concern of Sanders. It's one of his talking points. The issue is already mentioned prominently in the "2016 presidential campaign" thread, but it needs to be included in his "political positions" thread. If no one else adds it to his political positions, I will in a day or two. . Buster Seven Talk 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You are not mistaken that it is one of his major concerns, if not THE major issue he has talked about in his campaign so far. He has a page on his campaign web site entitled Income and Wealth Inequality. I disagree, however, that this issue is absent from the "Political positions" section of this article. The section on "Taxes" mentions it directly while it is sort of lurking by implication in the sections on "College funding" and "Wall Street reform." I think what he is doing in his presidential campaign is pulling the various specific issues together to form a major theme. So it would not be all that odd for it to have more emphasis as a comprehensive theme in the campaign section. Leaving it the way it is also avoids unnecessary duplication in the article. Neutron (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We agree that income inequality is Sanders major issue. If that is the case it should be the first item listed...not hidden in the "Taxes" section or lurking by implication in "Wall Street reform" (BTW...it is not mentioned directly). While his campaign may have has just started, Mr. Sanders has been at the forefront of advocating for control of the wealthy (the Koch Brothers, etc). My guess is THAT will be his major theme as the campaign moves forward. His major theme will be duplicated in campaign speech after campaign speech. This article should mention it more than hint at it. Right now its barely noticeable. . Buster Seven Talk 00:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we move "A cornerstone of his campaign was to be decreasing income and wealth inequality:

What we have seen is that while the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, we have seen a huge increase in income and wealth inequality, which is now reaching obscene levels. This is a rigged economy, which works for the rich and the powerful, and is not working for ordinary Americans … You know, this country just does not belong to a handful of billionaires.

....change it to "A cornerstone of his campaign is the decreasing income and wealth inequality:" and put it first in "Political positions". . Buster Seven Talk

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,[3] his family died after the immigration. TFD (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wording in the lead

Our lead 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)

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 citizenship should not be in Wikipedia. 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)