Talk:Bernie Sanders

Please fix the broken link "Mayoral career" in the sidebar to point at Mayor_of_Burlington_(1981–1989)

I can't do that myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flegozoff (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Gun-related votes section

"He voted against the bill four more times in the 1990s, explaining his Vermont constituents (high on hunting, low on homicide) saw waiting-period mandates as more appropriately a state than federal matter." That's a weird way of phrasing the bit about Vermont having a low homicide rate and Vermonters being interested in hunting. I'm sure there's a clearer way to put it. Ungulates (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism?

In the article Sanders is called a "self-described democratic socialist", but what Sanders clearly means by this definition of himself is that he is a Social democrat, should we not link to the page for Social Democracy when we use the term in this article, or at least when he is called a "self-described democratic socialist"... This would end a lot of confusion and hopefully cement the fact that Sanders is using a modern reinterpreted definition of Democratic Socialism, actually meaning Social Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Whiteley (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

TJ Whiteley, what you think he "clearly means" is your original research, unless you know of reliable sources that talk about him being a social democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu simply look at the political positions section of this article or the page Political positions of Bernie Sanders and compare them with the pages Democratic Socialism and Social democracy... or alternatively, take a look at this article. TJ Whiteley (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

TJ Whiteley and Muboshgu Sanders' brand of socialism shouldn't link from his self description, unless he has clarified further what he meant by that term. A discussion of his brand of socialism should be a source to a link to Social democrat from such articles as:

• "Bernie Sanders’s brand of socialism is hard to pin down" Megan McArdle WaPo
• "Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist" Marian Tupy Atlantic
• "Bernie Sanders and the rise of American social democracy" Ryan Cooper The Week

but contradicted at:

• "Bernie Sanders: ‘Democratic Socialist’ Is Just a Synonym for New Deal Liberal" Eric Levitz NY Magazine

HopsonRoad (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

See this edit, where I have put "democratic socialist" in parentheses and have added a discussion of Social democracy, below. That may be redundant with the discussion in Bernie Sanders#Evaluations of his ideology. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

HopsonRoad I suggest linking to the Political and economic philosophy section of the page Political positions of Bernie Sanders here (where Sanders is described a "democratic socialist"), although this article in itself needs some work making clear that Sanders is not under most definitions a Democratic Socialist. Possibly even the 'Academics' section of the page, which explains the controversy over the term best. TJ Whiteley (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Different writers assign differing meanings to democratic socialism/social democracy. Generally social democrat is a term of abuse used against people one does not consider sufficiently left-wing. TFD (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought it is a slur the opposite ie. "against those too far left of center!?" but the evolution of derogatory terms can & will change over time :-( --GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 06:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)

I admit I find all of this amusing, for social democrats themselves used the democratic socialist moniker since the 20th century. I think the problem is that people conflate social democracy with what self-professed social democratic do, so they conflate social democracy with the Third Way since the neoliberal shift. However, as correctly pointed out by The Four Deuces elsewhere, does that mean now social democracy itself advocate the same? Does that mean now deregulation, free trade, neoliberalism, privatisation et all are social democratic rather than policies simply adopted by social democratic parties due to pragmatism to win elections in the neoliberal world?

Indeed, social democrats adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable and that accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and seeking to administer it to challenge free-market and laissez-faire capitalists was a more pressing immediate concern (Romano 2006, p. 113). Sources like Adams 1998, p. 127 refer to the Third Way in Britain as liberal socialism. The problem is that it seems people see socialism as an economic system rather than as an ideology too, so apparently if someone doesn't advocate socialist policies (which ones then?), it isn't socialist. However, that's the curse of socialist reformism; because all social democratic parties have to govern the economy accordng to capitalist, not socialist, logic. That doesn't mean they aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources. Indeed, what would be the difference between social democracy and social liberalism? Social democrats are socialists; social liberals are liberals (this is also the difference between Sanders and Warren). Many sources which claim that Sanders isn't a socialist is because they define socialism as state ownership in the means of production, therefore Sanders isn't really a socialist but a social democrat, gotcha! Then by this argument all but state socialists aren't true socialists. They also wrongly conflate democratic socialism with the pink tide, notwithstanding they're nothing but more populist social democrats opposed to the neoliberal shift, even when they still had to surrender to the neoliberal logic per their reformism.

In other words, Sanders nicely fits the centre-left of the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist. The problem is that there wasn't a strong social democratic/socialist movement like in Europe, so that makes it harder to unabashedly saying Sanders is a socialist, but this markedly difference between democratic socialism (socialism) and social democracy (capitalism), as if they aren't both socialist ideologies, is unnecessary when they're much closer, although by no means the exact same thing. Finally, I redirect you to these Four Deuces's comments here and here.--Davide King (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as this discussion of Sanders' politics interests me, we have to remember that a talk page is a place to discuss how reliable sources characterize his politics and other biographical matters, not how we interpret his politics. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, HopsonRoad. I was trying to put things in perspectives and I thought my comment was helpful in clarify a few things. I think the issue shouldn't be whether Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat but rather whether he's a social democrat or a social liberal because social democracy is a socialist (reformist) ideology, not simply advocating a few social-democratic policies or the Social Democratic parties that moved towards the center since the 1970s. Yes, Sanders doesn't advocate economically socialist policies, but neither do many other people routinely described as democratic socialists or again the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist and I mean actual socialist/social-democratic parties, not what Republicans mean by socialism. I mean, the same thing could be said about Corbyn, who's pretty much an old-style social democrat in actual policy, notwithstanding red baiting against him. And yes, I have problems with sources like Marian Tupy who define socialism as state ownership of the means of production (we should use no sources that define it this way when talking about Sanders; of course Sanders isn't a socialist if in that sense) and apparently claim the United States isn't a capitalist country, conflating socialism with the Communist systems.--Davide King (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Bernie Sanders voted for this and it should be discussed or broadened in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.249.220 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sanders has been a Senator for quite some time, so I'm sure he's made votes on hundreds of bills, and we can't detail each one. Do reliable sources describe this as a particularly significant vote in his career? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The response from Seraphimblade should probably be considered disingenuous but it won't be. That wouldn't be fair at all would it? A contributor asks why Bernie Sanders voted to make the USA more of a police state. So the immediate challenge is that I need to dig up "evidence and sources about Bernie's vote" and qualify my "way over the top insinuation that Bernie voted for a police state".

Why does a contributor need these things? Can you use Google and look up what 3 strikes did to prison populations? Does it make Bernie look bad? Is that why you're telling 73.120.249.220 to get some reliable sources on his vote but curiously not on the bill he voted for? He voted for it. This needs to be mentioned in the article. The Act has enormous consequences but it's not my role to do what is near universally understood at this point. Unless of course we want censorship because it makes Bernie look bad or we don't want the public to understand the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.24.111 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Seraphimblade is right. If there are reliable sources that give WP:WEIGHT to the idea that this vote is more meaningful to his career than other votes, then we can include it. But if you're just trying to make Bernie look bad, then that doesn't fly here on any page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion would justify censorship? WP: CENSORSHIP The fact that Bernie voted for and authorized the death penalty for 60 new federal offenses, life in prison for three felonies and to destroy children by dragging them through the criminal justice system or all sorts of crimes is just that - a fact.

Moreover, the crime bill is important enough to Bernie Sanders and his campaign that he has mentioned his vote repeatedly. He's told the public over and over that this is a vote that he regrets, or that he regrets his vote but he had to do it, or he didn't like what he saw but voted for it, or it was about assault weapons so he was forced to vote. This is a politician handling an issue (his vote) which is seen as a lightning rod of controversy otherwise he would drop it and move on. So Bernie continues to mention this vote. So does the media. I can't think of many other votes Bernie regrets so consistently and repeatedly and publicly. This is clearly something he feels he needs to do in a Presidential Campaign. Bernie feels that this is one of his most meaningful votes, so he's constantly explaining what he meant. Wikipedia needs to stay objective and simply add facts: "He voted for the crime bill ... " He regrets voting for the crime bill" .. perhaps "It's one of his most important votes" done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.147.71 (talk) 11:34, January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but we consider what is due and undue WP:WEIGHT, and none of your words, presented without reliable sources, indicate that there is any due weight to add what you're suggesting. You have to find a source to say he regrets voting for the bill before we can add that he regrets voting for the bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored, it's just not referred to as censorship. The issue remains that we need to list his vote for the '94 crime bill in the main article. A very important vote in his career. For some reason this is being censored. If we include that he regrets voting for the crime bill Wikipedia can cite CNN, Vanity Fair and less reliably Axios. Since he's actively engaging coverage of his vote - Sanders has also defended voting for the crime bill as I've mentioned above - cite CNN. Regret, not regret, wish that things were different - all these can be included - but what should be included in the main article is his vote for the crime bill.

If it is included proper context should be added. Sanders opposed 3 strikes you're out but supported the anti-violence against women and gun control sections. There's a lot of compromise in legislation. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of random individual polls in 'Polls and news coverage' section

Why does this section[1] cite two random individual polls? We should generally not cite individual polls. Furthermore, why are polls included in a section about media coverage? What does this content add? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

These are not random polls. One shows that Sanders might have won the race if he rather than Clinton had run up against Trump. The other shows that Sanders may have contributed to Trump's victory because more voters switched their vote to Trump than Clinton voters would have. Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

(1) The poll does not show that, and that's not how the world works, as the experts explain in this PolitiFact piece[2]. (2) Why is this in a section together with 'media coverage'? It feels like a coatrack. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research related to 2016 media coverage

Why were the best sources on the topic of media bias in the 2016 election removed from this article[3] while punditry and minutiae about alleged bias are kept in the article? We should clearly use the best available sources: peer-reviewed research and academic assessments which provide an overview of media coverage in the 2016 election and directly address whether the media was biased against Sanders. If there's a need to keep the article short, then the random punditry and minutiae about bias should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the biography of Bernie Sanders not even about his campaign.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

So the "polls and news coverage" section which is exclusively about his 2016 campaign should be removed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, no I am saying it should be shortened not much detailed as we have a separated article for that.

BTW, where is that part about Sanders getting coverage in consistent with his polls from? This study, for example, says that he got less coverage than Ted Cruz despite the fact that Cruz quit the race.

Sanders in particular struggled to get the media’s attention. Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders’ coverage trailed Clinton’s in every week of the primary season.... Sanders received even slightly less coverage than Cruz, despite the fact that Cruz quit the race and dropped off the media’s radar screen five weeks before the final contests.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Tesler, Sides and Vavreck 2018 find that his coverage was largely consistent with his polling.[4] The Shorenstein Center report that you cite above does not track coverage and polling as precisely as Tesler, Sides and Vavreck, but the report notes that coverage of Sanders was low when he polled poorly and rose as he increasingly closed in on Clinton in the polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"the report notes that coverage of Sanders was low when he polled poorly and rose as he increasingly closed in on Clinton in the polls"

Are you talking about this study? It says the opposite. It explicitly says Sanders received even slightly less coverage than Cruz, despite the fact that Cruz quit the race for that book, I cant currently have access to it to verify.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That line has nothing to do with how they are polling. The Republican race got vastly more coverage than the Democratic race (which is text that I tried to add before GandyDancer deleted it), so the #2 in the GOP race got more coverage than the #2 in the Democratic race. For the Democratic coverage, Sanders got coverage proportional to his standing in the polls vis-a-vis Clinton and the others. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Could you provide the page numbers for these detailed trackings of coverage that you say T-S-V go into? All I see are detailed tracking of Clinton's coverage (page 109 for example). I would be interested in knowing who they cite for footnote #16 on page 107 (for a claim about the pre-primaries, ...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The specific page numbers that I have cited are in the citation: pp. 8, 99, 104–107. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm just curious if it's Crimson Hexagon Brandwatch in footnote 16 on page 107. Could you indicate the main source for pp. 104-107, please... 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note the difference between Clinton's graph (data between 80% and 35%, concentrated around 60%) and Sanders' graph (data between 5% and 55%, concentrated around 35%). As predicted this data comes from Brandwatch and does not support the text Snoog has edit-warred into the entry. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Verbatim quote from Page 105: "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated". You didn't see this or did you just link to a random Google Books preview page without knowing what it said? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course I saw those words about a 0.69 correlation. It is not particularly well explained or overly interesting. I suppose the claim is that Clinton's was uncorrelated and that she got much more press than she would have been expected to because of her different bad press issues? The fact shown quite clearly in the graphs is that Sanders got substantially less press than Clinton. That's all. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a strong correlation, and for what its worth to the extent that there was a clear discrepancy between Sanders' polling and his media coverage, it was during the early campaign when "Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls." (p. 105 – the same page that you found in the Google Books preview) When you say, "The fact shown quite clearly in the graphs is that Sanders got substantially less press than Clinton. That's all." No one has ever disputed that Clinton (the front-runner) got more coverage, so I'm unclear what that remark has to do with anything, and it's yet another demonstration how incredibly hard it is to try to have a discussion with you about anything. No one is arguing to include text that says "Clinton and Sanders got equal amounts of media coverage". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered that two days ago, all the content which failed to substantiate media bias against Sanders (including the best sources on the topic) was removed whereas all the content that suggested media bias against Sanders was kept.[5] It's a pretty clear NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

There is good reason to use this information at the new media page rather that in this article. For example you added this:

Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls.[181]

But is the same paragraph you added the other ref you offered says:

By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.[23] Clinton got three times more coverage than he did. (Authored by Thomas E. Patterson,,) Patterson suggests that the early months of the campaign are the most important months as they give the candidate the much needed exposure they need. The fact remains that Sanders was drawing huge crowds and remained largely ignored by the press and that is what we should keep in the article, while we let the new media article get into the nitty-gritty of it.Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Patterson is not specifically looking at whether polling is consistent with coverage, and he does not say that Sanders got less coverage than what he was polling (he's saying he got less coverage than Clinton (who at all times outpolled Sanders)). If that's the sole line that you disagree with, then that should have been removed – not all the academic content. The line should of course be in the article, given that it's consistent with the findings of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck's authoritative Princeton University Press book on the 2016 election. Also, it's beyond me how you can describe three sentences from "overview" academic assessments of media bias in the 2016 election as "nitty-gritty" when they are by far the least nitty-gritty things in that entire section. Everything else in that section is minutiae and random punditry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Polls_conducted_in_2016. From March 15th to May 3rd 2016, Patterson says Sanders got 39% of the coverage in the Democratic primary (which got 36% of the media coverage of the primaries) in the outlets he studies. Sanders quite rarely polled below 40%, and occasionally polled ahead of or equal with HRC during that time (and most often within the margin of error looking at the data above quickly), contrary to what is asserted above. HRC never polled at 61% during the period but this is the coverage she got in Patterson's sample. This debate can take place on the page dedicated to media coverage. As Sharab said above, this is his bio. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to be in the business of original research, 538's aggregate poll tracker[6] shows that Sanders's poll numbers ranged from 38.4-41.7% during that period, making the media coverage entirely consistent with his share of media coverage. Besides that, the race was effectively over by mid-March (an assessment reflected in peer-reviewed assessments). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

As people have been trying to explain to you for a while, the conclusion that the race was "effectively all but over" (given the superdelegates and the general media/DNC ambiance), does not necessarily change matters of fact concerning media coverage. I see you are citing 538, which didn't do too well in Michigan or Indiana as I recall with their own predictions. Again note that at no time during the 2016 period they aggregate was HRC at 61%. :) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SS, Please do not twist what I said. "Nitty-gritty" means "what is essential and basic : specific practical details", so I clearly did not suggest the information is not important. The trouble is, there is nothing harder for us to do than whittle a complicated issue down to just a few words and sometimes it is next or is impossible. That is why I feel that this information is best included in the new article. As for your suggestion that "Everything else in that section is minutiae and random punditry", I don't agree and apparently thousands of readers and plenty of good WP editors don't either because it has been in the article for years and nobody has complained or tried to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a falsehood. I tried to remove some of the nonsense more than 18 months ago, but it was immediately restored by you. Furthermore, just two days ago, you delete all the long-standing content in that section that conflicted with the claim that the media was biased against Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

So now I'm a liar posting nonsense and editing bias into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

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.

There is unambiguously a consensus to update the old image, however there is some disagreement over which new image to choose. Creating a separate discussion for this. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

---

2019 photo vs 2007 photo

Image proposed by IP editor

Should the infobox photo be changed to a more recent image? The current infobox photo is from 2007, which is quite a while ago. (Sidenote, I'm sure this has been discussed previously, but can't find any discussions about it on theis page's archives.)  Nixinova   T   C   01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Considering the age of the 2007 photo as well as the significant shift in Sanders' public image since it was taken, I feel that User:HappyWanderer15's invocations of WP:IAR and WP:UCS are justified in this case (is there even any actual rule that official government portraits must be used on the articles of elected officials?). Vrrajkum (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In light of this edit, I'm officially adding my support for the second image (the one that has the red letters in the background). Vrrajkum (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think the one where he is looking towards the camera is better. Is there a new one which shows him looking towards the camera?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I'm not sure, but here's another angle of the new one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders_July_2019.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.54 (talk • contribs)

Looks better. Thanks!. I think this one the IP proposed seems to fit in the infobox.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support newly proposed image This is the image suggested by the IP editor and supported by SharʿabSalam. I support it, too. A more recent image than the previous is appropriate. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

In this instance, I think the use of a more recent image is reasonable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Found the older discussion (here) which had a semi-consensus for the new image from a few months ago, but for some reason the image was changed back (and I cant be bothered to look extensively through page history to find why).  Nixinova   T   C   02:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The image was changed back with this edit and the edit comment, "Get a consensus". We appear to have a consensus. Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 19#Change picture, it is 12 years old did not result in a consensus, it was only an assertion that the image was out of date, but did not agree on an image. The discussion then turned to the politics of the 2016 election. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well now reading that old copy just makes me chuckle again. I was afraid that I must have said something boring like "oh drats, we can't because it's not official" and I didn't at all say that! So I'll say it again: Let's change it - I like the first one best. Gandydancer (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Or either, they are both an improvement. Gandydancer (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Gandydancer; either is fine. Sanders' expression is nicer and the lighting is better (IMO) in the second one, but the background is cleaner in the first one. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I support updating the image as well. I get that the old one is his official portrait, but he looks very different after 12 years. Maybe there's a more recent official image we could use? In the meantime, I support using the first of the two new images, as the background is cleaner and he's looking more towards the camera. Birb ebooks (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Myabe I'm a bit biased, as I'm the uploader of "Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg", however I agree with Birb ebooks, this one is clearer and he looks more towards the camera. Moreover, it's better cropped. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: the first one of the new images was even tweeted by Bernie (1) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There is unambiguously a consensus to update the older image; 4 editors (myself, SharabSalam, HopsonRoad, and Gandydancer) have expressed support for the second new image, while 4 (Gandydancer, HopsonRoad, Birb ebooks, and Nick.mon) have expressed support for the first new image. @Nixinova and Seraphimblade: expressed support for replacing the old image, but did not express any preference for one of the newer images over the other.

I initially supported the the first new image before I saw the second one; I feel that the second one is superior because Sanders' left eye is shadowed in the first image, which makes his expression look odd in the thumbnail. Sanders' smile and overall affect is also nicer in the second photo. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (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.

Political positions

I'm thinking most of these subsections should be migrated over to the designated "Political positions of Bernie Sanders" article. There should really just be a general description of his overall philosophy here with the specifics in the political positions article.

Just putting it out there before I start tackling it. Woko Sapien (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This is consistent with previous discussions found at: Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 15#Political positions, Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 16#Tenth debate, and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 18#See "Political positions of Bernie Sanders". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to Woko's suggestion. How far do you plan to go with that, just from the Political positions section or more? Gandydancer (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: I suggest moving all the subsections into the Political positions article, from "Banking and campaign finance reform" to "War and peace". In place of them, I think we should move the "Commentary of others" section from the Political positions article and relocate it to the main article in the Political positions section (we can probably remove that section title once that's done). In addition to making the main article longer than it needs to be, it currently seems arbitrary which political issues we have in the main article versus which ones we have in the Political positions article. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

See my sandbox for an idea of what I have in mind. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

So do you think we should keep all that information listed under his years in the House in the article? These decisions can get tricky when we are dealing with a politician who's been around as long as Sanders when one considers that the press tends to cover some things more than others, gun control for example. That vote against the Brady bill when he felt he was representing what Vermont wanted certainly set him up for extended press on guns. But do we still need so much? Would it make sense to set out a list of things that stand out that we want to keep here and then move the rest? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Inquiring minds want to know...(because I really do think I might be...) Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC) PS - missed your sandbox suggestion...I will look at it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I really don't believe there is a perfect solution. First, political positions pages get seen a lot less than do bios. As such they tend to be less of a target for those who want to use the megoglophone. Once you evacuate the political positions they have a habit of growing back, sometimes embellished with those elements considered most damaging by opponents, or most appealing by fans. Your suggested substitute text is quite good, but it is also quite general, focusing primarily on discussion of social democrat versus democratic socialist labels. As TFD said somewhere on the TP, these labels don't represent "political positions" as much as "political positioning". Neither has a wikidata item, for example, as far as I can tell (though there is Q51480354 ^^) tl;dr: I would go slowly.. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Sashi voices some of the same concerns that I have experienced over the years. We keep a few positions here and move others? Well as WoKo pointed out, keep which and move which (and how do we decide which is which?). Then if we keep a few people will constantly add something they just read to what we've got...and the list will grow and grow or a mean more experienced editor will, "in good faith", move it to the Positions article. And as for the "people don't read the splits", totally agree here. But they will ask, in a way that suggests the article is lacking, where are the political positions??? Sashi is right , we won't be coming up with the perfect solution no matter how hard we try. But now we've got a politician who has ran for office numerous times, including for pres X2, so not surprising we need to do some figuring... Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (BTW, our Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign seems to have a good compact version of positions if we would decide to take that route.) Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there's no magic solution. If there's a stance he took in Congress that is generally agreed to be essential to understanding his tenure there, then I'd say it belongs both on the main article (but in the House or Senate sections) as well as the separate Political positions article. Also, I've copied a large chunk of the 2020 campaign's political positions section (which is fantastically written BTW) and pasted it into my sandbox proposal. I think this makes it a good middle ground: succinct enough that it doesn't try to list every issue under the sun, but specific enough that a reasonable person could sufficiently understand Sanders's philosophy (which addresses Sashi's concerns). --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, first I want to make it clear - I believe that you are doing good and unbiased work for this article. But..., I am wondering, have you recently read the Political positions of Bernie Sanders? If my memory serves me correctly I have watched it bloat (in my opinion) into what we now have. Again, if my memory serves me correctly, at one point I complained and the editor that was adding so much information felt offended and said as much. So after that I just stepped aside. I decided that our readers could just move through what we've got to find something of interest to them. But at this point where we are attempting to judge what to keep here and what to move it comes up again, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you! I know political articles (especially during election years) can be downright nasty places on here - so I appreciate the kind words! Second, like I said earlier, I think some paragraphs should stay but be relocated to the House or Senate sections. For instance, the 8-1/2 hour filibuster in 2010 is a good thing to keep but move to here since it has to do with a piece of legislation he was fighting against. As for the political positions article, that's sort of the next thing I'd want to tackle. Clean up the main article first, then bring a little more law and order to the political positions article after. For what it's worth, my vision is to bring Sander's article more in line with similar politicians' articles (like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren). --Woko Sapien (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I've worked very closely with this and Warren's article for many years and in my experience this one has been pretty easy with editors willing and able to cooperate. But Warren's article has been pure hell and I've spent countless hours over there. And nothing was ever settled for good, for example now it's back again to that we need to say she broke a law when she put some of her family recipes in the cookbook that the small museum her cousin worked for was using as a way to raise money. I dunno, but after all she did teach law at Harvard...one would think... OK, back to this article. It still has info about various bills introduced or passed, for example one on cancer, a few words about a Vermont post office, something about Vet's payments, etc. and I don't understand what logic you are using to keep them. The Sanders political positions has many, many comments on this or that legislation. I would think that some of these might be better squeezed in along with the rest...? Again, nice work and many of us know how time consuming the sort of task you have taken on is, and appreciate it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't actually done anything yet. I'll start making the edits I'm talking about throughout the week. I'll let you know when it's done.--Woko Sapien (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm done making the changes I wanted to make. It didn't come out exactly like my sandbox proposal, but that was just a rough idea of what I had in mind. Anyway, the section much more succinct, which I think is a good thing.--Woko Sapien (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders and Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the largest U.S. government contractor and the largest weapons producer in the world. Bernie Sanders lobbied this corporation. Please add this fact to the article. It won't be necessary to write a book about the Lockheed Corporation, or write an explanation of Bernie's behavior, intent, compromise, edification, posturing or whatever creative description the morass of insta-journalists will zealously use as a weapon to defend the merits of some candidate who they feel has been slighted unfairly. Because for these people it's a war of some kind, it's never an honest attempt at objective fact based journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.139 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Mind your biases. They are not helpful here. If you want something to be added to the article, please propose some text and provide reliable sources to support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Text: "Bernie Sanders lobbied Lockheed Martin both to base the F-35 in his state and for Sandia National Labs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.234.0 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Source? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) * https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html * https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/state-woos-national-research-lab

The article could also mention that he opposed the federal government subsidizing the merger of lockheed and martin marietta back in the 90s. [7] Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, to be fair we should also mention Sanders support for Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia back in the 90s, his vote for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted and his backing of Obama’s Libyan debacle and support for an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War. Naturally we'll both need sources for these statements.

DNC bias against Sanders

Not sure if this is already in this article. I found reports from WaPo and other RS about DNC leaks that revealed that the DNC was trying to undermine Sanders campaign in 2016. It says that they even used his religion to attack his campaign. A lot of other stuff also leaked and was according to the WaPo "the most damaging." see the source. The DNC had to apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters after the leaks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay I found it but it doesn't look like a neutral reflection of what the source is saying. Some of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to the public in June and July 2016 showed that the committee leadership had favored Clinton over Sanders and had worked to help Clinton win the nomination. The source has mentioned many instances where the DNC worked to undermine Sanders campaign, trying to make his religion an issue, this should be mentioned especially the stuff about religion. where all that stuff in this article? The paragraph seems like a whitewashing, also doesn't mention that they apologized to Sanders supporters. It should be reworded.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC: "news coverage" section

Should the text in bold be added to the section "Polls and news coverage"?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Some supporters raised concerns that publications such as The New York Times minimized coverage of the Sanders campaign in favor of other candidates, especially Trump and Clinton. The Timess ombudsman reviewed her paper's coverage of the Sanders campaign and found that as of September 2015 the Times "hasn't always taken it very seriously. The tone of some stories is regrettably dismissive, even mocking at times. Some of that is focused on the candidate's age, appearance and style, rather than what he has to say." She also found that the Times's coverage of Sanders's campaign was much scanter than its coverage of Trump's, though Trump's was also initially considered a long shot at that time, with 63 articles covering the Trump campaign and 14 covering Sanders's. A December 2015 report found that the three major networks—CBS, NBC, and ABC—had spent 234 minutes reporting on Trump and 10 minutes on Sanders, despite their similar polling results. The report noted that ABC World News Tonight had spent 81 minutes on Trump and less than one minute on Sanders during 2015.

A study of media coverage in the 2016 election concluded that while Sanders received less coverage than his rival Hillary Clinton, the amount of coverage of Sanders during the election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that far exceeded his standing in the polls. Studies concluded that the tone of media coverage of Sanders was more favorable than that of any other candidate, whereas his main opponent in the democratic primary, Hillary Clinton, received the most negative coverage of any candidate. All 2016 candidates received vastly less media coverage than Donald Trump, and the Democratic primary received substantially less coverage than the Republican primary.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! noted that on March 15, Super Tuesday III, the speeches of Trump, Clinton, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz were broadcast in full. Sanders was in Phoenix, Arizona, on that date, speaking to a rally larger than any of the others, yet his speech was not mentioned, let alone broadcast. However, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer wrote in her 2018 book about the 2016 election that the Democratic primary was effectively over in terms of delegate count by mid-March 2016, but that the media promoted the narrative that the contest between Sanders and Clinton was "heating up" at that time.

References

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Per NPOV, content should seek to cover "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It's not NPOV to only have content in the article that supports the pro-Bernie POV that the media is biased against him when RS paint a far more complicated picture. The section used to be balanced until 21 January when the editor Gandydancer removed all the long-standing content that failed to support the pro-Bernie POV.[8] The editor defended this edit by claiming that she was trimming content, but it's obviously not NPOV to remove all content that supports one POV while keeping all the content that supports a different POV. In particular, when the highest quality sources (academic research) are culled, whereas the lowest quality sources and minutiae are kept in the article. If anything, priority should be given to peer-reviewed research and wholistic academic assessments over time-specific commentary by the NY Times ombudsperson and Democracy Now! Whether you agree or disagree with the "media is biased against Sanders" thesis is besides the point. Per NPOV, we are supposed to cover the thesis in a balanced manner. The four sentences above, which are exclusively sourced to peer-reviewed research and academic assessments would add that balance and make the existing text NPOV-compliant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. There is a striking lack of verifiable facts in politics articles of late, and the proposed additions add what is sorely needed. --WMSR (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. Don’t include. Burrobert (talk) 14:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional yes If the first paragraph is there, then the bold-face additions need to be there for balance of viewpoints. However, there is an argument for moving all the text shown to Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign with a short summary left behind, since this is a biography, not an analysis of his campaign. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, the proposed addition doesn’t add any value, and seems a bit incoherent. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC). (Continued later said) No - putting a dismissive end to each item is more a POV violation than a good, especially as these seem like improper junk. The prominent DemocracyNow having a count of coverage is not well responded to by a two years later obscure book passage side note that the media was portraying Clinton-Bernie contest as heating up. The NYT omsbudsman conclusions are contradictory to a study remarks. Plus the part about Hillary having the worst coverage of all Candidates doesn’t seem credible - worse than Donald ? The line is dubious who was considered and how they were counting. If you want a response to Bernie supporter concerns, get a response explicitly to them and don’t just tack any old thing there. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• ^This editor has voted twice. The editor is claiming that peer-reviewed research is wrong for no other reason than dislike for the findings, and the closer should judge (i.e. completely dismiss) this editor's two votes accordingly. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• oops, sorry for my confusion in entry ... thanks, I will shift that down to form one bullet. Otherwise I would discourage imputing motives as that doesn’t address the edit or change the material being a poor addition and just looks bad. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, I'm not sure this is actually a study, in terms of peer-reviewed. It's actually a book. Also, this seems to present the findings of a single work on a complex issue as fact, and I don't think we can do that based upon a single source even were it peer-reviewed. If this information is presented, it should be presented in an "attributed" fashion, and if any reliable sources provided contrary findings, also should include what those say. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Seraphimblade, Princeton University Press books are absolutely peer-reviewed, so you should strike part of your comment. It's also the second-most esteemed publishing press in political science.[9] If peer-reviewed research in the best outlets is not going to be allowed in the article, do you hold the opinion that the vastly inferior content sourced to the "Tyndall Report", and commentary by the NYT ombudsperson and Democracy Now belongs? How is that in any way defensible? That's why it's such an egregious NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose It was not my intent to keep only favorable content. A new split article had opened up and we are in a process of trying to cut this article back, especially right now considering that he may be soon getting a lot more media coverage. Keep in mind that we've got one House and two Mayor and Senate's worth of info here. The info from Patterson and Sinks, was, IMO, complicated and hard to understand by presenting just a few lines and would be best presented in the media split. I still feel that way. For example, one of the sources said that while he wasn't getting any media coverage to speak of during his his early campaigning it picked up during the second of three periods (of a certain number of months) and it stressed how important the early media coverage is as compared to the second period of time - I believe the book/article said it is almost impossible to catch up without that early coverage. Snooganssnoogans has added some wording from a book written by Rachel Bitecofer - I haven't looked it up yet but I can't see where it adds much to our understanding of this issue with what I see written here - I'm more just puzzled by it. As for adding the copy about how Sanders' "tone", etc., was reported as more favorable than Clinton's, well that's no surprise. A lot of people just did not like Hillary Clinton starting with when she said she was not going to stay home and bake cookies, etc. And then she was dealing with the Benghazi and email problems as well. So we don't need to cram that info into this short bio, IMO. And finally, there is no need to mention Trump's vastly larger amount of coverage a second time when it's already in the first para. Gandydancer (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, why should the text talk about how Sanders received more favorable coverage in a section about purported media bias? Getting the best coverage of any candidate is clearly irrelevant to the subject, whereas random commentary by Democracy Now is perfectly pertinent /s Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• The proposed edit is talking about Hillary’s coverage being the worst, which yes seems irrelevant when the article is supposed to be about Bernie and the thread was amount of coverage. It’s also not very understandable what was measured nor is it credible compared to Trumps coverage which other studies had at 80 to 90 percent negative yet the Shorenstein cite says Trump got far more “good press” than “bad press”. The comparing of Trump to the entire Democratic field is also not about Bernie and this section thread about whether Hillary got more coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• This^ editor knows better (and has cited nothing in support of anything he's said) than peer-reviewed and academic assessments on the topic, and thus the peer-reviewed research can't be included, because the editor's preconceived notions are contrary to the findings of actual research. Egregious NPOV violations should be left to stand because editors agree that one POV published in the lowest quality sources is correct and that a POV published in peer-reviewed research is incorrect. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• If you only oppose mentioning that Bernie's main opponent got the worst coverage, and that the Democratic primary got substantially less coverage than the Republican primary (which are all things that obviously relate to questions of media bias for Sanders), then you should argue that, and argue for the inclusion of content which explicitly mentions Sanders. Instead the argument is that anything that diverges from a particular POV ("the media was against Sanders") should be scrubbed, even though that POV is obviously disputed in RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The section is Polls and News Coverage, hence, reports that provide evidence concerning these areas are pertinent. Moreover, this section, as mentioned by another poster, requires balance. It currently has one point of view. Darwin Naz (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image v2

@Nixinova, SharabSalam, HopsonRoad, Seraphimblade, Gandydancer, Birb ebooks, and Nick.mon: As per this discussion, Sanders' official Senate portrait from 2007 has been updated to a newer image. However, there is some disagreement as to which of the two new proposed images to choose. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Left: As I stated above, Sanders' left eye is shadowed in the right image which makes his expression look odd in the thumbnail. Sanders' smile and overall affect is also nicer in the left image. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Either The lighting is better in the left; downside: the background is cluttered. The right image is dark and less cheerful. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment In the left image, it would be easy to remove the blue stripe (left) and the red stripes (right) from the background, since they are distracting and provide no substantive information. In the right image, it would be easy to improve the exposure with some lightening. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

• Left not a strong opinion but its slightly better than right one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Left: Also not a strong opinion, but it's a slightly clearer image of his face, even if he's looking off to the side a little bit, which I think outweighs the negatives. Birb ebooks (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Right: I think that in this one he's more "institutional", and he's looking more towards the camera. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Left, though only by a bit. (Also, I didn't mention above, but we should ensure that his official Senate photo does still appear somewhere within the article, as many readers may have seen that image and visually recognize him by it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Either is fine with me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2020

There is a single letter m on the very front of the page, could you remove it? Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done (my fault) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

To include this information:

"The documents from the Sanders archives include a letter from Soviet Embassy First Secretary Vadim Kuznetsov in March 1983, congratulating Sanders on his reelection as mayor and thanking Sanders for receiving him in Sanders’s office. Kuznetsov had been in Burlington to attend a conference on nuclear disarmament at the University of Vermont a few days earlier. Neither Sanders nor conference organizers appear to have read a 1976 Time magazine article that identified Kuznetsov as a member of a “Soviet intelligence squad” posing as diplomats to infiltrate U.S. politics."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/bernie-sanderss-foreign-policy-is-risk-democrats-against-trump/

MaineCrab (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose WP:UNDUE However, the article cited could be part of summarizing various critiques of Sanders' political views—in this case on foreign policy. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Minutiae sourced to an op-ed. Every politician has met countless foreign intel operatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - an opinion piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, speculation from an op-ed is not significant enough to be in the article. If it in fact becomes a major issue in the campaign, rather than one op-ed writer speculating it maybe could, we can revisit it at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, mainly per Seraphimblade’s rationale. If it becomes relevant, and widely covered, then we’d certainly mention it. But as of now, this is unremarkable, especially for something that happened decades ago, and was not an uncommon occurrence. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Front-runner status

Look, now that Biden is slipping in the polls and Sanders expands his lead and how he's leading in the popular vote overall and will probably lead in delegates after New Hampshire, could we add his front-runner status to the lead? I mean Joe Biden's lead has "Throughout 2019, [Biden] was seen as the front-runner for the nomination" perhaps Sanders could be "In 2020, Sanders is seen as the front-runner for the nomination" or even add a little Biden like "In 2020, Sanders alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, are seen as the front-runners for the nomination". The fact that Sanders performed well in Iowa should be documented. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't concur. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER tells us, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Week-by-week status of candidates in the polls would require too much juggling among articles. People should look to news outlets for that kind of information. Additionally, this is a biography. Tracking how the polls stood over the course of the campaign is more appropriate in Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, once the campaign is complete. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with HopsonRoad. Things are very much in flux right now as that goes. Once things settle out a bit, then we can see the consensus of sources and decide what the right way to approach that is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree w/ users above. I want to see several major publications, think NYT, CNN, WSJ, calling him the frontrunner before we incorporate that into the article. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Optimistic speculation about his future performance is not what matters here. Status described widely in reliable sources is what we go on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2020

Hello I'm just wondering if you can add a New Hampshire Primary and Iowa Caucus section because Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire and second place in Iowa Thanoscar21 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I think you want 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which is linked from this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The victories in Iowa and New Hampshire are extremely important to his biography. Without them, it looks like the article has been badly neglected. Except for a mention of his recovery from the heart attack, it appears he DIED from it, as there is nothing afterward. So yeah, I added some stuff. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you change the signature to the one on his website

He uses this signature on his campaign website. https://cms-assets.berniesanders.com/static/img/bernie-signature.png can you change it to this one like the series infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copelonian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation

Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently, someone wants to end the article on his return hom from the hospital. They undid my mention of it THREE TIMES. I don't mind their editing it to within an inch of it's life, but we need the primary resuts mentioned. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I am working on updates to get your information into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

We cite aggregate polls – we don't cherrypick individual polls

There are lots of random individual polls in the article. These do not belong in the article, in particular when there is aggregate polling available on exactly the same topic as the individual polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Quinnipiac is considered the best of the best and is just fine to use. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not make new rules and then enforce them without group consensus. There is no reason to insist that we use only the poll of your liking. See for example the Elizabeth Warren article where many different polls are used. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is not rocket science. Why on Earth would we use individual polls when aggregate polling exists on the same topic? If the Warren page uses individual polls on a topic where aggregate polls exist, then those should be replaced as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a rule or a consensus that says this. As long as they are reliable, we should add them. Don't invent rules for your own preference.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)

But what possible reason would there be for using an individual poll when you can use aggregate polling? Unless the intent is to cherrypick polls to suit a particular narrative? This is just bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires. Considering that the Qunnipiac polls are very highly-rated (please read their article) they are an excellent choice for our readers, and even more so when combined with narrative that offers more info for a reader that wants to dig further into poll information. Here is the article that I used for RS [ https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655] (Also SS, I am very, very sick of your constant stream of suggestions that editors that do not agree with you are a bunch of dopey cheaters and so on. This article has been very fortunate to have had, for years, editors that know how to work with others and it would be nice to go on in that manner.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires." This is a strange comment. The readers do not read the Wikipedia article closely, so we should link to sources on Wikipedia which are easier to read, because the readers do want to read the sources instead? What? And no one is disputing that Quinnipiac is a well-regarded pollster (B+ according to 538)... it is one of many. Again, why can't aggregate polls (which include Quinnipiac) be chosen instead of an individual poll? It is absolutely mind-blowing that there is a controversy over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, who is "SS"?. Snooganssnoogans, there is no cheery-picking in the polls.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It is Snooganssnoogans. (Sorry, I hadn't noticed that SS could suggest you as well.) Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Aggregate polling can be cherry-picked as well. There are different aggregators that use different polls and different time frames. Best practice is to cite polls that have received a lot of coverage. The Des Moines Register poll in Iowa for example would have been worth citing because of its high profile. TFD (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sanders the Extremist

Sanders is an extremist in US politics and some portion of this article should reflect that. He's also a highly polarizing, divisive figure.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)