Talk:Bernie Sanders

main picture

can a 2007 date be appended in the text right below the picture. the picture is quite old and people should know they are looking at an old picture of the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.135.77 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo should instead be amended to one that's available in the free use kit on his website? https://berniesanders.com/media-kit/ There's three here that are much better and have free use. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox photograph is also in the public domain. I would be a bit wary of using photos from his free use kit instead of his official senate portrait because the source, berniesanders.com, is a base for his political campaign. To me, that seems less neutral than his official senate portrait. Airplaneman ✈ 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to use a more recent photo regardless. Is there another public domain image from within the past couple years? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that a more recent photograph would be better for his main article. But besides getting one from his press kit (which I believe is a good idea), the Bernie Sanders sidebar recently changed to a more modern photo. What if we just swapped the two? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just have the same picture for the sidebar and the main pic. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but at that point, I think you are getting a bit picky (or assuming that others would be that way). It's a picture. How is the official portrait "more neutral" in a literal sense? If you were talking about actual information, sure, but it's just an image. Dustin (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it definitely is nitpicky. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose I am picky. I just think that the photo doesn't really match what he looks like and a more recent photo would do better. I don't see any issue about neutrality, though. I just think a more recent photo would accurately portray what Bernie Sanders looks like. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Main problem would be using the same pic twice in the article...i like the option for the image used in the sidebar but its quite grainy (tried fixing it though), there is a really high quality image from September this year but people don't like it because Bernie is "looking serious" in that pic, they want a image of him smiling like the others candidates..--Stemoc 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the photo on his Twitter profile now? That's not on the BernieSanders.com webpage, and is part of that free-use kit anyway. Thoughts? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Its still not free, "free-use" mediakit are not always free, thy are usually under the non-commercial licence which we cannot use, and twitter images are LQ so we cannot find the exif of the image used and find out if it has been taken by a government official or not...so no....we can't use those.--Stemoc 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I just took a couple of pictures at a rally. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237598081&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater and https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237638082&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater. If folks think either of these is worth using, I'm happy to donate. Ma^t_chups 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hat note

I don't think we need a hat note linking to Bernie Saunders, so I removed it. It's unlikely someone would arrive here looking for the hockey player. The names have distinct pronunciations, and Saunders is far less notable. —Guanaco 10:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

the pronunciations are similar and I think the two could easily be confused. Joeykai (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see someone searching for Bernie Saunders when they want the politician, with this interview in mind. The other direction seems fairly implausible, both phonetically and considering their relative notability. —Guanaco 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Other political affiliations: Liberty Union (1971-1979)"

According to Bernie Sanders's book Outsider in the White House, (the "White" edition perhaps also needing to replace Outsider in the House in or be added to the "Further reading" section,) page 25, It was "After [the gubernatorial campaign of 1976]" that he "decided to leave the Liberty Union Party". This can also be used as a citation. Tolathar Strongbow (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolathar Strongbow (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a candidate for president

It is not correct to state that Sanders "is a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.". He is hoping to be selected as a candidate by the Democrats. That is not at all the same.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, everyone running for president is a candidate for president. No one is a nominee yet, but that's different.Wukai (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that at least at this point in the process, when people read "the 2016 U.S. presidential election", they understand that it means the entire process, i.e. the primaries and caucuses, super-delegate selection (if they still do that), conventions, and general election. Sanders is a candidate in the "presidential election." If he drops out during the primaries, he will cease being a candidate. If he makes it to the convention but loses there, he will cease being a candidate. But for right now he is a candidate, and of course the same is true for Clinton, O'Malley, Trump and however-many others are still in the running on the Republican side. Neutron (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is correct to say that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. But all these articles should be consistent with one another, so if any changes are recommended they should be made to guidelines that all articles must follow. TFD (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently he is being nominated for the presidential candidacy. As far as I'm concerned, Sanders along with the other running democrats are currently considered candidates either for the nominations or presidency through nomination. (N0n3up (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

This is absurd, we've long called people vying for the party nominations as candidates for president. I cannot understand this objection at all.

Brooklyn College

Sanders is not an "alumnus" of Brooklyn College, since he transferred and graduated from another school. This keeps being re-added, but should not be, because it's inaccurate. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of alumnus includes former students who may not have graduated.[1] I do not know if non-graduates are eligible to join the College's alumni association. Have you looked it up? TFD (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

competitiveness

I have been wondering what Sanders has to do say about promoting the competitiveness of the American economy and i have found nothing anywhere (not in Wiki nor without). It is very clear that he thinks american government policies and law currently favors the rich over the poor and wants to use government to reduce economic inequality. but what does he say about growing the economy as a whole - about helping companies generate high-paying jobs - and keep high-paying jobs - here in the US? It would be useful to add this to the article... Maybe he never talks about it.... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a question about improving the article. I am not interested in people telling me here on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Bernie Sanders did talk about improving the US economy and can be seen in the article itself. Although here are just some I've quickly picked up. Probably not the best but still something [2] [3] [4]. And Zero Serenity, I don't think this section is a forum as you implied but a way to improve the article by adding info regarding Bernie Sanders and the economy as a whole. (N0n3up (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Thanks. i looked at the huffpost piece and nothing there about competitiveness. the feel the bern says that his plan to spend $1T on infrastructure will throw off extra benefits, citing this study - but that study doesn't say anything about america being more competitive afterwards (I had hoped it would and I see how it could be - better transportation lowers costs which helps companies that employ people stay in business and even grow) but that study only talks about all the benefits of that are thrown off while the infrastructure money is spent (e.g building a bridge means steel has to trucked to the site and someone gets paid to do that and has to eat lunch so restaurants benefit) etc). The USuncut article comes the close to making a case, saying that increasing wages (which is durable, not just happening only while gov't infrastructure-building money is being spent) will increase income which will "increase consumer spending" (which means money for companies that sell the stuff that consumers buy, and workers of course need to create the stuff that is bought....but if they all go to Walmart and buy stuff made in China that doesn't help US workers).. and it says that reducing student loan debt will spur the housing market (and when the housing industry is doing well, it creates and sustains lots of local jobs). but none of these make those points directly. nothing about how he will (for example) help the few companies that still manufacture stuff in the US stay here - keep those jobs here - and still be competitive or even grow. i do wonder what his plans are. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

this goes there but is a blog and not something Sanders seems to be saying. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should search for Sanders' views on each issue and report them. Instead article structure should be determined by what reliable sources consider important. If you cannot easily find his views on this topic, then it lacks weight for inclusion. What's his position on U.S. relations with Tonga? Let's not turn this and articles about other candidates into battlegrounds in the U.S. election. TFD (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

TFD It ain't a political "battleground" but an aim to go into further detail in each category, this one being in regards to Sanders and the economy. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

If we do not use the same weight in mentioning aspects of the subject, then we will present a different view than one finds in reliable sources. That is injecting our personal views about what is important and will present candidates in a different light from reliable sources, either better or worse. When you start defending and opposing candidates, it turns the article into a battleground. See Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. If Sanders wanted to make competitiveness of the American economy a major issue in his positions statements we would not need to go digging for it. We are not here to write an editorial article to discuss his positions and where they may fall short if we hold that opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Or at least until Sanders makes such statements. (N0n3up (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

• i found sources and added content first in the main article on his positions and then in this article Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent additions, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Gandydancer Although some might be news outlets (I've checked them), I think they'll do. BTW this question might seem out of the blue, but, do you support GMO? this is regarding this message left on my talk page left by TFD. (N0n3up (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Yes he does and I rather hope that we find no need to bring this up here as I have seen several editors needlessly (IMO) hounded and threatened since the recent GMO AfD. This article has no connection to GMOs and Jytdog should be perfectly free to edit here with no mention of his feelings re GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

well they were just reverted. I enjoyed learning about that stuff and adding it to the article. ya'all can do what you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a few minutes to look more closely at your edit that was deleted I have no argument with that either as it is true that we can only cover his positions in a very broad fashion here or it will be so lengthy and boring that people will just skim over it. I see that most of your addition was covered in one way or another elsewhere. However, I note that you deleted his opposition the the TPP and replaced it with "He has opposed free trade agreements" Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He has opposed every free trade agreement since NAFTA. I was summarizing very much with an eye to staying high level. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of NAFTA and CAFTA of course, and a China trade act, but what are all the other notable agreements that he opposed? Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the Issues reports that he has opposed all the agreements.[5] However, we would need reliable secondary sources to analyze his views and that would go into too much detail. Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood. And we seem to be moving beyond the topic of the discussion thread which was "competitiveness." TFD (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see this editorial by him from last spring for his overarching view. here is the list of such agreements: United States free trade agreements. you can see his voting record on them here. position on trade agreements is completely related to competitiveness. free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers; protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, mention of the TPP should be included and I agree with TFD where he says, "Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood." These are the ways that careful ways of using wording in an article can tilt the meaning in a certain direction. We don't need that here. It was a mistake for me to call this addition good before I'd had a chance to go over it better. Gandydancer (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You provide no reason for mentioning only TPP but hey if it makes sense to you to to focus only on his opposition to the most recent free trade agreement and neglect to mention his opposition to all free trade agreements (which is part of his consistent efforts to protect American workers) knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Sanders was writing about the competitiveness of the U.S. worker, not the competitiveness of the American economy. I note btw that Sanders says these are not free trade agreements, so saying he has voted against all free trade agreements is injecting your personal interpretation. That again demonstrates why we need reliable secondary sources to analyze his positions and not use our own synthesis, which is prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, the more detailed article re Sanders's political positions contains info on NAFTA, CAFTA, and the China trade agreements. This article contains only a line or two on each issue and there's not room for everything. I must say, however, that after so many years of pointing out the danger of having one editor pretty much in charge of our numerous GMO articles, it is ironic that I would see your attempt to add a political bias to this article as well. And here, as at the BP article, when you don't get your way you leave in a huff accusing the others of bias. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see no reason not to summarize his long-term position on free trade agreements and you provide none. It is a key part of his outlook and something that distinguishes him from other candidates. Nobody has any real answer to saving the rust belt that was created to a great extent by these agreements. It is heart-breaking to pass through those towns. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't SYN when he himself says it.

• It is his 4th bullet point on how he would reduce income inequality (his highest priorty) (see https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ here] - higher than free tuition, higher than universal healthcare.
• "So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them" (his guardian editoral
• "Trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) and the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China have been abysmal failures" again from the guardian source, emphasis added (he is listing only the famous ones - per United States free trade agreements and his voting record on them here (both already cited))
• "The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade ... our overall trade policy must also change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs here again(again from the guardian editorial, again emphasis added)
• "First, the TPP follows in the footsteps of failed trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, and the South Korea Free Trade agreement. Over and over again, supporters of these agreements told us that they would create jobs. Over and over again, they have been proven dead wrong." his Huff Post editorial
• feel the bern links to this video posted by Iowa Pubic Television and titled "Sanders says he'd renegotiate trade agreements" where he says: "For Vermont, for Iowa, and for virtually the entire country, trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, have by and large been a disaster. I voted against all of them, and I am helping to lead the effort right now against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (and then he explains why, and then is asked, "How do you roll back the clock on those agreements?" and he says)... You renegotiate agreements. And what you say is, we want agreements that work for the American middle class."
• here on the floor of the senate about the Korea agreement (source here: "Mr. President, I know that my colleagues who are supportive of these unfettered free trade agreements will be throwing out all kinds of statistics about how wonderful these trade deals will be for the U.S. economy and how many jobs will be created. Mr. President, we've seen this movie before and it ain't gonna happen. Those jobs didn't materialize after Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Those jobs didn't materialize under NAFTA. And, they won't materialize under the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade agreements that we are debating today. Unfettered free trade has destroyed jobs in my state of Vermont and in every single state in this country. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Mr. President, let's be clear: approving these trade agreements is insane. Unfettered free trade has failed us in the past, and they will fail us in the future. We need trade policies that are based on fair trade, not unfettered free trade. ... Mr. President, we have got to fundamentally rewrite our trade policy so that American products, not jobs are our number one export. The middle class will not survive and our economy will not flourish if large corporations continue outsourcing American jobs to China, Vietnam, and other low wage countries. Over the past thirty years, we have been told by the Administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama that unfettered free trade will increase jobs in America. They have been proven wrong. emphasis added)

His stance on trade has been very clear, and very consistent, for a long time. It is something he cares a lot about and is a major theme of which TPP is only the most recent. Not including this is just bizarre, and "I don't like it" is not a good answer in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't think that anybody is arguing against the fact that he has oppossed NAFTA, etc., for years, as have most others in the progressive segment of the Democratic party. As one example, the US is directly responsible for bringing untold misery to Mexican farmers (for one) who had no choice but to leave their small farms when US corporate grown (and subsidized) corn was cheaper than what they could grow. A lot of them came to the US to find work and joined what I term a modern day slave class - sad but true. That is what is being called "free trade". It is the wording that is the problem. If you look at Sanders's stuff you will see that he never calls it "free trade" but calls it so-called free trade, etc. As for including it, it is in both of our additional articles, twice mentioned in one of them. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This article, which summarizes his positions at a high level, misrepresents him - a lot - by discussing only his opposition to TPP. We are talking about something like three words here. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, NAFTA, CAFTA, and China can be added but that's not what you did. You removed TPP and replaced it with "free trade". There's a big difference. BTW, I had a little time to look at your other edits and noted that you found the info re Greenspan "hilarious". I ret'd that info. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources. We cannot connect a vote for a trade deal 20 years ago with the TPP. We cannot report what Sanders says unless it is filtered through reliable secondary sources that take into account the different views on the subject. TFD (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please actually look at the free trade article. It mentions NAFTA in the first sentence and if you look at the opposition section, the arguments there = Sanders arguments. Gandy and TFD what exactly is your objection to linking to that article? In my view the best secondary source for his opposition to all free trade agreements is this from Vox which contextualizes things - making it clear it is probably the biggest difference between him and Clinton and has a quote from him saying that he has opposed all of them - the next best is this video I linked to above posted by Iowa Public Television (to the extent videos are ever good sources, but PBS is one of the most trusted news sources in america.

Gandy, yes, the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic Greenspan acknowledged that his model was flawed in a congressional hearing and it was made into a political "gotcha" with an edited video and added here in a SYN way to show that Sanders "won" the argument. We don't do gotchas in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is not our role to imply that Sanders is wrong, when no secondary sources make that comment. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY. TFD (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not using WP as a source. I am saying that our free trade article describes what Sanders is opposed to. Your claim that it is not, is made on your own authority as far as I can see. I asked you above to explain and you have not. Please do. Please also respond to the sources I suggested (Vox and Iowa Public Television) for his consistent opposition to free trade agreements. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Manual of Style/Linking: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." Readers who have better things to do than read the 200 articles linked to this one might assume that Sanders is opposed to what is commonly called "free trade", viz, where goods and services can be freely traded. Regardless of guidelines, it is wrong to misrepresent people in order to discredit them. TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, to say, "the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic" is a gotcha and to then say, "We don't do gotchas in WP" is a sad attempt to bias this article, IMO. If there were any doubt at all that anything that has been stated may not be accurate, that would be one thing, but there is not. In this bio we are restricted to just a few words related to each of Sanders's achievements and his history and we must do the best we can with those few words. If this were a long article in a magazine we'd have several paragraphs to cover this. We don't have several paragraphs to cover it here. I have added yet another ref, though it is a blog. However, considering that no controversy is involved I believe that it should be acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the trade issue.... Sanders has a very clear and consistent stance on the free trade agreements the US has negotiated and signed since and including NAFTA, and on US trade policy, and this is important to him and his economic vision for the US. I have provided two secondary sources I think are good for that and a wealth of primary sources, including statements by Sanders himself, to support that. Please respond. Thanks. This may be something we will have to bring to a dispute resolution process, but before going there I wanted to get a response to a concrete proposal. Which is, in the "Political positions" section, replacing:

• He is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

with something like:

• He has opposed all United States free trade agreements since NAFTA, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the US trade policy under which these agreements were negotiated and signed; he holds that these agreements have benefited large corporations at the expense of American workers and he proposes renegotiating the agreements to better protect American workers.

References

I haven't properly formatted the refs yet. Happy to tweak that (and notice that I didn't link to free trade - am trying to work with you here) but the content on his position on trade needs to be here. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gandy. It is a move in the right direction. It doesn't say that he holds that these agreements have harmed Amercian workers and that is a big part of what concerns him - that is what he always talks about when he talks about these agreements, and I tried to capture that above. But it is more accurate now than it was. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

actually it is fine now, as it starts with "disaster for the american worker." thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There has never been an objection to including that he was against the previous agreements (it most likely was missed when we had to highly abbreviate this page when we added another article), but it was the way you wanted to word it, calling it free trade. Even above you admit, free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers; protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here., and yet you have insisted on using the term "free trade" which sounds like a good thing, but Sanders objects to it. This is very basic George Lakoff stuff and I'm sure that you must know that. I really do not understand your objections here any better than I understand how you so snidely removed the Greenspan mention seemingly because you thought it was synth but now seem OK with it per your ref that is little different than the NPR ref, or even the YouTube as far as that goes. All in all this has been a very unpleasant experience and I hope that things will get back to normal here where we only need to discuss whether or not he's Jewish and/or a Socialist every few days. :=) Gandydancer (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Socialist in infobox?

I was surprised to see no mention of "socialist" in the infobox. I realize that's not the whole picture and never has been, but it is certainly part of the picture, major enough for the infobox IMO. [6] CometEncke (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Socialist means Obama to some (lol!) and more communist than today's People's Republic of China to others. The word is chic to some (whatever they think it means) and the Antichrist to others. It's better to use a less easily misunderstood term. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally put political ideologies in the infobox. For example. you will notice that Ronald Reagan's article doesn't have 'conservative' mentioned in the infobox nor does FDR's have 'progressive' in the info box. There are a few reasons for this. One, There are often more than one political ideology that can be ascribed to someone. Two, it's redundant as it is generally covered in the political positions section and categories. Three, there is often dispute over what actually counts as a socialist, liberal, conservative, etc. It's different for political parties since that's more or less official (e.g. Democrat, Green, Republican, independent). Alexander Levian (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

He clearly packages himself as a socialist, and has been described as one by both supporters and opponents. It seems prudent to include that basic fact in the infobox (while allowing readers looking for more context to read the political positions section. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what he calls himself. We don't put political ideologies in the infoboxes of other politicians. So why should we for this one? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, listing a politician's party affiliation is equivalent to listing their political views. Listing the Democratic Party and Independent doesn't really do Sanders' political view justice given his rather iconoclast positions/history. But, it appears that my position doesn't have much support and it's not an issue I'm going to push. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is neither desirable nor practical to list the ideologies of everyone in the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, democratic socialist and socialist are two fairly different concepts to begin with, and what Sanders actually means (the way Wikipedia has come down on those terms not withstanding), as far as I can tell, is that he supports social democracy, e.g. existing programs such as social security, medicare and even, perhaps, their expansion, etc. I generally agree with Levian. Any of these terms are simply too loaded to be left hanging without any context in an infobox. (You could twist my arm to include social democrat in the side bar if this wasn't a WP:BLP concern, less because he's embraced the term and more because of the endless edit wars that might result; we'll have yahoos arguing that he also embraces nationalism, so why doesn't that make him a national socialist, etc. etc.) -- Kendrick7^talk 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not put "socialist" in the infoboxes of socialist politicians, even when, unlike Sanders, they belong to socialist parties. Kendrick7 has a point too, the Wikipedia article socialism is not about socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders or modern Socialists mean. TFD (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundant autograph

The signature of Bernie Sanders is displayed twice in this article, on the right hand side, one below the other. Is this necessary? It seems rather redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ1817 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That happens because there are two sidebars; the officeholder infobox, and the Bernie Sanders sidebar. They also both have pictures of him. If you want to discuss removing the signature from the second sidebar, the place to do so would be at Template Talk:Bernie Sanders sidebar. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Does he qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors?

Is anyone able to find more references about his father please? When exactly did he move to the US? Would Bernie Sanders qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors? Has he spoken/written about this at length anywhere? Btw, is anyone able to find out if he is Orthodox, Conservative or Reform?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zigzig20s, Although there is no precise definition, the term "Holocaust survivor" is usually reserved for individuals who were actually in Nazi-occupied territory during the war. Judging form dating in the article, it appears probable that Sander's father left before the Invasion of Poland (most Poslish-Jewish immigrants to the U.S. came earlier than 1939). You would have to find the date of his emigration to know for sure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your response. I am hoping that we can figure it out together. If that is the case, what a great message it would send to the world for America to elect the child of a Holocaust survivor--freedom over barbarism! Either way, he must have written or talked about it, but I am not sure where to find reliable sources. I haven't read his book, Outsider in the White House, and anyway that wouldn't be a third-party reference. Perhaps journalists will ask him during the campaign and we'll be able to reference those interviews/articles then? But there must be some already. Please help me find them if you can. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s He emigrated in 1921. from Słopnice. [7]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Still, it would be nice for America to elect its first Jewish president--especially these days, with the rise of antisemitism globally. In any case, thank you for finding this out. I still wonder if he is Reform, Conservative or Orthodox though. One of his top advisors, Richard Sugarman, is Orthodox.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

insufficient for wiki-purposes as it would require some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but you can glean quite a bit from this article. Not orthodox. spoke at a conservative temple at least once. but most important, repeatedly described as secular or non-religious, so I think the whole R/C/O paradigm doesn't apply at all. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-is-proud-to-be-jewish-yet-low-key-on-religion/Content?oid=2758284. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Did he not attend a synagogue in Brooklyn as a child?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the articles I've seen, they attended mainly on holidays only, but he did attend hebrew school, but mainly went to get out of school and as social/cultural value. Regardless, where he went to 60+ years ago (primarily controlled by his parents) has not much to do with how we should describe (or think of) him now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It should absolutely appear in the "early life" section, but it has to be referenced and specific. Which synagogue, etc. Since he grew up in Brooklyn, it may be a historic/notable synagogue. Equally significant to know if he was raised as Orthodox or other.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

per my link above, he says he was not orthodox, but does not say what he was. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Senator Sanders has not made the details of his religious observance and/or lack thereof a significant part of his campaign, or of his public persona in general. I don't think we need to make an issue of it in the article. He's Jewish, we say he's Jewish, I don't see the need for much more than that. If I look at the Hillary Clinton article, will I learn how often she went to church as a teenager? I hope not. It's not relevant. Neutron (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reflection of political campaign ads. Indeed, that would be a form of COI, which we reject. His religious background is relevant. (HRC is a Methodist, but we're talking about Sanders here.) It would indeed be relevant to his article if he attended a notable synagogue in New York as a child/teenager, regardless of his campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are making a somewhat common error. What is notable/relevant to wikipedia, is that which has been covered, and the degree to which such coverage is WP:DUE here, is directly proportional to the amount of WP:WEIGHT and attention it is given in the real world. One may be able to dig and find a source that answers your question. But the fact that such extensive digging was required makes it very unlikely to be something that wikipedia wants here. If it was indeed a notable part of his biography, it would be written about in a sufficient number of sources that answering the question would be trivial (or if not answering the question, it should be easy to point out multiple sources discussing the question itself). What is notable/relevant can change on a case by case basis. For example, the details of Obama's religion is more notable, due to the various controversies that have arisen in that area. Indeed it is very easy to find dozens and dozens of top-tier reliable sources discussing the minutiae Obama's faith. of There are no similar controversies for Sanders. Hes Jewish. People have talked about that. We talk about it too (primarily to say hes Jewish, but not religious, which is what the sources spend their time saying). Nobody (or very few) has talked in any depth about his R/C/O status, or which temple he attended as a child. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No! Details matter, and we wouldn't add very much anyway. But this is exhausting. (Did you follow me from the HRC talkpage?) Unless you can be constructive and present references we could use, I am not interested in being patronized by you; please don't hound me. He is Jewish; it would be good to know if he was raised as Orthodox/Conservative/Reform and which synagogues he has attended.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the one asking to include information. The WP:ONUS is on YOU to provide the sources and to build consensus for inclusion. I did not follow you. WP:AGF Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This started as a very nice and collaborative discussion with User:E.M.Gregory. Please, User:Gaijin42, if you have nothing constructive to add, stop talking to me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I provided you with a link directly (or as directly as possible) answering the question you asked, and gave you policy based reasons why I disagree with your position. Constructive is not a synonym for "agrees with me". Gaijin42 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s, The Reform/Conservative/Orthodox classificaiton doesn't apply at all well to the Brooklyn of the 40s/early 50s. Only a few American Jews were Sabbath observers in tat era. The great majority of Jews might attend an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue or - very commonly - a synagogue organized by people from a particular village, mostly attended on the high holidays or personal occasions (saying kaddish, bar mitzvahs). Jews like this are sometimes called traditional (went to synagogue on the holidays, didn't eat pork). They were culturally Jewish and lived in Jewish areas, but not "religious" on the modern sense. There were also what is referred to in retrospect as "red diaper babies", i.e., the children of Marxist parents - this was also on a spectrum, both politically (the full Marxist spectrum had its Jewish adherents) and because some red diaper babies were taken to their grandparents synagogue on holidays, while many, many Jewish leftists were aggressively secular. Reform was for upscale neighborhoods and German Jews - not for Eastern European immigrants and their children. (The grandchildren of the 1880-1920 immigrants became Reform) Probably the majority of immigrants and their American-born children of Sanders generation were culturally Jewish in a passive way, attending on the holidays, but not observing much. Orthodox was a tiny minority, extremely unlikely to have included Sanders parents. It was very rare. I am painting here in broad, sweeping brush strokes. What might make be interesting would be to have articles on Sanders' parents. There are articles on Clinton's parents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethics questions

Questions have been raised in the Rutland Herald: [8], Vanity Fair:[9] and probably elsewhere about the ethics/propriety (not legality, it was legal) of hiring and paying a salary to his step-daughter and wife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The one article is over ten years old and the other one appears to be a hit piece (the tone is set with the first paragraph) based on an "investigation" by the "right-leaning" The Washington Free Beacon (hardly a reliable source). If this story grows legs then maybe it will be worth mentioning. As for now I'd consider this a non-issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet significance. I notice that the issue is not even mentioned in the Tom DeLay article. His payment of relatives is what started the enquiry. TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2016

Bernie Sanders is still technically an independent in the Senate, though he is caucusing with Democrats in the New Hampshire primary for the Presidency. Therefore, his political affiliation in the InfoBox should really be changed to "Independent, caucusing with Democrats". 24.229.229.102 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree TFD (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• disagree He officially joined the party on Nov 5. "I made a decision in this presidential election that I will run as a Democrat; I am a Democrat now," [[10]][[11]] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree that this info is encyclopedic. We can word it: "Independent, caucusing with Democrats" thru 5 November, 2015, when he joined the Democratic Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your text for the body somewhere, but thats too much for an infobox. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Childhood, youth

Lots of material about Bernie's childhood, youth, earliest political influences available in media interviews with Larry Sanders (Green Party). Flag User talk:Zigzig20s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposing subhead

• At present, Sanders' early political commitments - notably to desegregation/Civil Rights - are buried in a section headed: early life, education and family.
• I propose breaking them out starting from "Sanders joined the..." the 2nd sentence of paragraph 3 in the present childhood section, and moving the rest of that paragraph and the next paragraph through to its end: "as been a strong supporter of veterans' benefits." down the page into the next heading: Early Political Career, under a subhead entitled" Early political activism, or something similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• support Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)