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)

Adding health update

Today Senator Sanders underwent or is currently undergoing an "elective hernia procedure" in Washington, D.C.. Should we add this to the article as an update on his personal life? Sources -> NBC News, CNN News, and ABC News. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it carries enough weight. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A big issue to me with an older candidate like this is indeed health and longevity. I would like to see added some data about how old his parents lived to be -- or maybe they're still alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Front-runner for Time Person of the Year

Should it be acknowledged that Bernie maintains a strong lead as the front-runner for TIME's Person of the Year according to recent polls? Voting closes on December 4 at 11:59pm and he's at a 10.5% (1st place) compared to Malala Yousafzai's 5.6% (2nd place). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer Thanks for the feedback! Where would this info be added? Header? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (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)

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 [1] [2] [3]. 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)