Talk:Bernie Sanders

What are the requirements of WP:BLPCAT , WP:SELFPUB, and WP:CAT/R?

Regarding the press packet, per WP:SELFPUB, you have to establish "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", right? Or is your claim that this part of the Sanders BLP is not supposed to be "based primarily on such sources"? Feel free to move these questions, and any answer you may have, up to the discussion section of the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

No. the "self-identify" portion of WP:BLPCAT must be satisfied by a direct quote from the individual, not by something written by someone who works for him, including anonymous writers of PDFs that can be found on that person's website. Nobody doubts that someone working for Bernie Sanders' campaign wrote that, so it is a RS for most uses. It may even have been written by Sanders himself or approved by Sanders himself, or he could know nothing about it -- it certainly never made it out of that PDF and into the HTML of his campaign or congressional websites. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I brought up SELFPUB is because BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question...." BLPCAT doesn't say that a statement at one's website is not self-identification unless the website specifically says it was authored by the person having overall control of the website. What am I missing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality applies to categories and not to articles and infoboxes. Personally, I think we should accept that any information about Sanders that is posted on his official government webpage is accurate or it would have been corrected. I don't believe a direct quote is a requirement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It says, "This advice applies ... to ... templates normally used in articles". So it does seem applicable here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

To clarify for some editors, Wikipedia has several rules and requirements regarding this matter. We can't pick and choose which rules to ignore and which to follow, based on what supports our position or argument at the time. The set of rules taken as a whole convey just how seriously Wikipedia takes the subjects of gender, religion and ethnicity — and how Wikipedia editors must exercise the utmost care and sensitivity when handling such content.

applies to categories and not to articles and infoboxes -- Liz

Incorrect. "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation" Please note that with regard to self-identified religious beliefs, Liz's linked page refers to Anythingyouwant's linked page, and vise versa.

BLPCAT doesn't say that a statement at one's website is not self-identification -- Anythingyouwant

What is said regarding religious self-identification, however, is that before we can simply label someone in an Infobox or Category field, a label "regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." A .PDF file of unknown origin is not "direct speech".

per WP:SELFPUB, you have to establish "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", right? -- Anythingyouwant

No. It's an "authentic" .PDF file of unknown origin; there is no indication who generated it. We only assume it was approved by Sanders, or someone appointed by him with authority to approve, since it is linked to his Senate Bio page. A .PDF file is not "direct speech", regardless.

These are not the only Wikipedia rules that apply to our use of that .PDF file. For example, has the content been contradicted or superseded by other reliable sources (like Sanders' own "direct speech" comments on his religion or affiliation with organized religions)? Have other errors or vagueness been found in the source which might raise red flags (like saying he won a mayor race by 12 votes, while his official bio and Wiki-article say 10 votes)? Does the source contain "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in biographies of living people? This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them." (*cough*) Xenophrenic (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

From WP:BLPCAT: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any wiggle room that allows us to use a PDF created by an anonymous staffer. It isn't self-identification and it isn't direct speech by Bernie Sanders himself.

Also, as Xenophrenic correctly pointed out earlier, Bernie Sanders' Official Senate Bio, conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God, while many of his Senate colleagues ([1], [2], [3], etc.) do. The PDF file has so many factual errors (saying he was elected mayor by 12 votes instead of 10, saying he was born in NYC instead Brooklyn, mixing up Judaism and Jewish, etc) that I don't believe for a moment that Bernie Sanders ever read that PDF. If he had he would have asked someone to correct the glaringly obvious factual errors in it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, if you want the RFC closer to take into account the words "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs...." then I recommend you quote those words in the RFC discussion, not just in this later section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:CAT/R is satisfied by Sanders serving in an official clerical position for the religion. See this source: "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, 'I know the blessings,' and recited them in Hebrew."[4] Furthermore, it is not a "factual error" for his official senate bio to say that he was born in New York City. While it is true that it could have said that he was born in Brooklyn, it is also true that Brooklyn is one of the five boroughs of New York City. Nor is it an "error" to use the term "Jewish". This simply refers to the Jewish religion. Guy Macon says "I don't believe for a moment that Bernie Sanders ever read that PDF"[5]. But this isn't what matters. The opinions of individual editors in the absence of reliable sources is original research. Does Guy Macon have a source indicating that Sanders is not aware of the content of his own official Senate bio? What matters is that we have support in reliable sources, in this case a press kit from Sanders' official Senate bio, reading "Religion: Jewish" Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Bus stop (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Riiiiight. So US Senator Rob Portman, A United Methodist since 1986, is not only Jewish, but is the the holder of an official clerical position in Judaism? After all, he was once asked to light the menorah[6] Now you are just being silly. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! It turns out that Nevada Senator (and Latter-day Saint) Harry Reid also "serves in an official clerical position in Judaism"![7] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were making an attempt at levity, or if you were being serious. If the latter, then please be advised that the public lighting of the menorah candles and reciting the blessings by elected officials has been common for the past 30 years (many presidents have done the same, in fact, although probably not without assistance), and has nothing to do with "serving in an official clerical position", which Sanders didn't do, and isn't required. Your observations about the inaccuracies and vagueness found in that .PDF file don't negate the fact that the inaccuracies and vagueness exist. If Guy Macon suspects that Sanders might never have closely read that .PDF file, you are correct that his opinion "isn't what matters". What matters is that we don't know the origin of the .PDF file, and it isn't "direct speech"; we know that Sanders' Official Senate Bio doesn't mention his religion (while the bios of his colleagues do), and neither does his Official Campaign Site or his two autobiographies - odd, no?; we know that Sanders has given "direct speech" about his lack of participation in organized religion and religious beliefs; and we know that "Religion: Jewish" is absolutely not a clear, unambiguous 'key fact' summary of Sanders' religion. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: the following is an attempt at levity... The humor-impaired might want to skip to the next post now. One day an American tourist was visiting the holy land with a church group. He saw some oddly-dressed men doing something in front of a stone wall, and the only English-language sign he could see from where he was just said "Western Wall". One of the fellows walking away from the wall gave him a friendly smile, so he asked, "excuse me, but what were you doing over there?" "I was praying. This is a special place where we Jews pray." "If you don't mind me asking, what were you praying for?" "Well, today I expressed gratitude to God for his many blessings and then prayed that he would help the editors of Wikipedia to stop fighting and work together." "Does that help?" "It's like talking to a wall!" --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As concerns direct speech, we have "I'm proud to be Jewish."[8] We do not need the word "religion" thrown in there. A person saying that he is proud to be Jewish does not have to add that he is referring to the Jewish religion as that would constitute a statement too complex for normal everyday speech. The statement as is, is more than sufficient. Bernie Sanders has served in an official clerical position for the religion thus satisfying WP:CAT/R. "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, 'I know the blessings,' and recited them in Hebrew."[9] It is in his capacity as a Jew that Sanders effectuated Jewish Law thus acting "in an official clerical position for the religion". This is just my opinion but I am hopeful that other editors knowledgeable of Judaism will weigh in on this. Also we know that it is reliably sourced that Sanders sporadically participated in quintessentially religious rituals. While he is definitely not Orthodox, we have it reliably sourced that he has from time to time involved himself in some of the rituals of Judaism. For instance: "Today, Senator Sanders does not regularly attend any synagogue in Washington or Vermont, though he does show up for rituals like the yahrzeit — the anniversary of a death — of the father of a close friend, Richard Sugarman, who teaches philosophy in the religion department at the University of Vermont."[10] Or another example: "But he appeared later that day with Lynchburg’s mayor for the Rosh Hashana ritual of tashlikh, the symbolic casting of sins into a stream."[11] These are quintessentially Jewish religious rituals: chanukah, yahrzeit, tashlikh. For whatever reasons he chose to indicate his place of birth as New York City, this does not constitute an "error". And saying that his religion is Jewish, as in "Religion: Jewish" is simply standard terminology. No one is saying that Sanders is Orthodox but we have more than enough support in sources for placing the religion designation in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As for direct speech, we still need a source. As you've been told before, Sanders' "I'm proud to be Jewish" response was in response to a "Jewish Heritage" question, in the context of dual citizenship with Israel. Our discussion is about religion. Is it your intent to keep regurgitating refuted fallacies over and over and over again? And now your dubious (and sometimes just laughable) personal opinions about what constitutes a reference to religion, or what constitutes an "official cleric" of a religion are also repeated. Over the past 4 decades, he has attended or participated in rituals at special request or as a favor to close friends, like yahrzeit, Christmas tree lighting, tashlikh, dressing up as Santa, Chanukah candle lighting, hiding easter eggs and attending Christmas parties. Your point was ... what? What is it you have against Sanders, anyway? In matters of religious beliefs, we must adhere to the subject's self-identification. It's policy with sound reasoning behind it. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking for expressions of "belief". Traditionally a Jew is a person born a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Who, me? I'm not looking for anything. Just reminding you of Wikipedia policy: ""These principles apply equally to ... Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs..." It appears that your beef is with Wikipedia. As for "a person born a Jew", you'll have to discuss that with someone else. I'm only concerned with the "|Religion=" field. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are looking for expressions of belief, are you not? What else do you mean when you say "In matters of religious beliefs, we must adhere to the subject's self-identification"? But you are barking up the wrong tree. Even if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew you would not find "beliefs". You would find practices. You would find actions. An Orthodox Jew is not a person who holds different beliefs from a non-Orthodox person. An Orthodox person engages in practices and actions that distinguish him from a non-Orthodox person. Practices and actions such as chanukah, yahrzeit, and tashlikh. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Answering each of your 2 questions in order: (1) No. — (2) That's Wikipedia policy, so ask at WP:BLPN. — I skipped over the rest as not germane to the discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, Bus stop. Orthodox Jews often believe in Kaballah teachings, which revolve around belief, not practice. Further, "practice" within Judaism doesn't really change and all practices within Judaism are taught in Hebrew School. Whether or not someone who becomes a Bar or Bat Mitzvah chooses to engage in those practices is up to them as an individual, not the sect of Judaism they belong to. Your analogy is quite flawed, obviously out of ignorance, spurred by what would seem to be an agenda of bludgeoning other editors on this issue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Kaballah represents an exceptionally mystical aspect of Judaism. You are correct about that. Bus stop (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

But not all orthodox Jews believe in Kaballah. Let's face it, there is a huge variety of belief and practice in most religions. In Judaism in particular there is a huge difference between Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox practices. Also, there are tons of Jews who don't attend or maintain memberships in Synagogue at all, and aren't a part of any of those groups, but can still be accepted as Jews by religion. Centerone (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The good news is that we don't have to figure out such a complex situation. All we have to do is to find a direct quote where the individual himself self-identifies as belonging to a particular religion, make sure it meets the other requirements, and put it in the infobox. Or, if we cannot find that direct quote, leave it out of the infobox and cover it in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Centerone, you missed the point. Bus stop stated, "Even if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew you would not find "beliefs". You would find practices. You would find actions. An Orthodox Jew is not a person who holds different beliefs from a non-Orthodox person. An Orthodox person engages in practices and actions that distinguish him from a non-Orthodox person." As I showed above, his entire premise is wrong. And, because his premise was defending the addition of "Jewish" in the infobox, that makes his argument invalid and not germane to the discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi—"...Sanders’ Judaism deemphasizes the traditional, tangible elements of the religion..."[12] Why would anyone argue that his religion is not Judaism when a source explicitly speaks of "Sanders’ Judaism"? The Jerusalem Post would be a reliable source, would it not? Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a RS. Just as all the other RSs that exist online which state Sanders' Judaism is not religion-related, rather, heritage-related. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi—I've seen no source saying that Sanders' Judaism is "heritage-related"[13]. If you wouldn't mind would you please bring such a source and quote an excerpt from it as I am doing here: "...Sanders’ Judaism deemphasizes the traditional, tangible elements of the religion..."[14] Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, you referred in this section to WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." But did you quote that in the RFC, or refer to WP:CAT/R? If not, then the closer may not consider it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The closing admin (any RfC this contentious is not a suitable candidate for a non-admin closure) may consider any Wikipedia policy or guideline, not just those that somebody happens to bring up. Many RfCs are closed with a determination by an experienced administrator that everybody on both sides of the debate missed a key policy that settles the question. See Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

They may consider it, or they may not, if you don't mention it. If you assume they'll automatically consider all pertinent policies and guidelines, then there's hardly any point in even commenting in such an RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic mentioned WP:CAT/R and pointed out the direct speech requirement during the RfC discussion.[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be one of those situations where regardless of what the closer decides, there will be a large enough contingent of pissed off editors that the close decision gets put under review. That is usually when the interested parties scream, "But you didn't even consider WP:XXX policy in your close decision!" However, you can only force a limited amount of "reconsideration" before the matter gets dropped in ArbCom's lap. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This should probably go there anyway. The previous ArbCom case about "infobox warriors" was clearly insufficient to get the point across. While they won't rule on the content issue, they can topic-ban the people who will fight about this to the death, then the rest of the editorship will come to a calm and common-sense decision and move on without their "input".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just the fact alone that there's so much argument here over whether Sanders is religiously Jewish is enough to say that we should just leave it out of the Infobox. People can read the article to learn about Sanders' religious and cultural heritage and beliefs. There are people whom it would be very easy to label "Religion: Jewish," but Sanders is clearly a more difficult case. Just let people read the body of the article, and let's quit this useless argument - it does nothing to improve the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• That would be the obvious solution, wouldn't it? That is, if it weren't for those who see leaving the field blank as an antisemitic attempt to hide Sanders' Jewishness. From the view of that psychology, compromise is not an option. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The question of Sander's connection to religion is covered in -- if anything excessively great -- detail in the article. Placement in the Infobox is clearly inappropriate, as per the policies cited above. Let's move on. HGilbert (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler quote

Hitler never won an election. The quotation by Sanders should be corrected. (81.135.14.93 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

• Yeah, we can't possibly allow Sanders' words to stand on their own. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Or we could all read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and consider that some systems choose whoever wins the plurality instead of the majority, instead of assuming that all elections work just like they do in the United States. Hitler won the most votes in the 1932 election, and again the following year -- in other words, he won those elections. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler never won an election, and Sanders is wrong about this. In the final free election the Nazis lost support. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

This was discussed before. Technically, first ministers in constitutional democracies are appointed by the head of state, but reliable sources generally use the term "elected," even when their party fails to obtain a majority of votes or seats as happened with David Cameron's first "election" as PM. Furthermore policy does not allow us to provide our own spin on what people say. TFD (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

A note should be added to say that Hitler never won an election. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Hitler was not elected. He was appointed Chancellor. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

Indeed. And David Cameron was not elected PM, he was appointed by the Queen. But reliable sources say he was elected and Wikipedia, in keeping with "Verifiability" policy says that too. If you want to correct this, I suggest you begin by writing a letter to The Times. TFD (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cameron was elected in 2015, but not in 2010 when there was a hung parliament. Hitler was never elected, and there should be a corrective note next to the quotation or it should be removed as it is misleading. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

The Times say Cameron was elected and re-elected.[16] Write a letter to them, get reliable sources to stop it, and stop singling out one person. BTW since Cameron's name did not appear on any ballots except in his own constituency, it is incorrect to say he was elected PM. But that's how the papers phrase it. TFD (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cameron wasn't elected in 2010, which is why there was a coalition government instead of a Conservative government. He was only elected in 2015. Hitler was not elected in 1932, which is why he was not appointed Chancellor until months afterwards in the following year. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC))

The prime ministerial system can be really hard to understand, can't it? HGilbert (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cameron wasn't elected in 2010. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

The quote says "Won an election" not "Was elected" Hitler, as leader of the NSDAP won both elections in 1932. He didn't win a majority in either of them but won the plurality in both. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he won either of the 1932 elections. If he had he would have been appointed Chancellor in 1932. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Was Hitler elected?

That quote is wrong and should be removed. (165.120.157.155 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC))

The quote itself is an accurate reproduction from a reliable secondary source (CSM). So it should stay as is. However, a clarifying sentence about Hitler's actual selection as chancellor is probably needed. jxm (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Nazis came in first place in the German federal election, March 1933 by a large margin, though they needed a coalition partner (the fifth place party) to establish a government. Granted it was probably not a "clean" election so clarification is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The election in question was either the German federal election, July 1932 or November 1932, both of which Hitler won as leader of the NSDAP. There's no error in Sanders' statement and there's reliable sourcing that he made the statement. So where's the issue? Note Hitler and his party also won elections in March and November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938, and Hitler himself was elected in his own seat several times from 1925 to 1932. SPACKlick (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The two 1932 elections were "cleaner" than the 1933 one. Clean enough to be considered free? I wouldn't know, I know very little about them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. I had made the edit change based on the existing referenced source (Sathish, [17]), which appears to be a little incomplete on detail. jxm (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler was never elected, and in the last fair election (in 1932) his party lost support. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Hitler was never elected, which is why he did not become Chancellor in 1932. He was appointed in 1933 without an election. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

That appears to be a topic better discussed at the Hitler article. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Including that false claim by Sanders is misleading - the German people never voted Hitler into power. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

It's neither a false claim, nor misleading. This is also not the right article to be arguing that point. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a false claim, because Hitler lost both elections in 1932. Had he not been appointed Chancellor in 1933 by a senile President Hindenberg it's likely the Nazi Party would not have survived. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

People do not elect first ministers into power, they are appointed by heads of state. But reliable sources typically say they are elected. For example an article in CNN yesterday refers to Canadian Prime Minister, who is visiting Washington, as having been elected to that position. Indeed the U.S. president was not elected by the people either, he was selected by a 535 member electoral college. Instead of arguing about it here, you need to develop a guideline that says we must report the de jure rather than de facto process. TFD (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither Hitler nor his party were elected to government. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

Misleading? No. I'm fairly certain our readers do not come to the Bernie Sanders article to learn about which political positions Hitler gained through "election", "appointment", "selection", etc., and the information is attributed to Sanders anyway, not presented in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. So there is no issue here. Sanders' point was that he discovered how important politics was after learning about Hitler. He has made the same point during many speeches and in many interviews, often without even using the word "election". It's a non-issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler was not elected, and 50 million people did not die because he became Chancellor. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 ensured there would be another major war. If it hadn't been Hitler leading Germany in World War II then it would have been someone else. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

This is the third or fourth discussion thread. No first ministers are appointed not elected, but reliable sources generally refer to it as election. And speculation about alternative histories is way beyond the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

TFD, you do realize that they were all started by the same person, right? 81.135.14.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 86.133.254.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 81.132.49.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 213.122.111.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 165.120.157.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for what it's worth. Let me know if you run out of food ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The quotation is too simplistic since Hitler was never elected, and the French invasion of Germany in 1923 ensured World War II far more than his appointment as Chancellor. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC))

No. Quotes are quotes. And I checked, Sanders was quoted correctly. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

First full time job

Sanders "didn’t collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927#ixzz42I78STMD Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Would you like the whole quote included or the short hand version?

--MXfurry (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you posting a request for another editor? Sanders' career is well explained in the article without editorial comment. Is there any reason why you want to use this source? I notice the writer has written disparaging articles about all major candidates except Hillary Clinton. TFD (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

MXfurry, I don't think "first steady paycheck" is necessarily the same thing as "first full-time job". A person can be a full-time contractor, or self-employed on a full-time basis, but still not have a "steady paycheck". There's also the question of relevance and due weight -- the source also says he was making $33,800, "more than he ever had" (page 2). Does that belong in the Wikipedia article as well? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is spin. From 1993 to 2001 Hillary Clinton did not receive a steady paycheck. In fact she has not had a steady paycheck since she left the Obama administration. She has been freelancing, obtaining occasional speaking fees, working at most an hour or so here or there. TFD (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, but quite well-spun spin, would you not say? HGilbert (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliation revisited

Per a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, I've reviewed the discussion about how Sanders' party affiliation is shown in the infobox, which is now in Archive 6. I'm sympathetic to the view that "The situation is adequately described in the "Party affiliation since 2015" section of the article, and need not be oversimplified in the infobox", and have addressed that concern by adding a dagger to the "Political party" piece of the infobox, which when clicked takes the reader to that "Party affiliation since 2015" section. I trust that this is acceptable to all, but please do discuss this if you have any issues. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Quinnipac poll

Re [18]. I'd think my edit summary was sufficiently explanatory: this is one poll among hundreds, why is that particular one notable? Polls from December of the previous year are useless when it comes to actual general election. Ask any professional pollster or political scientist. This is cherry picked. And this violates WP:NOTNEWS. Why aren't we including all the other polls, or, say, betting odds, from bookmakers? The inclusion of this is obviously for POV reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)