Talk:Bernie Sanders

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.[8] 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, [9]), 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)

IP, you should move your campaign to the policy and guideline pages. TFD (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Related:

• http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/dictator.htm
• http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9222535/bernie-sanders-hitler-election
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/28/why-you-shouldnt-retweet-sanders-claim-that-hitler-won-an-election/

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested sentence for this BLP

“ According to the Washington Post, "Sanders’s history is wrong" with regard to 1932, but both the Post and Sanders himself refer readers to a defense of Sanders's history at the Vox website. ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Hitler never won an election and he was never voted into power. Sander's false quotation should be removed or corrected. (213.122.144.75 (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC))

Notable Media Portrayals

Hi there! After reading this article (especially the Personal life section wherein it describes Sanders' SNL appearance) would it be appropriate to have a minor "Portrayals" section, "Media Portrayals" section, "in popular culture" section, or something similarly titled? There are plenty of comedians who have done impressions of him, and some are very well-documented in reliable sources. For example:

Larry David is known to have done one for Saturday Night Live:

• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-larry-david-stars-in-bern-your-enthusiasm-gets-visit-from-sen-bernie-sanders-on-snl-20160207-htmlstory.html
• http://time.com/4211100/bernie-sanders-larry-david-bern-your-enthusiam/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-and-larry-david-form-a-dynamic-comedy-duo-on-saturday-night-live.html
• http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/02/07/larry-david-and-bernie-sanders-saturday-night-live/

James Adomian is known for his impressions, especially in the "Trump vs Bernie" debate series:

• http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/no_offense_larry_david_but_this_is_the_best_bernie_sanders_impression_in_the_game/
• http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-vs-bernie-comedy-series-fusion/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate/
• http://www.mediaite.com/online/funny-or-dies-bernie-sanders-proves-hes-not-boring/
• http://splitsider.com/2016/02/watch-james-adomian-and-anthony-atamanuiks-trump-vs-bernie-cnn-interview/
• http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/james-adomian-bernie-sanders-impression/
• http://www.thewrap.com/fusion-launches-trump-vs-bernie-starring-anthony-atamanuik-james-adomian/
• http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/02/09/comedians-james-adomian-and-anthony-atamanuik-to-square-off-as-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-at-rialto-theatre

and even Jimmy Fallon:

• http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/look_out_larry_david_jimmy_fallon_just_unleashed_a_killer_bernie_sanders_impression/
• http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/11/jimmy_fallon_did_a_perfect_bernie_sanders_impression_following_his_nh_victory.html
• http://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2016/02/11/jimmy-fallon-spoofs-bernie-sanders-orig-vstan-cws.

The comedic impressions are widely known and I believe they pass "Notability" tests. I'd be glad to discuss more. BBoyle81 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Do other politicians and celebrities have mentions of the people who portray them in comedy and the like listed in their articles? I'm not so sure there is a compelling reason to really mention this sort of thing. It's sort of a given that public figures are lampooned in comedy. Centerone (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

BBoyle81 It seems Bernie Sanders does not yet have a "Public Image" (or similar) section or subarticle, where this would kinda fit (at least a little of it). Then the sky is the limit, we have Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama in comics etc. For now, I think you could perhaps expand on Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Popular_media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nature of Sanders 2016 bid?

Ii there any part of the article where Sanders' central tenets/proposals for the Democratic nomination are explained in brief? i.e. making a "political revolution", fixing a corrupt campaign finance system, etc? Thanks.--TuCove (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Communist

Should we insert reference to Bernie Sanders as a communist? source: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/donald-trump-blames-our-communist-friend-bernie-sanders-for-chicago-clashes/ 182.255.99.214 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Sen. Sanders is not a communist just because Mr. Trump calls him one. Sanders does not advocate the abolition of private property ownership, government ownership of all industries and businesses, and the restriction of free speech, among other actual aspects of communism. Perhaps it could be posted(here or on the page about Sanders' campaign) that he was criticized as a communist, but we should not state that he is one. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that source is a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Polls

Really, polls about the presidential election or the primaries do not belong in an encyclopedia article. They get outdated very fast. They tend to be cherry picked. It is not our job to try and forecast the election.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of Mr. Sander's family name change

I do believe that his father not having his own page, it would be relevant to note his father's last name changed from Gitman to Sanders when he came to the country. Mr. Trump's grandfather has a wikipedia entry that details that the family name changed from Trumpf to trump upon coming to the US. Sanders has no such family entries, so I think it should be there in his "early life", in regards to his father.151.202.181.213 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Was the family name changed while he was alive? Or was it done before he was born? Centerone (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It is mentioned in a the footnote. We do not know however if he changed his name, since his father's surname according to the Geni.com was Sander and his two brothers had the surnames Sanders and Gutman. So unless you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this, we cannot expand the information provided in the article. TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Name changes were very common at one time. For instance, in my father's family the name Star-re-ha was changed to Starr. If I had a page I do not feel it would be encyclopedic and I don't feel it's worth a mention here either. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Father's Age at Death

There is a mathematical discrepancy regarding the age of Senator Sanders' father at death. The article states his father was 17 when he came to the United States in 1927, meaning he was born in 1910. Later it says that Senator Sanders' father was 57 when he died in 1962. If Bernie's father was born in 1910 and died in 1962 he was either 51 or 52 when he died depending on the month of his birth. Kruzich (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. The sources actually say he immigrated in 1921 and became a citizen in 1927. I have changed it. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisiting my close of Religion in infobox RfC

Hey folks. Apologies for bugging y'all about this again; I suspect we're all more or less exhausted of dealing with it. A handful of people have approached me about my close of this discussion with questions. Some I've been able to resolve through discussion (e.g. here, and here) and some from Xenophrenic that I haven't (these comments, this list of arguments against my close). Having reviewed the RfC again with the arguments in mind, here are the main conclusions I've come to:

• The RfC asked whether the infobox should read "Jewish" for the religion parameter. Much discussion was dedicated to the fundamental question of whether Sanders is religiously Jewish or not. With relevant guidelines, this was the primary lens I used to weigh arguments. To a lesser degree, there was also discussion about whether this information is appropriate for the infobox given the nature of the coverage available. I neglected to incorporate this factor into the arguments I weighed, and consequently, my closure statement.
• A reasonable argument was forwarded that coverage and direct speech related to Sanders' religious affiliation is fairly complicated, and that when we run into this kind of coverage (and there is a lot of it), we should consider describing it in prose. This approach allows us to summarize the varied perspectives present in reliable sources on this aspect of Sanders' life. Given the conflictory nature of reliable sources discussing Sanders' religion, the imprecise nature of the term "Jewish" as it can relate to something other than religion, and the limited direct speech from Sanders on the matter, it makes a great deal of sense to represent coverage of this particular facet of Sanders' biography in the article body rather than in the infobox.

I've struck the final section of my prior RfC close, and will refer to this section here. On the basis of the above arguments, consensus was to exclude the religion parameter from the biography infobox, which I will go ahead and do after posting this.

Finally, thanks to the editors who earnestly approached me on my RfC close and helped keep the conversation productive. I really, really appreciate it. With that said, I ask that any further concerns about this RfC be brought to the administrator's noticeboard for review from others; I feel like I have spent enough time and thought with this specific issue, and will not be commenting on it any further. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You've gotta be Fing kidding us. This is NOT NOT NOT unclear. Bernie Sanders is Jewish by his own admission and repeated statements, and by the very nature and texts of the religion. Centerone (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting terminology, "by his own admission", indicating a presumption it's something to hide. He's ethnically Jewish, but not religiously, which means the religion item is inappropriate. This should probably be hidden, we don't need to re-re-re-hash it again. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, uh, see that's the whole point; he IS religiously Jewish and it's not for a Wikipedia editor to determine what his religion is or to apply a specific religious test only to specific religions. Those editors such as yourself who believe that he is not religiously Jewish simply are either misinterpreting the things he has said, or are simply not familiar with the ways that Jews think about and define their religious identity. Centerone (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the info in this article about his Jewishness, I don't think anyone could seriously doubt that his ethnic Jewishness is a bigger part of his life than religious Jewishness. So you would have a much better argument for including "Ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox than "Religion: Jewish", but there's insufficient support for putting either one in the infobox. If there's any awful decision here, I think it's much more likely to be exclusion of ethnicity from the infobox, but I can understand why people would want to exclude it from the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone could seriously doubt that his ethnic Jewishness is a bigger part of his life than religious Jewishness." Say, what? If this isn't a fundamental sign of an obvious misunderstanding of Jewish identity, I don't know what is. The fact of the matter is that it is standard practice for a politician's religion to be in an infobox. Do ANY other prominent politicians or candidates for presidency have Ethnicity in their infobox instead of religion? I haven't checked them all, but I would guess not. To suggest that ethnicity is satisfactory, or even something that one should push for is to suggest that this person and their religion, a minority religion that is frequently maligned is absurd. This is holding Bernie Sanders and Judaism to a different standard, a different test, than other people or other religions.Centerone (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[10]Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of the exercise was to get some finality in the matter. There goes that. Jonathunder (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

BirdieSanders

• http://observer.com/2016/03/birdie-sanders-and-why-bernie-owns-the-internet/
• http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/25/bernie-sanders-rally-bird-portland-oregon-portlandia
• http://www.cnet.com/news/bernie-sanders-bird-encounter-leads-to-new-birdie-sanders-memes/
• http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/26/politics/bernie-sanders-bird-drawing-together/
• https://www.rt.com/usa/337313-birdiesanders-crowd-goes-wild/
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/12204823/Birdie-Sanders-Little-bird-steals-the-show-at-Democrats-rally-in-Portland.html
• http://time.com/4272885/bernie-sanders-bird-podium/
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510881/Birdie-Sanders-takes-flight-Bernie-wins-Alaska-caucus-looks-set-claim-Washington-Hillary-needed-campaign-*boost.html

Campaign released video of event:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhezYYiTUm0

^In response to the links, whomever posted them. Birdie Sanders exists as a #redirect to the Huma bird.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 08:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016

Please change the URL of the Bernie Sanders page to winner.com, as opposed to Donald Trump's being loser.com, because of the comic relief it provides at the daunting prospect of Donald Trump becoming the president of the United States of America. The people need to laugh in these times of uncertain yet probable disaster. Thank you. Acetylecholine (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Insufficiently funny. Favonian (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

The description of the purpose of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[89] is inaccurate, and worded in a politically slanted way.

The description of the purpose of the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[89] is inaccurate, and worded in a politically slanted way. It's purpose was clearly NOT to prevent manufacturers from being held liable for negligence, as stated.

Where it says:

• In 2005, he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[89] The act's purpose was to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products.

I propose it should read the exact description from the Wikipedia article about this legislation:

• In 2005, he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.[89] The act's stated purpose was to protect firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Request for comment: listing positions on particular issues in lead

Should the lead not only summarize his general stance on political issues, but also list particular issue positions (e.g. "a leading progressive voice on issues such as campaign finance reform, corporate welfare, global warming, income inequality, LGBT rights, parental leave, and universal healthcare") that are shared by millions of people, without the lead indicating any particular accomplishments by Sanders regarding those issues?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• No. The particular issue positions can be listed in the section of this BLP on political positions and/or at Political positions of Bernie Sanders, but his general stance on political issues should still be summarized in the lead of this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - The lead should also summarize particular issue positions. I don't see why it wouldn't. Provided the summary is brief (as it is in the nom's proposition). Per WP:LEAD; the lead ought to summarize article content. If his positions are discussed at length in the body of the article, it's completely appropriate they be summarized in the lead. NickCT (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The lead is supposed to explain the subject. TFD (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes I would suggest that the WP:LEAD contain a summary of every subsection of the article. This should include political positions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned by bot The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article; if the article discusses political positions, the lead should, too. If any of his accomplishments (bills passed, or speeches made, or something) this should be included, too. Obviously every issue does not require a specific accomplishment along with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, the lede should attempt to present a concise but still complete overview of the article per MOS:LEDE, and brief mentions of particular policy positions fall within that purview. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

As the person who started this RFC, I think it's unusual for a lead to provide a laundry list of particular issue positions for a politician, and this lead reads more like a political pamphlet than the lead of an encyclopedic article. The specific issue positions can be given later in this article, although even the body of this article may not be the best place; for example, see the Hillary Clinton article which not only keeps a list of issue positions out of the lead, but also out of the section on political positions too. In any event, it should definitely not be in the lead, IMHO. WP:Lead says the lead should "summarize the most important points", whereas a list of issue positions is not a summary, nor are those positions as important biographically as Sanders's own accomplishments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - re "I think it's unusual for a lead to provide a laundry list of particular issue positions for a politician" - It might be unusual, but that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'm not sure there's a specific policy argument against it. Aren't a politician's political stances the most important and notable points about the politician? NickCT (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

They're important, but they can be inferred from more general adjectives like "progressive Democrat". A summary in the lead can give his overall stance (progressive, conservative, liberal) which is a proper way to summarize, and any notable deviations from that orthodoxy can be mentioned in the lead too. I mean, we have a separate article about his political positions, and the corresponding section in this article can give a more complete summary than the lead gives. So, the lead is supposed to be a summary of a summary, and yet we're still giving particular positions in particular issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: - I don't disagree with you that what you're calling for might be a good way to do pages for politicians. That said, this seems more like a policy discussion than something to be figuring out on individual BLP's. I think it's still possible to mention particular positions when summarizing a persons political stance. I don't see the policy that would discourage doing so. NickCT (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The comparison with other politicians is not persuasive. While the most important points for most politicians is what offices they have held, for Sanders it is his policy positions. TFD (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

TFD, you said above that the lead is supposed to explain the subject, which is surely true. But the lead can explain the subject in different ways, right? Putting aside other politicians, I would think that a summary in the lead of the section on political positions (which itself is a summary of a separate article on political positions), does not need to provide a detailed list of policy positions, which can instead all be summarized by saying that Sanders is a progressive/liberal Democrat (of course, notable exceptions to that orthodoxy can be mentioned in the lead).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

While one could describe the subject in different ways, we need to follow neutrality, which says that emphasis should be placed on what is considered most important in rs. Sanders before running for president was best known for his political positions, and that is the central focus of his campaign and what distinguishes him from other Democrats who did or might have sought the nomination. Clinton for example calls herself a "progressive who gets things done," and so perhaps her policy positions are less significant, or consistent for that matter. TFD (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger, you said above that the WP:LEAD should contain a summary of every subsection of the article, including political positions. Of course that is correct. The question here is not whether to summarize, but how to summarize.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On the issue of Bernie Sanders' vote on the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act

The quote used in the paragraph narrating his tenure in the US House of Representatives is misleading.

Here's the sentence concerned:

'In 1994, Sanders voted in favor of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, declaring on the floor of the House that "clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them".[86][87]'

One believes after reading this that Sanders was fully supportive of the act, and particularly of its most controversial aspect: putting "superpredators"(term used by FLOTUS Hillary Clinton then) behind bars. He appears to have been completely OK with the massive incarceration of African-Americans that this reform engendered. Yet today he points in every speech at the consequences of this reform. People reading this could very easily believe he participated actively in the promotion of this reform. This is not the case at all. The quote is a concession, not the main thesis of his argument. It is actually the full transcript of his only concession in this intervention.

The reference [86] leads to the official Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994). There, Sanders' whole intervention on the floor of the House can be read.

Here's a longer transcript including the quote, showing that Sanders believed that this Act was not the solution and that though he voted for it, he was very concerned about its most controversial aspect:

" Mr. Speaker, it is my firm belief that clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them. But it is also my view that through the neglect of our Government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities, we are dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence."

And if one would bother reading his whole intervention, he could also find earlier in the transcript:

"Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?"

And his concluding statement, that shows that his opinions were actually totally opposite those that he appears to bear in the Wikipedia article:

" Mr. Speaker, let us create a society of hope and compassion, not one of hate and vengeance."

Please change this as soon as possible in order not to mislead more people.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibaal75 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and you are right. (BTW, did you catch Democracy Now today where this issue was discussed) I've thought this way and that way about how to go about fixing this and feel pretty dumb about how to do it. IMO it shows that Sanders has all along understood that one needs to look for causes rather than just results, etc., but on the other hand there is no reason to clobber Clinton... Any thoughts on how to add to/change what we've got? Gandydancer (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No I don't follow Democracy Now, but I read about the Black Lives Matter heckling Clinton. That's just fine, he should expect some harsh tactics from these activists to keep this issue being discussed in the public debate. Clinton is really overrated as the first African-american president. He attacked criminals (of whom many if not most in many regions are from minorities), and by doing this he gained the support of black communities and black upper classes, who wanted to separate itself from its 'bad elements' (alike Cosby's pound cake speech). I think they hoped mainstream blacks would face less discrimination if there was less black crime. anw Bernie was right then.

   Change this:
 
   In 1994, Sanders voted in favor of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,  declaring on the floor of the House that "clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them".[86][87] Sanders also said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."[88]

    to that:

  In 1994, Sanders voted in favor of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."[88] He was nevertheless extremely critical of the other parts of the bill. He declared on the floor of the House:
 

"Mr. Speaker, how do we talk about the very serious crime problem in America without mentioning that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, by far, with 22 percent of our children in poverty and 5 million who are hungry today? Do the Members think maybe that might have some relationship to crime? How do we talk about crime when this Congress is prepared, this year, to spend 11 times more for the military than for education; when 21 percent of our kids drop out of high school; when a recent study told us that twice as many young workers now earn poverty wages as 10 years ago; when the gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and when the rate of poverty continues to grow? Do the members think that might have some relationship to crime?"

Though he acknowledged that "clearly, there are some people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them", he maintained that the government's ill-thought policies played a role in "dooming tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime, and violence".[86][87]

Maybe it is too long, but such an important issue shouldn't be so quickly dealt with like in the article now.--Hanibaal75 (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I just changed it partly (w/o the long quote) but I don't know yet how to do it properly. I couldn't fix it by normally editing I had to edit the source. Hopefully someone will fix this w/o going back to the old misleading sentence.--Hanibaal75 (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)