Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Democrat/Independent

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See closing analysis. wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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)
• include transition info in body, not in infobox 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," [[1]][[2]] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Except he has not taken out membership in the Democratic Party. In accepting the nomination of the Liberal Party of New York, John Kennedy said, "I am a Liberal." But he was not a member of the Liberal Party,[3] he was a member of the Democratic Party. I could say I am a member of the U.S. Senate, that would not make me one. TFD (talk) 16:18, 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)

I think there needs to be a discussion of Sanders' Party affiliation/s - BOTH in the infobox AND in its own section on the page. For my entire life I have known one thing about Sanders - that he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. It was like knowing that Buchanan was a bachelor, or that Andy Jackson served a giant cheese. It made them unique. Except, the Jackson cheese was not as trivial as it sounds. His administration truly did mark a transition from a government by "gentlemen of property and standing", to a more egalitarian government. We need to address this extremely distinctive and meaningful fact about Sanders: That was and is famous for being neither elephant nor donkey. The page needs to put the facts about his unique attitude towards Party in a subsection and on the infobox. What was he and when? And why? The people want to know!E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your RFC needs to be reformed to ask a question more succinctly to those who haven't been previously been involved in this conversation. In any case, I agree 100% that it should be discussed in the body, but thats a lot of info for an infobox. Perhaps "Democrat (previously independent)"? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a discussion in the body. As for the infobox, I'm not sure what to do, if anything. It seems that there are two opposing statements: "I'm a Democrat now" and "he is still technically an Independent in the Senate," both correct AFAIK. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reformulate
• 1.) Discussion in body of article on the history of Sanders party affiliations should be expanded.
• 2.) Infobox be changed to "Political Party:Democratic/Independent" with a footnote explaining that on Nov. 5, 2015 Sanders registered as a Democrat in Vermont, but in the Senate he is still listed [4] as Independent. And retaining Independent and Liberty Union Party as currently listed following "Other political affiliations" in infobox.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to register as a member of a political party in Vermont. Vermont does not provide any mechanism to do this. See previous discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that he is both an Independent and a Democrat at the same time, for different purposes. I realize this is probably beyond the capacity of Wikipedia to handle, because we like to be able to condense reality into single words in infoboxes, but it is nevertheless true. He was elected to his current office as an independent and the official Senate web site (http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ ) lists him as "I". I suspect the reason for that is that he has never written to the Secretary of the Senate and said "I am a Democrat now, please change my listing.") Whatever the reason, he appears to still be an Independent for purposes of his service in the Senate, though this fact has no practical effect anyway because he is part of the Democratic caucus. (Which is why he can be "ranking member" of a committee, which he is.) For other purposes, such as running for President and apparently for purposes of any future campaigns for office (presumably including future campaigns for re-election to the Senate, if any), he is a Democrat. Neutron (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

24.229.229.102 is correct. He is not a Democrat. This is very misleading. Even though he is filing in the Democratic campaign, he is not a democrat. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/bernie-sanders-democrat-or-independent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.184.33 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I've been able to tell over the years since I've been personally aware of him (since the mid 1990s), Bernie Sanders has never been a Democrat or a member of the Liberty Union Party. He's been offered both the Democratic Party of Vermont and the Progessive Party of Vermont nominations for U.S. Sentate a number of times in the past, but he's always turned them down to run as an Independent. From what I understand, he came out of the "Progressive Coalition" (now called the Progessive Party in Vermont) tradition in Burlington, but I don't know that he was ever directly affiliated with them as a political office holder in ther past. He has also always reliably caucased with Democrats in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate for several decades now. He is, right now, an Independent running for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States of America in the 2016 elections.

It is true that there's technically no way to officially register with the State of Vermont as a member of any political party, but that hasn't stopped many, many local & state political office holders from identifying themselves as Democrats, Republicans, etc. where Party affliations are allowed under local law. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, the point is that he is listed by the United State Senate as an Independent : [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that he should be listed primarily as an independent with the notation that he has identified as a Democrat for purposes of his presidential campaign. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way to explain it - as a footnote, or parenthetically? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea, maybe someone else can implement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This would be the most factually accurate way. Mr. Sanders is still himself an independent running for the nomination of the Democractic party. If elected president, he would then be in office as a Democrat; until such time, he is an independent. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that this consensus revision was undone by User:Anythingyouwant later in the evening on January 31. I restored the consensus version. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. I did not notice this discussion when I made the change. My bad. All the same, I think my edit was correct as a factual matter. No one here at this talk page has addressed the sources that I cited in that edit. For example, according to the first source I cited: "Sanders says he’ll run as a Democrat in future elections. He says, 'I am running as a Democrat obviously, I am a Democrat now.'" Additionally, I get hundreds of hits at the U.S. Senate website saying Sanders is a Democrat,[6] as well as many hits from the Senate website saying that he's an independent, so I don't think the Senate website matters much (they may be slow to update party affiliation). There's tons more of evidence about this, such as the following: PBS: "Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., speaks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 15, 2015.” Wall Street Journal: "The Democratic Party also said its two presidential hopefuls, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.), would hold a debate in Flint on March 6 as a way to draw attention to the contaminated-water issue." CBS: "Sen Bernie Sanders (D-VT) responded to criticisms that his campaign was too 'idealistic,' and showed optimism about his chances in South Carolina." I have started a news subsection in the BLP about his party affiliation.[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agree for Independent He is still listed as an Independent at Congress.gov under his member biography. Were he identifying as a Democrat, this would reflect the change. I am amenable to there being an asterisk or something to explain why he is a Democrat in New Hampshire for the purpose of the primary, but not a Democrat federally. He is listed as an Independent with Govtrack. He is listed as an Independent with the Sunlight Foundation's OpenCongress. I could go on with the number of places that are neutral or definitive and list him as an Independent. Abesottedphoenix (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

One can be registered as a Democrat and sit in the Senate as an independent(or even as a Republican if they wanted). It doesn't mean they aren't members of the party. On several occasions(including when he filed in New Hampshire) he has said "I'm a Democrat". 331dot (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• The situation is adequately described in the "Party affiliation since 2015" section of the article, and need not be oversimplified in the infobox or the lead. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference no. 32 behind a paywall or something

"Smith, Nicola (January 17, 2016). "Bernie ropes in British brother for showdown with Clinton". Sunday Times (London). Retrieved January 22, 2016." http://search.proquest.com/news/docview/1757568267/fulltext/9A72304BC0D7442APQ/3?accountid=10226 That gets me to a page asking for authentication. Could someone please find a better link? RenniePet (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem with finding other references, though paywalls are not barriers to posting a reference here. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Please change the "D" to "I" in Sanders description. The Senate.gov web site still lists Bernie Sanders as an Independent. He is a running as a Democratic candidate, but he is still the "Independent" senator from VT. Details like this matter. 24.224.86.191 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: There is currently a discussion above (found at #Democrat.2FIndependent) about this issue. Please join the discussion there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Moving paragraph about religion to section on religion

I moved a paragraph about religion to the section on religion. This was reverted. The edit summary says: "I don't see any consensus on the talkpage. Correct me if I'm wrong." Please see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". If no one disagrees with the edit, then why revert it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought the 'religion' subsection was about his own religion. It's not a big deal though. Having said that, should we not add a bit more about his ex-wife? The Daily Mail mentions her in this article, but it would be preferable to find a better/more reliable source. The DM mentions "Wikipedia" btw lol.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the subheader just says "religion" and not whose religion. Anyway, that paragraph also discusses Bernie Sanders's admiration for the Pope, so it's about Bernie Sanders too, not just his wife. As far as the Daily Mail is concerned, I'm not sure it's a reliable source, a lot of people have complained about it in the past.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything to say about his ex-wife? She sounds like an ordinary private citizen, so I don't really think there is.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends. I'd recommend just waiting to see what people propose to say about her. Some candidates already have entire Wikipedia articles about them. Anyway, have a good day, I'm hitting the road. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding that Daily Mail article, I think WP:BLPSOURCES clearly applies: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait until more reliable sources come up.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would mention too that lots of quotes, while fine in human interest newspaper stories, reads badly in Wikipedia articles. It reads better just to state the facts. TFD (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016

The "Bernie Sanders" article should be edited to reflect that Bernie Sanders' constituents have utterly ruined the word 'dank' by overuse & misuse. See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/berniesandersmemes/ for some seriously schwaggy, stale material, as well as other smaller facebook groups that claim to be dank but are probably super shitty. Thank you. Chelsea0218 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chelsea0218: As the template states, edit requests must suggest a specific change in the form of "Change X to Y"; General requests for change cannot be done through this process. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard to assume good faith in this case. This request (coming from someone named "Chelsea") looks like an attempt to discredit Wikipedia, frankly.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained edit in the lead

User:GoodDay: I think you should revert your edit, or at least give a reason, since you wrote no edit summary. I believe your edit is confusing and unconstructive. I prefer "He is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." to " He is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, in the 2016 U.S. presidential election."Zigzig20s (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but you're making a mountain out of a molehill. We don't need to show President of the United States, with the 2 extra links. My version, which matches the others changes I've made at the other major candidate articles, is more compact. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GoodDay: I'm not offended--there is nothing personal about a Wikipedia talkpage. But I believe you should revert your unconstructive edits here and in all articles about the other presidential candidates. I believe we do need to have "POTUS" in the lead, yes, absolutely. Will you please do it?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

These people are candidates for their respective major parties' presidential nominations. The link to the 2016 prez election, does enough to allow readers to know what office they're all striving for. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GoodDay: That may be fine in the body of the text, but the lead is supposed to make it easy for readers to get the gist of it. Thus, adding POTUS to the lead seems necessary.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Would you be alright with Democratic nomination for President of the United States & Republican nomination for President of the United States? for all the candidates-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GoodDay: No, I think you should start this way and add "in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." Basically how it was before. For every candidate. I know you tried to help, but frankly this will confuse readers. Reverting your edit is the best way forward IMO.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your version has too much links, but I'll revert & adopt the style to the others. IMHO, the 9 major candidate intros should be the same. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:GoodDay: Thank you. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Would recommend that you 'not' concentrate 'only' on this candidate. It's best to try & keep all the major candidates in sync. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hacked?

I believe the "Bernie Sanders" entry has been hacked...it is routed to a general page of associated words and subjects. His page is briefly flashed prior to being routed to this general page.76.31.203.154 (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Had no problem accessing the page; sounds like trouble on your end. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got some malware. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2016

Requesting someone either cite or {{fact}}-tag in paragraph three of the Early Life section "He attended Hebrew school in the afternoons, and celebrated his bar mitzvah in 1954." The sentence itself bears no references, and the contentions do not appear to be supported by those nearby. 68.190.172.127 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see current reference #240 from the Washington Post, which is cited under "Religion", which supports the substance of this claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That reference only supports the latter half of the claim, and only weakly. A source published prior to the inclusion of that claim in the article would be far more credible. 68.190.172.127 (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that when using the edit request process, you need to suggest a specific change in the form of "change X to Y", describing exactly the change you want made. General requests for change should be made without the edit request template. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note that this request does just that. It is specifically requesting that a {{fact}} tag be added to the sentence in question, unless someone's got a valid citation for the claim (which doesn't appear to be the case.) General discussion of the use of the edit request template is more appropriate for the template's talk page than here, where we are talking about the Bernie Sanders article. Please try to stay on topic. 68.190.172.127 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not discussing the use of the template in general, I am discussing your specific use of it here- which is fair enough, I guess, though it didn't seem like it at first. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added an in-line reference from a book. Problem solved!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! 68.190.172.127 (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why is his "Personal life" section missing? He has a son, he is on his second marriage. Biographical information seems to be lacking. It doesn't even mention his marriage. IronWolve 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IronWolve, that information can be found in the section called "Early life, education, and family". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Before he became Mayor of Burlington, did he ever have a paying job? I can find no reference to this. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts please

I deleted this information:

Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and self-identified Jewish American to win a US presidential primary[154][155][151] (Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, was the first winner of Jewish heritage, though he was a Christian by religion).[156] It also marked the first time since 1984, when Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale, that an insurgent candidate defeated a party favorite in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.[150]'

While I agree that the info that "Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and self-identified Jewish American to win a US presidential primary" would be good in the article, I can't see keeping the rest of it. The Goldwater info isn't even in Goldwater's article and I can't see how the Mondale/Hart info improves Saneders's bio. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines when I first saw it. The article would be improved by removing it.- MrX 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree, but the stuff that "would be good in the article" and was nevertheless removed ought to be put back.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem overly trivial in the 2016 campaign section given the current pool of trivia. First Jewish winner is more significant than first-since-84 upset. Is there a reason we qualify "Jewish American" with "self-identified"? We wouldn't say self-identified African American. Are we drawing a distinction between Sanders and past Jewish American primary winners who didn't self-identify? D.Creish (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get started on the Jewish stuff here as it will only complicate a decision (please see the numerous discussions above). Gandydancer (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you really say, "the Jewish stuff" and say it with what reads like a disgusted tone, Gandydancer? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if there's any "disgust" it's that I've complicated this discussion with an unrelated question. For what it's worth I agree: I should have raised the question elsewhere. D.Creish (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that should actually be in the lead, something as prominent as first socialist and first Jew to win a primary should be in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "self-identified" part for Jewish, not sure why that was in there. I think we should add the sentendce into the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My only issue with this is that he won as a Democrat, not as a "democratic socialist."Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

His political party is Democrat because he needs the delegates to win the primary but his ideology as he self describes or as he is is democratic socialism. He's not the first Democrat to win a primary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point about the delegates. I think I read he won the popular vote but the Democrats gave the victory/superdelegates to Hillary--perhaps because he used to be an Independent.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My view is that simply winning a primary or caucus does not justify including this type of information. If someone wins a major party nomination for President then I think it is reasonable to say that he/she is the first "Whatever" to do so, where "Whatever" = Jewish person, woman, self-described democratic socialist... or African-American, openly LGBT person, Asian-American, Latino-American, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever other notable "first" may occur (or has occurred, in the case of African-American.) But individual primaries and caucuses are just small pieces of the nominating process and I don't think we need to have this kind of debate every time a new "first" wins one. Neutron (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As a gay man, I would find it significant if an LGBT politician was the first to win the NH primary. The reason I think it is significant in this case is because his victory is, in a sense, a victory over antisemitism.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As a socialist, I would find it significant if a socialist politician was the first to win the NH primary, although that has yet to happen. Given his platform and voting record, Bernie is a rather run-of-the-mill social democrat, but that's not sensational enough for the yellow press, is it? --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your characterization of him as a social democrat is original research, RexxS. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist as do a massive number of reliable sources. In left politics in the last 60 years in the US, "social democrat" is associated with overt and strident anti-communism, whereas "democratic socialist" has more accomodating connotations. Sanders clearly falls into the second camp. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your description of leftist politics is the original research. Why not look at the articles I linked and see how "socialist" and "social democrat" are described in the real world. You'll see that Bernie definitely falls into the second camp, even though he does indeed call himself a Democratic Socialist. Then again, Hitler called himself a socialist, but that didn't make him one. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems that there is no disagreement to deleting (Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, was the first winner of Jewish heritage, though he was a Christian by religion).[156] It also marked the first time since 1984, when Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale, that an insurgent candidate defeated a party favorite in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Will do... Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Note to editor Laura: Feel free to join in on the discussion page even though you may not feel quite ready to edit the article page - the more the merrier! :). You need not join WP to edit any page but I encourage you to join so that you can keep track of the articles you work on. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this information now have to be in the article twice (including the intro) without mentioning Barry Goldwater even once? Goldwater's father was Jewish and he did refer to himself as Jewish. He's also mentioned in many articles about Sanders' win. It's kind of odd that Ted Cruz is unambiguously called "the first Hispanic" to do this or that on Wikipedia despite only being half-Hispanic, but Goldwater is completely stricken from the record as irrelevant? Sanders can be called "the first non-Christian" but he really shouldn't be called "the first Jewish American" (especially with this hyphenate wording) without the Goldwater asterisk being mentioned. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Countless newspaper articles say Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win the NH primary. Please stop doing original research here.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to stop. Countless newspaper articles mention Barry Goldwater in the context of Sanders' win, so shouldn't that be included as well under this standard? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not the articles I've read in the JTA, etc. And that's too many details for the lead. You may add it to the body of the text, but it is inappropriate in the lead.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is not the definitive source from which Wikipedia must be transcribed. The Goldwater mention was already in the article later on, but people keep deleting it for some weird reason. It makes no sense to whitewash Goldwater's ancestry and identification while the Ted Cruz article calls him strictly Hispanic over and over. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater did not attend a Hebrew School or celebrate his bar mitzvah!Zigzig20s (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So what? That's original research. Ted Cruz does not speak Spanish, should that disqualify him? Barry Goldwater's second wife, Susan Shaffer Wechsler, was Jewish. Bernie Sanders is married to a non-Jewish woman and Ted Cruz is married to a non-Hispanic woman. More original research. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not OR because that's what the third-party references say; Goldwater won as an Episcopalian, Sanders as a Jew who lost family in the Holocaust, etc. Besides, traditionally Judaism is passed on via the mother; and he was raised in the Jewish faith, contrary to Goldwater. In any case, nobody agrees with you. And I have zero interest in Cruz. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you made the Holocaust reference? I have no doubt that Goldwater had relatives who died in the Holocaust as well (it's extremely unlikely that he didn't). I suppose no one here agrees with me, but the media does, since they often mention Goldwater when talking about Sanders' victory. Also, the article uses "Jewish American" specifically, which sounds like an ethnic term more than a religious one (i.e. John F. Kennedy's article doesn't call him a "Catholic American" and Mitt Romney's doesn't call him a "Mormon American"). It's particularly this ethnic implication that bothers me. Three people of half Jewish heritage have won major party primaries (Goldwater, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark). Perhaps if it simply said "Jewish", as opposed to ethnic hyphenate "Jewish American", it would be less misleading. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert again if you add more original research, but please stop and try to get consensus here instead of making disruptive edits to the lead. Sanders is both a cultural and religious Jew; he's not comparable to Goldwater and countless articles don't mention Goldwater. Your original research is disruptive.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh, how is it original research? Many sources say Sanders is the "first Jew to win", etc. Do we absolutely have to use the phrase "Jewish American"? Why? It's not a common phrase anyway, and the headline of the source used calls him "Jewish", not a "Jewish American" (a term never used in that reference). Why is this "disruptive"? Who is "disturbed" in reading that Sanders is the first "Jewish candidate" to win a U.S. primary as opposed to the first "Jewish American" to win a U.S. primary (the "American" part here is also redundant)? And where was consensus reached to use the phrasing "Jewish American" as opposed to simply "Jewish"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Apologies if this has already been recently discussed, but seeing as Hillary Clinton now has a more recent leading photo, perhaps this article could get a recent image also? Elzbenz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Employment between college and first paid elected office

We need detail and dates on his his working life between college and paid political office. Some of his employment is mushed into the personal section. Need more detail and dates. Bruriyah (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Admiration for Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

The Religion section says, "Sanders also expressed strong admiration for Rabbi Menachem Schneerson."

I don't think the sources support that statement.

The Jerusalem Post article says,

"The Chabad-Lubavitch research showed Sanders had expressed, back in the 1980s, strong admiration for Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, who died in 1994."

(There's also a more detailed story in http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/197636/bernie-sanders-the-rebbe-and-one-big-menorah-in-vermont The Tablet.)

Even the Chabad-Lubavitch's account doesn't use the word "admiration" or quote anything else that Sanders actually said to specifically indicate he admired Schneerson. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3224239/jewish/Some-More-Info-on-Bernie-Sanders-and-Judaism-blog.htm The Tablet doesn't say anything about "admiration."

At best, that would support a statement something like, "The Chabad-Lubavitch organization said that Sanders had expressed strong admiration for Schneerson." But I don't think it belongs in the article. First, the Chabad-Lubavitch organization itself isn't a WP:RS. Second, they haven't put any documentation on their web site to demonstrate it. Third, the Jewish Press is the only WP:RS that makes that claim, so it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT which requires multiple sources. Finally, it sounds like WP:PEACOCK.

I propose we delete that claim. Any opinions?

Are there any other sources besides the Jerusalem Post which make that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree and removed this information. Gandydancer (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Supporting that deletion. Info is not significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If multiple sources note his support of the cause, if not his admiration, does it make sense to simply remove the word admiration and keep the rest? Mottel (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Remove it. It's not significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders's Senate seat if he wins Presidential election or is appointed to Cabinet?

This article could use a mention of what happens to Sanders's Senate seat if he resigns from the Senate, especially in light of the fact that the current Democratic Governor (Shumlin) is retiring at the end of his current term sometime after November, and especially since Gov. Shumlin barely won re-election over his Republican opponent, and especially since there appears to be some question as to whether Sanders is technically a Democrat (he won re-election as an Independent, I believe it was, if not a "Socialist"). What are Vermont's rules about the appointment of a successor to a resigning Senator? BLZebubba (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The seat is filled by special election, the governor doesn't get involved. 3 months following vacancy, unless vacancy occurs within 6 months of the general election, in which case the vacancy is filled at the general election. See here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I don't think this belongs in the main article. Among other reasons, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that if he gets the nomination, this should be dealt with somewhere, but not before. Neutron (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Much thanks for the info, Tarl.Neustaedter, and fair enough, Neutron. BLZebubba (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

More images

I came across an article with plenty of images of Mr. Sanders. Would they qualify for entry under fair use? Buffaboy ^talk 16:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As an (almost) iron-clad rule, Wikipedia does not allow the use of non-free images of living people. See WP:NFCC, especially #1.

In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to link to external images we can't upload using {{External media}}. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons has so many photos of Sanders that they are categorized by year, with 43 so far for 2016. All of them are free. There's no need to promote non-free ones. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)