Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 15

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 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: 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.
 * 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.

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)
 * 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)

I agree with that "[t]his is holding Bernie Sanders and Judaism to a different standard, a different test, than other people or other religions" and I think  inadvertently did a disservice to this article in reversing his decision after 19 days of one-sided input from those wishing to omit Sanders' religion from the Infobox. On March 7, 2016 Jethro added Sanders' religion to the Infobox. On March 26, 2016 Jethro removed Sanders' religion from the Infobox. What transpired in the 19 day interim? Jethro listened to one-sided input, only from those who wanted to omit the religion, and he did so only on his Talk page. Obviously Jethro only received input from one side in this issue. Please see for instance Wrong Decision on Sanders. Jethro did mention that "[i]f you're aware of new information that I either missed or was not available during the discussion, I'm open to reviewing that. You also have the option to open a review over at WP:AN". The proper way forward would have been the opening of a review over at WP:AN. Under a review there would have been opportunity for those supporting the religion in the Infobox to weigh in. I think there is higher scrutiny of Jews than Christians on Wikipedia. That only makes this a parochial encyclopedia. We should aspire to be an encyclopedia that follows sources. Bernie Sanders Jewishness is just as substantial as the Christian religion associated with the 20 or so others enumerated below.

Mitt Romney: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Rick Santorum: Roman Catholicism Rick Perry: Nondenominational Evangelicalism Elizabeth Warren: United Methodism Rand Paul: Presbyterianism Joe Biden: Roman Catholic person Jim Webb: Nondenominational Christianity Chris Christie: Roman Catholicism Jeb Bush: Episcopalianism Lincoln Chafee: Episcopalian Marco Rubio:Roman Catholicism John Kasich: Anglicanism Ted Cruz: Southern Baptist Ben Carson: Seventh-day Adventist Hillary Clinton: Methodist Donald Trump: Presbyterianism Martin O'Malley: Roman Catholicism Carly Fiorina: Nondenominational Christianity Jim Gilmore: Methodism Lindsey Graham: Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee: Southern Baptist Bobby Jindal: Roman Catholicism George Pataki: Roman Catholicism Scott Walker: Nondenominational Evangelicalism

These are all US presidential candidates as is Bernie Sanders. They are all Christian. Only Bernie Sanders is Jewish. I am asking Jethro to reverse his decision once again. If others wish to challenge Jethro's initial decision let them open a review at WP:AN. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the other 2016 Jewish candidate for US president. And no, I am not going to tell you who, because it will just give you one more place for your disruptive behavior. -=-Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Also see JethroBT/Archive 15#Notice on Jethro's Talk page. This is one-sided input. It is no way to reach a decision or reverse a decision. The question of whether Sanders' religion should be in the Infobox should be discussed with wide community input, not narrow, one-sided input. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Also for some reason the parameters for Ethnicity and Religion keep on getting removed from the Template.
 * adds Ethnicity: Jewish to the Infobox.
 * not only removes Ethnicity: Jewish from the Infobox, but removes the parameter for Ethnicity altogether.


 * adds Religion: Jewish to the Infobox.
 * not only removes Religion: Jewish from the Infobox, but removes the parameter for Religion from the Infobox altogether.


 * adds Religion: Jewish to the Infobox.
 * not only removes Religion: Jewish from the Infobox, but removes the parameter for Religion from the Infobox altogether.


 * adds Religion: Jewish to the Infobox.
 * not only removes Religion: Jewish from the Infobox, but removes the parameter for Religion from the Infobox altogether.
 * My personal opinion is that the construction of the Template should not be tampered with. Bus stop (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't bother pinging me again, I don't want to waste any more time over this. For the record I now disagree with my edit - if the answer to an infobox parameter is "it's complicated" it probably should be described in the text rather than the infobox. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, please just drop the stick already; when a religious affiliation isn't a key part of notability (and it certainly isn't one for Bernie or the majority of bios), it simply isn't worth mentioning in infobox regardless of how observant the subject is or what religion they identify under. Better to discuss such views within article prose. You seriously are trying too hard to justify including it in infobox and really need to let the matter go. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Ahyup. That I done. WP:Ethnicity is not notable. I don't see you adding "ethnicity = Cuban" (or Hispanic) to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, which are considerably more defining characteristics of those candidates, why would an ethnicity belong in this infobox? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? You didn't want this answer above where you specifically cited my name saying I deleted the Ethnicity line? Did it ruin the line by having an indented comment? In any case, give it a rest. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?
'''Note: this question has been settled by RfC on this page. This is being posted here because some of the participants here may wish to pitch in and help on the other pages listed.'''

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per 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." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
 * Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
 * Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
 * Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
 * Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1
 * Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , why does this lengthy post about 40 other people belong on the Bernie Sanders talk page? Are you trying to move strife and contention from one page to another? Why don't you devote your energies to removing the religion from the infobox of the current presumptive Republican nominee, and then remove that Quakerism hogwash from the Richard Nixon infobox? Then move on to the 99% of infoboxes on other articles that violate the new religion consensus. Can't you please leave this article and its talk page alone for a while?. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: "why does this lengthy post about 40 other people belong on the Bernie Sanders talk page?", this is being posted here because some of the participants here may wish to pitch in and help on the other pages listed.


 * Re: "Why don't you devote your energies to removing the religion from the infobox of the current presumptive Republican nominee", That issue was already settled by an RfC. I personally do not think Trump's page meets our "only if directly tied to the person's notability" requirement, but until someone posts another RfC I am bound to abide by the one that was posted.


 * Re: "and then remove that Quakerism hogwash from the Richard Nixon infobox? ", I asked about sources, and am satisfied that Wikipedia's requirements were met. See the Richard Nixon talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Info-boxes should be used for non-controversial information. Today, the religious affiliation of many people is not as clear as it was 50 years ago and where it is ambiguous it should be left out of the box.  Where someone has a clear affiliation, for example Pope Francis who is unambiguously a member of a specific church, it should be included.  TFD (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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)
 * Yes, but limited, per nizolan. if he has been described as "a strong supporter of foo, and a strong critic of bar", that kind of summary belongs in the lede, even if it mentions some (but not many) policy positions.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede should provide a complete, but concise, overview. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes - If there is more than a brief mention in the body of the article, the lede should convey a summary of that info. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:19, 2 May 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)
 * - 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)
 * - 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)

Who's Self-proclaiming Who?
Why does this article need the words "self-proclaimed" before Bernie Sanders' identity as a "democratic socialist"? This represents slant and bias.

The reality is that the United States does not have an organized "democratic socialist" party; whereas, "democratic socialism" is simply an ideology, much like liberalism or conservativism.

So, why is Wikipedia employing this awkward modifier — "self-proclaimed" — as a unique differentiation for Bernie Sanders, instead of just leaving it "as is": Bernie Sanders, a longstanding non-partisan, democratic socialist; who recently registered Democratic Party when he announced his intention to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president on April 30, 2015.

For example, as far as I know, we don't go around naming other candidates so-called "self-proclaimed" ideologies. If I look at Wikipedia's definition of a Democratic Party "ideology", such as for Hillary Clinton, should it then include one of these from a list?: "self-proclaimed social liberal"; "self-proclaimed modern liberal"; self-proclaimed progressive liberal", etc.?

Likewise, shall we go about naming someone like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as a "self-proclaimed economic liberal"; "self-proclaimed fiscal conservative"; self-proclaimed social conservative", etc.? Ca.papavero (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * By the standard definition of socialism, of the state controlling the means of production, Sanders is not a socialist - he does not want to nationalise industry. This has been discussed widely, just google "Is Bernie Sanders a socialist". The first result http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/ talks about it. However he does describe himself as a socialist and we should mention that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are providing an opinion piece by a fellow at the Cato Institute as a source. The main use of the term socialist is to refer to people who support Socialist parties.  According to Tony Blair, socialism was never about nationalization but the belief that we can achieve more by working together than any of us can achieve by working alone.  TFD (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at any of the other pages if you google "Is Bernie Sanders a socialist". For example http://heavy.com/news/2016/01/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-socialism-views-policies-issues-denmark/ http://www.ibtimes.com/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-communist-democratic-candidate-carrying-hefty-label-2326372 http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/aug/26/bernie-sanders-socialist-or-democratic-socialist/ Alternatively look at socialism which is "characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well I guess the Labour Party and all the other parties that call themselves socialist must be mistaken and the Socialist International should be looking for a new name. The Historical Dictionary of Socialism reviews the various definitions of socialism on pp. 1 on.  People who want social ownership of the means of production are btw called communists.  TFD (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither this article nor its talk page are appropriate places to debate the esoterica of socialist nomenclature. Bernie Sanders has described himself as a "democratic socialist" for about 35 years, and massive numbers of highly reliable sources for decades have also used "democratic socialism" as the most common term to describe his ideology. That should be the end of the story regarding this issue in this biography. If anyone disagrees, propose specific changes to this biography cited to reliable sources, but please do not debate broader issues here. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the issue, as reflected in the header for this discussion, is the "self-proclaimed" & "self-described" verbiage. If massive numbers of highly reliable sources describe him as such, why do we add the unnecessary "self-described" hedge? Should we also say that he is a "self-described candidate for president", because he has described himself as that, too?  The only reason we use the "self-proclaimed" modifier is when a person's self-identification differs from that conveyed in reliable sources, or differs from general perception. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is one instance of "Self-proclaimed democratic socialist"; one instance of "Self-described democratic socialist"; and one instance of "Sanders is a self-described socialist, democratic socialist, and progressive" in our article. Would there be any objections to removing the self-declared/self-described wording?  Xenophrenic (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  23:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. TFD (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite slinging all this hash back and forth in the above, there has been no change. Indeed, most of the talk missed the point, until user Xenophrenic raised questions and redirected the focus. Anyway, the issue is not just that this shows a bias. It's that it also shows inconsistency relative to other political candidates; as well as an inconsistency to the nomenclature of the American politics; the official organization of parties in the United States; and, lastly, the recognized definitions and editing standards by Wikipedia on such topics.

This small phrase seems like such a minor thing but it clearly stands out as a problem. Occurring early in the article —now longstanding and without correction — it probably makes many readers question the integrity of the article, its writers, and the source. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Political positions
Why isn't his political positions expanded like tuition free education system and debt free country, progressive taxation-vertical equity,...etc.61.0.76.21 (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See Political positions of Bernie Sanders (which is linked to under the header of the "Political positions" section of this article).--JayJasper (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016
Repeal the section from the subheading Democratic Party presidential debates which states "Clinton has expressed willingness to hold more debates" As she has gone back on her word and refused to hold more debates

104.158.131.82 (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I changed "has" to "had" since that's regarding the past issue of debates.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Identification of people at rally
Can anyone identify the people shown here and here speaking at a Sanders rally in Los Angeles? The names of the people, if notable, was not given by the Flickr user who took the photos. MB298 (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the woman is Rosario Dawson. No idea on the man tho. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The woman is Rosario Dawson, the man is Bill Velazquez (https://berniesanders.com/latino-outreach-internships/). Semin124 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully am trying to avoid copyright problems
If I'm in violation of them let me know so I can again reformat my glorious contribution.

--MXfurry (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

PS how do we go about quoting Sanders friend discussing his "career" in carpentry?

--MXfurry (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on June 7 2016
Within the "Budget"-section of the "U.S. Senate"-section, the same source (http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/dec/10/news/la-pn-sanders-filibuster-20101211) is cited twice for the same claim (the "On December 10, 2010, Sanders delivered an 8 1⁄2-hour speech against the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, the proposed extension of the Bush-era tax rates that eventually became law, saying "Enough is enough! ... How many homes can you own?""-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bernie Sanders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150727170730/http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/04/28/6-things-to-know-about-bernie-sanders/ to http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/04/28/6-things-to-know-about-bernie-sanders/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Presidential candidate section
I have cut it way back to prepare what I assume will be a substantial amount of information that discusses the importance of what his campaign has done to improve Clinton's stance on various issues and the future influence he expects to have, etc. Perhaps it will be easier to add the info after the Tuesday primary when I assume he will make some sort of statement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call in my opinion. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How does it make sense to put "self-proclaimed democratic socialist or social democrat"?
Can't we put self-proclaimed democratic socialist with policies resembling more social democracy? Socialistguy (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is silly, but your proposed language would be original research unless you can cite reliable sources that describe Sanders' policies that way. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is OR. In any case, Sanders' main policies - minimum wage and government support of health care and education - are accepted across the political spectrum.  The only difference is degree.  TFD (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * and, what about "He's a social democrat, despite him proclaiming himself as a socialist"? Isn't the Theatlantic article enough to word it like that? Socialistguy (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The democratic socialist/social democrat dichotomy is not clear and different writers define it differently. The most common one is that socialists in Germany, Sweden and pre-revolutionary Russia were social democrats, while in Britain, France and the U.S. they were socialists.  Sanders probably meets the definiton of democratic socialist as defined in Clause IV of the British Labour Party.  We do not say the Tories and Liberal Democrats are not conservatives and liberals because their policies differ from are what they advocated in the 19th century.  The term social democrat in the English speaking world is generally used as an epithet by socialists against socialists they think are not true socialists.  TFD (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:REDFLAG. If you want to write, in Wikipedia's voice, "he calls himself X, but he's really Y", you need multiple high-quality reliable sources. You don't have them. And even if you did, you'd still face an up-hill fight. What you have now is a single source, and you might be able to say, in accordance with WP:INTEXT, "according to Marian Tupy, Sanders says he's a socialist, but he's really a social democrat." Until some sensible editor came along and said "who the hell is Marian Tupy and why do we care what she thinks?" and deletes it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why no controversies section?
Such as the F35 controversy or his essay Man and Woman and other essays which have faced criticism. No political figure should be sanitized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.57.124 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't really do "controversy sections". You are welcome to add encyclopedic content to the article as long as it is cited to high-quality reliable sources. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Agreed Justin3684 (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

He has NOT "effectivly ended his campaign"
He is going to be contesting at the dnc, and will PROBABLY end up going green if he doesn't win the nomination. There is only ONE of his delagates that is having problems with money, and his campaign handed out 20k to help get the delegates to the DNC. There are also be PLENTY of us showing up and either staying with fellow berners in philly, or camping at several of the camp grounds outside the city. So, once again, this campaign is NOT stopping, so it would be very nice if whomever locked the page would change that little fact at the bottom of the main body. Thank you. Justin3684 (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

We will know when his campaign is over because he will say "I'm officially ending my campaign", and I just find this sentence is misleading to potential supporters looking for information. Justin3684 (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether Sanders has "effectively solidif[ied] the official end of his campaign" (whatever that's supposed to mean in plain English), the fact is our article shouldn't have said that in the opening. It violated our guideline that says the opening section is supposed to summarize the rest of the article, because the article doesn't say that, and it violated our verifiability policy, because none of the sources cited in the article say that either. I deleted it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malik. Justin3684 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Change claiming Bernie has been a Democrat since 2015
The lede was changed to declare that Bernie has been a Democrat since 2015. He ran for the democratic party nomination, but he's still listed as an independent by the Senate. Is consensus that he's now been branded a Democrat because of his campaign, or is this something that needs reverting? Tarl N. (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before in general, and while I don't know the result(if any) off the top of my head, Sen. Sanders registered as a Democrat to get on the primary ballot in New Hampshire and possibly other states; he has also stated he is a Democrat. On the other side, he still sits as an independent in the Senate, and Vermont does not register voters by party. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanders did not register as a Democrat because one cannot do that in Vermont. Since reliable sources continue to refer to him as an independent, I think it would be incorrect to call him a Democrat.  He is for some purposes but not for others.  Note that both Guliani and John Kennedy won Liberal Party primaries, but were never members of those parties.  TFD (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah. Digging deeper, I find this: Sanders added that he would run as a Democrat in any future elections. I guess that settles this. I didn't remember that happening, but the Boston Globe is a WP:RS, reporting that Sanders states he will run as a Democrat in the future. I guess that does make him a Democrat. Tarl N. (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

New reporting from the Wall Street Journal shows that Bernie Sanders will be returning to the Senate as an Independent and not a Democrat. It will be misleading at best to continue presenting him as something he isn't, especially since he never registered in his home state of Vermont because nobody can actually do that there. PeaceUT (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He has never sat as a Democrat in the Senate, even while claiming to be one and registering as one in several states to get on the ballot(where it is only open to party members). 331dot (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the lead to reflect the latest reporting on the matter. It seems to me that his future with the party is uncertain.  I'm not sure what he means when he says he will serve out his term as an independent, as he said in the past that he would run in future elections as a Democrat.  Feel free to reword to better reflect the reality if at all possible. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It means that on the Senate's list of senators he will have an "I" beside his name instead of a "D." When he runs next time, his name will be on the Democratic primary ballot and in the general election, assuming he is nominated, it will have "Democratic" beside his name instead of "Independent."  If elected, the Senate will put a "D" beside his name.  TFD (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders has, in the past, run in the Democratic (2006 and 2012) and Progressive Party (2012) senate primaries, which allowed him to eliminate competitors from those parties, and then declined the nominations of those parties to stand as an independent in the general election.

Incorrect primary results in 4th paragraph
Sanders' Wikipedia page wrongly claims he "won 22 primaries and caucuses, and approximately 45% of pledged delegates to Hillary Clinton's 55%." Both of these figures are incorrect.

Sanders won 23 primaries and caucuses, not 22.

 * New Hampshire, Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Democrats Abroad, Michigan, Idaho, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Rhode Island, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, and North Dakota.

Sanders earned 46% of the pledged delegates, and Clinton won 54%.

 * He won 1,846 pledged delegates to Clinton's 2,205. Of the total 4,051 available pledged, that is 45.568%. Rounding up gets 46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.233.59.100 (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Brooklyn College
Shouldn't Brooklyn College be included as an Alma mater? Or at least mentioned somewhere in the infobox? Inspector Semenych (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Return to Senate
I have seen additions saying he will return to the Senate as an independent, and I remember him saying something along the lines of "I was elected as an independent and will serve as an independent," but I have not seen clear indications as to whether he would remain an independent for his 2018 run for Senate. Dustin ( talk ) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you left out an "if he runs". Bit too early to crystalize that one. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 16:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * He is not really returning to the Senate, he never left, although the campaign took him away from Senate business. He continues as an independent, but says he would run next time as a Democrat.  TFD (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am well-aware that he is still in the Senate; that was poor wording. However, he has indicated that he will run in 2018, Zero Serenity. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Political Positions
This section is already very thorough and lengthy. It should be inserted that he supports Black Lives Matter. The quote from the 2015 debate is, "Black lives matter. The reason those words matter is the African-American community knows that, on any given day, some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car and then, three days later, she's going to end up dead in jail. Or their kids are going to get shot. We need to combat institutional racism from top to bottom." Like I said, the section is already lengthy, but I think it is important to note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.151 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it. I see it is already noted in his political positions article.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Malicious redirect?
Clicking anywhere on the page redirects to an anti-Hillary article, I'm guessing it was recently added to influence former Sanders supporters to dump Hillary. Either way, clearly has no place on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.168 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A cursory inspection of the links and HTML reveal nothing of this sort to me. Can you cite an example? User:HopsonRoad 19:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this. I assume that is what the IP saw. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I use Safari on an iMac. Is that why I didn't experience the phenomenon—or is it gone, now? User:HopsonRoad 20:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You aren't seeing anything because the problem has been fixed. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Entire article hyperlinked?
On multiple browsers, clicking anywhere in the article redirects to http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/25/13-times-hillary-clinton-truly-nasty-woman/ for me. This appears to be vandalism, but I don't see the offending code in the article. Is this happening for anyone else? Dys (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this. Dustin  ( talk ) 19:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Glad to see it was quickly corrected. Dys (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliation as of November 2016
Sanders remains unaffiliated with a party in the Senate, because that is how he ran in the last election—as an independent. "Independent" is not technically a party.

All it takes to be a Democrat (or a Republican) is to donate money. There are no reports of Sanders having done so. Sanders has repeatedly run and been elected in the Vermont primaries for senator as a Democrat to eliminate any competition from that quarter for the general election. Upon winning the primaries in 2006 and 2012, he then abdicated the party affiliation and stood as an independent. In the presidential election process of 2016, he retained his party affiliation apparently to enjoy the potential party apparatus to support him at the national level, if he became the nominee. User:HopsonRoad 03:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation overkill
This article is a poster child for Citation overkill. In several cases, the foot note is a collection of search results. Someone should decide among the choices given and clean this up. User:HopsonRoad 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)