Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 16

Tenth debate
I added some (sourced) content noting that the tenth debate was cancelled after it became impossible for Sanders to win the nomination. This is surely important - the rest of the paragraph makes it seem like she was avoiding debate despite the race being wide open. Seraphimblade deleted it, saying "it's a bit excessive of detail for a biography. Might belong in the article about the primary." Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing the discussion here, Absolutelypuremilk. I concur with Seraphimblade that it's too particular a detail for this biography, but would be appropriate in Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. I feel that most of the paragraph in question, likewise is too detailed. I would condense it to read: "A tenth and last debate was scheduled for May 24, in California, but was cancelled after it became apparent that Clinton had the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination. ", and append the condensed sentence to the preceding paragraph. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that condensed version, and think it covers what needs to be said. We can go into more detail in the article about the primary election. Certainly, the primary is important to cover in his biography as a very important event in his life, but we want to be careful of weighting it too heavily. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I commented out the longer text, so that it could be carried into other articles, and implemented the above suggestion. User:HopsonRoad 04:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I am happy with this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We usually shouldn't have long blocks of commented out text in the article, that gets unwieldy pretty fast. I took that out, but I'll leave the diff to it here: so it can still be easily found if someone wants to put it elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It was still mathematically possible for Sanders to win the nomination before the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and D.C. primaries all held after May 24. Even at the convention, it was mathematically possible for Sanders to win, since Clinton had 2,271 pledged delegates vs. 2,382 total delegates needed to win.  Clinton in fact continued to campaign in the primaries until June 7, when all but the D.C. had been held.  She also found it important to get the endorsement of Cal. Gov. Jerry Brown.  The source used presents an opinion, and should not be presented as fact.  The debate was not in fact cancelled.  Fox News Channel invited Sanders and Clinton to debate, but only Sanders accepted.  Clinton probably saw the debate as presenting more risk than opportunity.  TFD (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By my calculations, using the figures given here by May 17th Clinton had 2210 and Sanders had 1538, with 935 delegates left. To get to 2382, Sanders would therefore have had to win 90% of the remaining delegates. While this was still technically possible, I don't think it's an opinion to say that she had effectively won by this point. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are including superdelegates. On May 24, Clinton had 1,771 pledged delegates to 1,499 to Sanders.  (see "Democratic presidential primaries 2016," May 24)  Sanders would have need to win two thirds of the remaining delegates to tie in pledged delegates. ({[(1,771-1,499)+935]/2}/935}=65%)  Then he would have needed half of the superdelegates support to tie total delegates.  So it was, even if we count pledged delegates, not mathematically impossible.  It does not make any sense either that Clinton would skip a debate because she had a mathematical certainty of winning, yet would continue to campaign against Sanders.  TFD (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned that user Absolutelypuremilk is using this obviously biased opinion piece to rewrite history. IMO we need to revert to the previous long-standing version of these articles while discussion is going on.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD, ok I see my mistake now. I agree that mathematically impossible is incorrect, but I think a phrase such as "Clinton had gained an almost unassailable lead" would still be acceptable. Gandydancer, the only current mention of the Newsweek article (which I agree is biased, but that doesn't mean it isn't a reliable source) is to give the number and day of the debates, which I don't think are in doubt. If you prefer, you could change the source for these. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources says, "mathematically impossible," although he probably meant "unassailable." He did not mean "almost" though, because that would not be a reason to skip the debate.  But again, that is his opinion.  Clinton's spokesperson said, "We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands,"  Yet California was not a swing state.  TFD (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

IMO, this debate belongs at Talk:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016, since it's about finer points of the campaign, not a biographical overview. Nothing that I see in this discussion contradicts, "A tenth and last debate was scheduled for May 24, in California, but was cancelled after it became apparent that Clinton had the necessary delegates to clinch the nomination." — The summary statement for this article. User:HopsonRoad 21:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ...except that this estimation is from a recent obviously biased opinion piece. Lets not rewrite this article using biased opinions, please. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * And the fact the opinion piece fails reliable sources and does not make sense. It is similar to the op-eds the Clinton campaign has been running for months.  It's ironic that someone who spent months calling Sanders supporters hooligans wonders why they didn't vote for her.  TFD (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To use this opinion piece to change the history of Sanders's run is not at all acceptable. The email leak which showed that strings were being pulled to favor Clinton is no small thing at all.  It may have resulted in Sanders's defeat.  The debate schedule may or may not have been deliberate but that's not ours to decide, but we do need to include the facts of what actually occurred.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind BTW that this is a bio and per policy our sources must be excellent. My revert of this poor source was reverted with a note that I needed to wait for consensus.  We need to settle this ASAP.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with HopsonRoad's edit summary: the entire paragraph which was in there previously was far too much detail on the final debate for an article about Sanders, not the primaries. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sensitive to Gandydancer's concern about an opinion piece, as opposed to a news report, especially since the delegate count wasn't called until 6 June 2016. Perhaps, it suffices to say, here to say, "A tenth debate was scheduled——but was not held.—" (Note that I had problems formatting the references here—they made much of the above discussion disappear!) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of opportunity to go into detail at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 and Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. User:HopsonRoad 16:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that this is a fair compromise. Perhaps this could even be in a footnote to trim further. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Footnote on tenth debate
I have removed the source note re the reasons that Clinton refused the tenth debate. I see no reason to include the opinion of these two journalists rather than Sanders's and others opinion that the real reason she refused the final debate was that Sanders had been winning primaries and she was afraid that he might win big in California as well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation for your edit, Gandydancer. However, I feel that reporting only how Sanders responded to the move and not the stated justification from the Clinton campaign supports only one point of view—Sanders'. It seems to me that leaving Sanders' response in the text and a paraphrase of Clinton's justification in the footnote provides that balance. The full quote from the Clinton campaign would have been:
 * "As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses," Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. "We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands."
 * This is an unnecessarily long quote and the journalist paraphrased it appropriately in the quote that I included—it wasn't the "opinion" of the journalist. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You speak of the need for "balance" and yet this was added prior to the time that I added Sanders's reaction to the cancellation. To quote from our source about the agreement:


 * BLITZER: You now say you will be participating in that Democratic presidential debate tomorrow night. Did you get the commitments from Secretary Clinton you wanted about three additional Democratic presidential debates down the road? SANDERS: Yes. To the best of my knowledge we have. We didn’t get all the commitments that I wanted. We got California, we got Michigan — and that’s good. I wanted a debate in New York City….but Secretary Clinton has not agreed to do that.


 * She clearly abused Sanders's trust that there would be a California debate. Sanders had good reason to be unhappy about that and it belongs in the article.  Since there seems to be concern about brevity here, it was Clinton's position rather than Sanders's that needed cutting.  Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging on this, Gandydancer. The earlier discussion was about having material on the one debate that was cancelled be as extensive as the material for the other nine debates, combined. I believe that consensus was reached regarding this being a place for summarizing matters. It seems to me that the Sanders quote in the text and the quote summarizing the Clinton perspective in the citation provides the appropriate brevity and balance for this article. Absolutelypuremilk, your perspective, please? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point here Gandydancer, why should Clinton's perspective not be in the article? If anything they should be given equal weight, your view that Clinton was in the wrong doesn't change that. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have written a summary for the cancellation of the tenth debate that I feel fairly reflects the expressed opinion of both sides. User:HopsonRoad 15:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems fair to me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016
Please put in that he is the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee as the following:


 * office1      = Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee
 * term_start1  = January 3, 2015
 * term_end1    =
 * predecessor1 = Jeff Sessions
 * successor1   =

86.185.153.3 (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We don't need to go into that much detail, and we don't do that in the Sessions infobox so not sure why it's needed here. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of Democracy Now as a BLP source
Gandydancer has added some content sourced by Democracy Now. I am not familiar with Democracy Now, but it doesn't seem to me to be appropriate as a WP:BLP source, as it is more akin to tabloid journalism than a newspaper with editorial standards, and is listed as part of the alternative media. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at it. It appears to be an interview show with video and transcripts, run by respected journalists. It seems to be a suitable source for direct quotations, as long as the full context of the remarks are visible. Thus, to me, it passes the standards of verifiability (you can see directly what was said), independence (it claims to be funded by "contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations" and not from advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding"), and accountability (the presenters are known and contactable). User:HopsonRoad 12:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a respected source. It is alternative in the sense that it covers stories and subjects that are ignored in mainstream media, such as the Sanders campaign.  And the standard for being a reliable source for an interview is fairly low.  We merely need to be confident that the person was actually interviewed.  TFD (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The show is co-hosted by Juan Gonzalez of the NYT, certainly a very well-respected journalist. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, seems there is consensus on this. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential run
As one can see I deleted a lot of stuff from the presidential run sections now that the race is over. Absolutelypuremilk returned the days of the week that the debates took place. Considering that this is Sanders's bio and that separate articles cover his run, I can't see that including the days of the week is very important. Gandydancer (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The next sentence specifically criticizes the Democrats for running "several" of the debates on a Saturday/Sunday night, so yes it does seem important to say which days they were on. I have however trimmed this down to saying that 4 out of 10 debates were scheduled to be held on a Saturday/Sunday night. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually that statement is not accurate since at the time that critics voiced concerns they were referring to the six debates, since the four more had not yet been added. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will delete the days of the week per my previous argument and lack of response. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Political positions
Some idiot put a lock on the article, so it can no longer be edited, but "and many journalists have likened his policies to the New Deal." (last line) has to be removed. It is unsourced, and it is a weasel word WP:WEASEL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.7.139 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't call others "idiots". If you would like to have editing rights, you can register on Wikipedia. User:HopsonRoad 18:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Images
This article is at risk of editors adding yet another image of Sanders behind a microphone. I urge editors to please review MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. There we see that: I recommend that articles be tied to the events in the section and that they illustrate the event in a special way, e.g. showing the nature of Sanders' audience, not just what he looked like. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.
 * We should strive for variety.

Photo edits
I am very dissatisfied with the change in photo placement. Per MOS: Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left. They were previously attractively placed and they are now lined up on the right. Also, two images have been removed that illustrated the large crowds attending speaking engagements, which according to information far exceeded those of Clinton. Also, the rather unattractive old photo of Sanders has been blown up to a rather odd size, why? Really, when so many changes are made to an important article they should be discussed first. I'd appreciate it if this editor would return the article to the long-standing version. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for your concern, which I respect, Gandydancer. I announced my concern about the images in the article in the section, above, but received no reply. I then applied MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE to assure a variety, not just more pictures of Sanders before a microphone. One image of a crowd had nothing in it to identify that the crowd was pro-Sanders and thereby illustrate his popularity. I strove for uniformity of image, both in placement and size. The "unattractive" image is informative, since it shows Sanders at a younger age (I don't agree that it's unattractive—that's your POV); it's also sized "thumb", the same as the other images. The remaining pictures illustrate milestones in Sanders' career. MOS:IMAGELOCATION suggests that "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, |left can be used." If I was too WP:BOLD, let's see what other editors suggest. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your above section had to do with yet one more photo of Sanders speaking in which I agreed with your removal. This matter is quite different - the two images you removed were images not of Sanders but of the crowds attending his engagements and IMO were good for the article.  Perhaps we could compromise and keep one of them.  As for the one photo size, whether it be thumb or what, when it turns out to be so large, it's too large.  As for photo MOS, it clearly says that it may be appropriate to stagger them when there are several.  IMO, in the spirit of trying to get along with others you should revert and change back to your preference once you've gained support, not before.  Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, Gandydancer. I have added a 2016 image at Rutgers U. that follows the one from a 2015 image from Conway, NH. The 2016 image shows a much larger auditorium filled with people with signs and contrasts with the 2015 image with a much smaller audience with no signs. I feel that this better illustrates the dramatic growth in interest in Sanders' campaign than did the undistinguished picture of people standing in line for a reason explained only by the caption. The B&W image of Sanders is the same pixel width as the color image in the infobox, but a tighter shot, making him seem bigger. If you feel the need to shrink that image to ≈⅝ of present size, so the heads are the same size, I don't object, even though the image sizes will be non-uniform. Staggering is appropriate, if the images would be crowded, otherwise, and push others out of the context of their sections. As to the other issues that you mention, you and I seem to see the matter differently. Let's patiently wait for others to provide input towards a consensus. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliation since 2015 section
The section "Party affiliation since 2015" has its own heading and 12 references. Do we really need all of this for the simple fact that he's an Independent that ran for president as a Democrat? Gandydancer (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobody seems to care... I'm going to delete that section. It was mostly the problem of what he called himself in his home state. Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a quick turnaround from your question, Gandydancer, since I just saw this post! I concur that the history of his party affiliation on a minus-by-minute basis is probably not appropriate for an encyclopedia. However, his tactic of running in the Democratic primary in order to prevent a three-way contest and then shedding the Democratic label in the main election is noteworthy. It is part of the discussion of whether he represents a wing of the party or whether the party is too far to the right for him. I feel that this discussion, as evidenced by events and his statements, needs to remain in the article. His participation in the future of the Democratic Party is part of this discussion, as well. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should not have assumed that editors that replied below were aware of this section. I will return the section that I deleted.  Perhaps I don't understand the information as well as I thought I did.  What does "...and then shedding the Democratic label in the main election" mean?  Gandydancer (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your mixing boldness with understanding, Gandydancer! What I meant is that Sanders has repeatedly shed the label of "Democratic Party" under which he ran in the primary election and asked to be listed as "Independent" on the ballot, when he ran for election in the November contest for office, both as representative and as senator. This, in the past, set him apart from the Democratic Party philosophy and doctrine and allowed him to espouse progressive concepts. User:HopsonRoad 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:HopsonRoad I appreciate your boldness and understanding as well. I'm sure that it appeared that I was done with this issue since it seemed that I had quit discussing...actually I have been unable to edit for a few days and would like to continue with the discussion. Here is how the section reads:
 * On November 2015, Sanders announced that he would be a Democrat from then on, and will run in any future elections as a Democrat.[169][170][171] On February 4, 2016, Sanders said, "Of course I am a Democrat and running for the Democratic nomination."[172] In 2016, many additional sources, such as PBS,[173] The Wall Street Journal,[174] and CBS News[175] described Sanders as a Democrat. The United States Senate website includes pages that refer to Sanders as an independent[176] as well as pages that refer to him as a Democrat. In 2016, his official Senate press releases still referred to him as an independent,[177][178] or omitted party affiliation.[179] Following his presidential campaign, Sanders returned to the Senate as an independent.[180]

Again, I just cant see using an entire section with 11 sources to say that he's been an independent till he ran as a Democrat for the presidency and has now gone back to being an independent. You said, "I meant is that Sanders has repeatedly shed the label of "Democratic Party" under which he ran in the primary election and asked to be listed as "Independent" on the ballot, when he ran for election in the November contest for office, both as representative and as senator." Perhaps I'm just dense, but I still do not understand what you mean. Do you have a source for this? Gandydancer (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I really would appreciate it if you would be willing to discuss this issue. As is the article seems to suggest that Sanders has not been on the level about his party affiliation while IMO it was the quirks of the filing for his run that were the problem.  At any rate, mainstream media never made a big deal about this issue and I see no reason that Wikipedia should.  Gandydancer (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have missed this, Gandydancer. I was asleep at the switch. The source of my statement for the 2006 election is: Democratic primary is far from ordinary (September 11, 2006). Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus and for the 2012 election is:  Politifact has a broader perspective at:  I hope that this clarifies the mystery. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Progressivism box?
I'm not sure of the reason to have the Progressivism infobox taking up so much real estate in the article. Sanders uses the term, "progressive", but it is not connected with the philosophy on which the box is based, i.e. Progressivism. It's also different from the Vermont Progressive Party (which does not have such a box), which supported Sanders, but of which Sanders was not a member. I recommend deleting this box and leaving the Social democracy box, which has Sanders as an exponent within its people section. Please let me know your thoughts. User:HopsonRoad 21:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Neither box belongs here. Progressivism is an unclearly defined term and is used to describe a range of views which could describe any modern political group except ISIS.  Social Democracy is wrong too.  Sanders has never described himself as a social democrat nor has he campaigned as one.  We do not have this box or similar ones for every politician, just for political parties.  No similar boxes for Hillary Clinton ("a progressive who gets things done") or Donald Trump.  TFD (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Social democracy mentions Sanders only in "See also", however Democratic socialism falls under the Social Democracy series box and has a paragraph on Sanders. The Socialism series box also has Sanders as a person connected with the topic and has a paragraph dedicated to him in the article. That has a stronger standing on the Sanders page than does Progressivism. Barack Obama has a New Democrats series box with him as a person connected with the topic. The question is whether to include boxes that cite the individual as an example of that political philosophy, or not. User:HopsonRoad 23:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sanders is de facto more of a social democrat than a democratic socialist on many key positions, and there are multiple sources to back this up. Anyway, the above bit about the social democracy series box encompassing democratic socialism accounts for this anyway. Dustin  ( talk ) 05:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no authoritative definition of the social democrat/democratic socialist/socialist distinction. In the English speaking world, they mostly called themselves socialists and use the term social democrat as a pejorative.  In any case, François Hollande and Gordon Brown do not have a social democrat infobox, nor do most polticians' articles have infoboxes, even though most politicians are associated with an ideological party (liberal, socialist, christian democrat, etc.) TFD (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have moved Social democracy box further down into the "Political positions" section to join the Socialism box, already there. I feel that they are useful, since Sanders is a political anomaly and the Social democracy box makes reference to him. The boxes provide a useful navigational tool for those, who wish to explore the subject, further. I didn't feel that they belonged at the top of a biography, however. User:HopsonRoad 20:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced mention of 2010 middle class tax cuts
New the beginning of the article it is stated that Bernie Sanders filibustered against the 2010 middle class tax cuts, stating that the tax cuts was for for the wealthiest of Americans. Stating that it was for the wealthiest of Americans is unsourced and needs to be removed as it is inaccurate because it indeed included over 100 million middle class families. Beavegun (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit. Did you read the links or the information in the body of the article?  Please read this NYT article.  [].  Gandydancer (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe you misunderstood - the NYT article says "Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners." The content in the lead implies that the cuts were only for the wealthiest, whereas actually they applied to the middle class as well (although giving the most benefit to people at the top). Perhaps you could suggest a change to the lead which reflects this, otherwise I will revert your edit. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° 207.72.1.130 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC) There's no request here. User:HopsonRoad 19:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

High school image
Hi, User:MB298, thank you for adding an image of Sanders from high school. It's always intriguing to see how people looked over time, reaching into the past, but I'm wondering whether this goes a bit far back beyond his period of notability. I don't see pictures of the subjects of other biographies from their youth. Additionally, this photo is poor of quality—I tried to repair it in Photoshop, but there's just too little to work with. I thought that I'd discuss the matter here, rather than delete it, summarily. What do you (and others) think? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel it is noteworthy to include photos from the early lives of notable figures (we have a high school photo of Donald Trump and a baby photo of George W. Bush, for example), and it adds value to the article. Additionally, there are no available photos of Sanders during his early political career, showing him in the 1970s and 1980s, and without the 1959 photo the earliest we have is 1991. I understand it is a low-quality image but it is the best we have for now at least. MB298 (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply. I looked at the examples that you gave. The image at Donald Trump is significant because it bespeaks his formative process from someone needing discipline to being placed in a setting designed to provide that discipline. The George W. Bush baby picture is not notable for what he looked like as an infant, but because it features his notable parents at a young age. The image of Sanders here doesn't tie into the narrative of who he is, as the other two do. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Including photos from a young age when available is generally done. A few further examples that do not relate to notable activities can be found at Ice Cube (yearbook), Hillary Clinton (as a college student), Vladimir Putin (parents), Dmitry Medvedev (baby), George H. W. Bush (baby), Jimmy Carter (age 13), Gerald Ford (toddler and Eagle Scout), and Lyndon B. Johnson (age 7).
 * Thank you for looking into these examples. I'm sorry to have diverted your efforts to do so. My remaining concern is the quality of the image, which is poor in comparison to the other examples that you cite and those within the article, both technically and as an interesting photograph. But that concern is not sufficient to consider deleting it, unless there is a consensus from others. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, MB298, I've also adjusted the image to make it less "muddy". See what you think and revert in Commons, if you feel that it's not an improvement! I suggest sizing it to standard "thumb", as with all the other images, now. User:HopsonRoad 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the size of the image due to pixelation, but thanks for your adjustments. MB298 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did some smoothing, etc. in Lightroom. So, I'll try it larger for a bit. Feel free to revert (without penalty!), if it doesn't work. (Update: I tried and reverted my experiment.) Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Category question
Since Sanders's fan-base and supporters largely revolve around millennials and some are teenagers who could be depicting as admiring him (buying cardboard cut-outs, clothes related to him, a "onesie" made out of his pictures, with custom made socks, stickers and excessively buying merchandise relating to him, would this qualify him as being a "teen idol" (according to Wikipedia's definition of it, it does not require the individual to be an actor or singer). So would the inclusion of Category:Teen idol be appropriate? Opinions and I'm just curious for your thoughts. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, TDKR Chicago 101. Can you point us to some WP:Reliable references that support this? If so, I feel that the category should only be included after at least brief mention in the article. Categories are designed to help interested parties find similar examples to the topic at hand. The Category:Teen idols page doesn't suggest that adding Sanders would be helpful. Also, the Teen idol article fails to provide supporting evidence that many of those named might be considered as such. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources covering his sensational teen inspiration: Fox News, TIME, Cosmopolitan, Washington Post, The Hill, Photo Evidence, Video on BuzzFeed --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those sources, TDKR Chicago 101. There's the basis for a mention of this phenomenon in the article. The "Teen idol" part should be based on mention of teenagers, only. However, that can be folded into the coverage of Millenials. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help! So would Senator Sanders qualify for a Category:Teen idols? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say, only after mention in the article of "fan" enthusiasm. However, I don't see a place where it would fit in, gracefully. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But overall the inclusion of how he inspired the millennial generation to the point of merchandise (onesies, socks and even taking a cardboard cut-out of Sanders to prom) be worthy of including since it truly shows how he inspired the generation. Should that be included along with the Teen idol category? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It should happen only after mention of the phenomenon is made in the article. User:HopsonRoad 11:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with HopsonRoad. Categories are navigation devices helping readers find articles related to a subject. I think too that the term refers to entertainers, rather than politicians. Entertainers can be successful by targeting a narrow segment of the public, while politicians cannot. TFD (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Purchase of third house
Add to article? TariqMatters (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, TariqMatters. That may be a news item, but it's not central to the significance of the person described. Other biographies of living people don't typically discuss how many domiciles they have. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a requirement of senators to maintain a residence in their state and in D.C. and not unusual for people in the United States to own cottages. TFD (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Religion and heritage
What is "a typical upbringing for his generation of American Jews"? GenacGenac (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, GenacGenac. I have removed those WP:WEASEL words and substituted more objective ones. User:HopsonRoad 14:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Skin cancer mention
This cancer is so common in the elderly and so successfully responds to surgery that I do not see it worth a mention. Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. This is an encyclopedia, not a news bulletin board or a compendium of information. User:HopsonRoad 17:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Photos
I have moved one photo to a more appropriate section. I have removed the Sanders speaking at the DNC--one photo of him speaking at a podium is plenty for this section. I have returned the Seattle photo of long lines since this is one of the signature events of his campaign. I left the two rally photos per the suggestion that they show the increase in attendance. Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative endeavor and we all need to work with others to achieve a good article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging here, Gandydancer. Here's my problem with the long lines photo: It has nothing in the image that connects to Sanders. People could be standing in line to see Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or awaiting opening of Black Friday. While it does add variety over the two rally images, it doesn't add information. I thought about a gallery section that showed the growth in crowd size, however Wikimedia Commons didn't have images that I thought illustrated that adequately. Alternatively, I wouldn't object to removing the Conway, NH, as well, because it's inconclusive that the two rally images really highlight a growth in crowds, rather than a difference in the sizes of the respective communities. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your statement, "This image has no visible connection to Sanders." Long lines of people at Sander's speaking engagements is a signature of his presidential run.  It is mentioned in the article and he mentions his surprise himself at the outstanding number of people that wanted to hear what he had to say.  He continues to use the story about his concern at his first big rally when he thought he was going to be late due to some sort of traffic jam that turned out to be people that had come to hear his talk at his speaking engagement, even today.  Like the enthusiasm of his supporters, it is a signature of his run.  That's why the photo should be in the article.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur that the context of the image is as you say, Gandydancer. However, without the caption it could be as I indicated above—people standing in line for Trump, Hillary, or Black Friday. If people were holding Bernie signs, then it would clearly be what the caption says it is. I looked for another image of the same event that would accomplish what both of us are interested in—highlighting the crowds in Seattle—and unfortunately they were either close-in shots of the candidate (not showing much of the crowd) or other images of people standing in line sans signs or other visual connections to the candidate. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Gandydancer, I invited User:Wukai, User:Muboshgu, User:MB298, User:Absolutelypuremilk and User:The Four Deuces—recent contributors to this article—to help us arrive at a consensus. So far, they haven't opted to weigh in. Absent the input of others, I'll try inviting someone to provide a Third opinion. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to follow the discussion if you would include images of the pictures under discussion. TFD (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * HopsonRoad, I'm sorry but I just don't see the problem here. These were people standing in line to hear Sanders speaking, not a rally for Sanders where one might expect to see people with signs.  To say they could be standing in line for Trump, Hillary, or Black Friday just makes no sense at all considering that this is the Sanders article and the people are obviously standing in line to see Sanders.   Gandydancer (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Gandydancer, the "problem" is admittedly a minor one. The other two images connect Sanders with numbers of people without relying on the caption. The image at issue relies on the caption. It's also not a very interesting image with many people's backs to the camera; it contains a lot of sky, trees and building, and the subject matter—the people in line—is dark and hard to see, compared with the sky. I just feel it's not a very good picture for illustrating the subject, compositionally or technically. Additionally, in the other two images, people represent 70–80% of the image, whereas in the image at issue people represent less than 25% of the image. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * According to a report re the Seattle speaking engagement, "Crowds lined up early in the drizzle at Seattle Center to hear Sanders’ anti-billionaire message. By midafternoon, the line coiled from the Space Needle and EMP Museum and along Fifth Avenue." As an experienced editor you know how hard it can be to find good photos, but in this case I just do not agree that this one is not appropriate to include to demonstrate the long lines of people that lined up to hear him speak.  I see a cold and wet March day with a long line of people...and I can see many faces fairly well too, not mostly backs of people...not that I'd necessarily see that as a problem anyway.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, Gandydancer, let's leave it at that unless other editors weigh in. I concur that good images are hard to find and that this image is evidence of popular enthusiasm for the candidate. My desire in Wikipedia at large is for illustrations to powerfully leverage what's being explained in the article. I simply felt that this did not meet that standard. Here's wishing you Happy Editing!
 * Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat what I already said about the photo: I see a cold and wet March day with a long line of people...  I thought that the photo well represented the content of the article with no reason at all to slice out part of the sky.  Go ahead and remove it rather than have it cropped for no reason at all, in my opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel that way, Gandydancer. In fact, I did explain the reason at WM Commons, in the caption, and in my edit comment: "I cropped the image in Commons to emphasize the people". I had hoped that this would improve the image for both of us—to make it about the people, standing in line. The chill and wetness are more visible, since one can see the people's clothing more clearly and the wet sheen of the pavement. This tips it towards a keeper for me. I'm sorry if it spoils the image for you. That was neither my intent nor my expectation. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 17:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that you saw it as a compromise and that in your eyes it is an improvement and it looks better. I see no ill will on your part.  We just view things differently.  I think it looks odd to have that cropped image between the other two.
 * And as you know I'd have preferred it on the left as well rather than your preference for chronological order. I've said about all I've got to say on this. I can live with it as is, though not very happily. Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help Trooper but the disagreement seems to have become not whether to use the photo at all but to have part of the sky cropped off because it makes the people more prominent in the photo, according to this editor.  I don't like it because I see no reason for it and the fact that photos are sized as they are for good reason--certain sizes are more pleasing to the eye than others and almost all of our Wikipedia photos are certain standard sizes.  But anyway, I've thrown in the towel on this one.  I appreciate your opinion.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems that the nature of the dispute has changed and I thought that the issue was about inclusion of the image still. Since I see no conflict at image size regulations with a good portion of the sky cropped off, I think that it's worthwhile keeping the image as it is. Thank you. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure, MoS does not say that you should not crop images but there must be a good reason to do it.  In this case it was said, "one can see the people's clothing more clearly and the wet sheen of the pavement."  IMO the pavement does not look any wetter nor does the clothing appear easier to see.  IMO the gloomy sky should not have been cropped.  The poor weather is part of the picture since people stood for hours in it.  If the photo was to be cropped a good reason should have been given.  It was not.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in, -&#61;Troop&#61;-. My reason for keeping the image was to accommodate the wishes of Gandydancer, whom I respect as a valued contributor to this article, even when we don't see eye-to-eye. There are many articles in WP that accrete images. At one point this was one of those. My litmus test for an image is, does it strongly enhance what's written? and would the article suffer significantly by its absence?. My feeling was that this image doesn't pass either test. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As to the quality of the image, if it is to be retained, you can click on it to take you into WP Commons and then go to the earlier version to see what that was like. As an artist, I found that the bright sky detracted from the comparatively dark subject matter of the photograph, the people standing in line. Apparently, for Gandydancer, the subject was the sky as much as the people. User:HopsonRoad 20:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That's interesting because I am an artist as well. To my eye the "thirds" rule played a part in my feelings re the composition of the photo.  And, as I said already the "pleasing sizes" rule as well. And the gloomy sky did not distract at all, but added to the emotional impact of the photo.   Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate learning that, Gandydancer. To my eye, the rule of thirds places the subject (the center of the crowd) in the left-hand third. Also, I cropped the image in a manner that the diagonal formed by the feet of the members of the crowd follows a line between the lower left and upper right corners, connecting the left-facing people with the sky on the right (top). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a pleasing line. Gandydancer (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2017
is: "Many of Elias's relatives back in Poland were killed in the Holocaust.[18][21][22]" in Early Life chapter should be: "Many of Elias's relatives back in German-occupied Poland were killed in the Holocaust.[18][21][22]" in Early Life chapter 86.88.170.44 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  07:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the entire sentence, because none of the three references given mentioned Elias or the fate of his relatives. The statement is probably true, but WP requires WP:Reliable sources. Sorry. User:HopsonRoad 11:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is relevant information, and I am restoring and adding another source: Sanders himself.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding a source, C.J. Griffin. And I agree that it's relevant, since it reflects Sanders' narrative about himself. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Critiques of the Trump administration
A new line of reporting has just developed, regarding Sanders' critiques of the Trump administration. I have two concerns:
 * 1) Organization of content – Currently it is in the U.S. Senate—Tenure section, which might best be devoted to his assignments and votes as it is in the U.S. House of Representatives—Tenure section. I suggest that the sections on Stands on taxes and finances and Critiques of the Trump administration be moved to the Political positions section.
 * 2) Growth rate of content – Sanders' critiques of the Trump administration are likely to become numerous and cause that one section to grow out of proportion to the rest of the article. I see two solutions:
 * a) as the critiques become more numerous, summarize them into a few paragraphs.
 * b) create a new main article, Bernie Sanders re the Trump administration, summarizing the main critiques here.

I'm interested in the perspectives of other editors. User:HopsonRoad 00:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time understanding the point of the "U.S. Senate" section. I thought it would be to describe issues and how Sanders deals with them while Senator, as seen with the "positions on tax and finance legislation" sub section, which is why I put the content relating to Trump there as it had directly to do with the latter as president and how Sanders was reacting to things having to do with him. But if everything is going to be placed in the "Political positions" section apart from two brief sections then shouldn't we just get rid of it? In my view, we should have it somewhere in the Senate section but that won't be the position taken by other users... -Informant16 April 10, 2017
 * A legitimate question, Informant16, and perhaps one that needs clarifying among the editors interested in this article. As I see it, the discussion and thinking that leads to actual votes is legitimately in the "Senate tenure" section, whereas the expressions of Sanders' opinions about the Obamacare action in the House, his opinions about the president's truthfulness, his critique of whether Trump's understanding of climate change is well founded, and his opinion about the airstrike in Syria are legitimately thought of as "Political positions", since they didn't lead to action in the Senate. His opinion of Gorsuch could go into the tenure section, since it led to a vote against confirmation of the new court justice. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just recently tried adding content but had it removed by Gandydancer, who seemingly has become sole decider of what information can be placed on here and how much of it is appropriate. Informant16 April 13, 2017
 * Hi Informant16, I concur with Gandydancer's edit. That is not an attempt at gatekeeping. It's just that as encyclopedia this biographical article about Sanders should summarize his positions, not be a news bulletin board that reflects each news item. So, my suggestion is to store up news items, such as the one reflected in your most recent contribution, then as a pattern emerges, use those news items as citations to describe the pattern of positions that you have identified. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen Informant16, I take no joy in deleting anything good about Bernie. I'm a Sanders supporter.  I worked for his nomination along with my children and grandchildren and we bought the book and are using it. I knitted the pussy hats and we all attended an anti-Trump rally here in Maine. Not to mention the time I have spent working on this and the other Bernie articles.  HopsonRoad gave you some excellent advise and I hope that you take it.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the advice. All of the information I inserted was but a news bulletin board reflecting too much on Trump on an article about Bernie. Entirely false on my part and thus the information has been removed for its many invalidations. Informant16 April 13, 2017
 * I returned your edits. No, it was not all that bad at all.  You are a new editor and you are doing very well, I'd say.  Be patient, work with others, and you'll get the hang of it.  Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Were the material I added of any relevance, it would have been included before I did so. Everyone rushed to call Trump "President-elect" the day of the election because they knew it was of significance. As dictated by other users editing the article, the submitted text was too Trump-focused. Informant16 April 13, 2017
 * Hi Informant16, please don't interpret edit comments or discussion here as "dictating". Instead, what we strive to do is build Consensus among ourselves, as Gandydancer and I tried to do regarding the photos, above. We don't always achieve consensus. There are processes for having others come into the discussion and help find a way towards consensus. So, we should all remember another pillar of Wikipedia and Assume good faith faith in others. We assume that in you and would welcome your assuming good faith in us. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Informant16, While I can't find like examples regarding other politicians, you might draft a new main article that compiles Sanders' political commentary during his career in Washington. It might be called Bernie Sanders political positions, which would expand on what's found in this article and include an evolving summary of current events. These would then be reflected back here in condensed form. As always, it would have to be written from a WP:Neutral point of view. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 23:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cancel the new article advice, since Political positions of Bernie Sanders already exists! User:HopsonRoad 13:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"sorry but this is Sanders' bio and there is too much on Trump already."
I'm quite confused. I was told the information I added contributed to too much content in regards to Trump on this article which is why I chose to remove the rest of my content, but somehow it can stay but the sentence I added that was removed and apparently warranted the quotation above was the breaking point for how much could be on this page? - Informant16 April 18, 2017
 * I may not have been super-careful about how much I restored after you apparently felt disenfranchised to edit here, Informant16. So, don't think in terms of a contribution being "the straw that broke the article's back". Instead, consider the advice above to contribute at the already existing Political positions of Bernie Sanders and then summarize new material here, in such a way that any one section doesn't grow out of proportion to its importance in the biography. In short, welcome back! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to not understand what I'm trying to convey. I was told that my content was adding to what was too much on Trump, after I'd posted the material that users for some reason insist on having here. This was after I added a sentence, leading me to conclude that the several other additions I'd made certainly didn't meet the criteria, which is why I got rid of it in its entirety. I don't understand the point of keeping it up if it apparently devalues the article given what I was told which was there was "too much on Trump already." Surely the current text adds to being overwhelming to readers. - Informant16 April 19, 2017
 * Thanks for getting back, Informant16. Gandydancer and I have been the only parties to this discussion. You properly thought that this material belonged in the article, we agreed. Getting rid of the entry entirely was "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
 * The impression that you give by your repeated reverts (and the title of this talk section) is of being offended by Gandydancer's edit comment. Unfortunately edit comments can be curt and rub other editors the wrong way. When this happens is a good time to discuss the merits of the proposed edit here in the talk page. I believe that Gandydancer showed appreciation for your edits, above. Apart from the edit comment that offended you, the discussion here has been supportive of your interest in Sanders' political positions on the Trump administration.
 * We both have offered practical advice on how to not have one section contain a disproportionate amount of information. I suggest that the Political positions of Bernie Sanders article would be an excellent venue for greater detail on what you were interested in contributing. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Informant, I think that I misspoke when I said "too much already" in my edit summary. Afterwards I read the info and thought about it quite a bit but as you can see I did not remove anything else.  Considering that with the Trump presidency we are living in extremely dangerous times, IMO, it seems reasonable that we devote a fairly large space to Sanders's opinions on him...and rather too much than not enough if we err, perhaps.  It seems that I hurt your feelings and I'm sorry for that.  Gandydancer (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

An unnecessary reduction
I was told that my content was removed because it supposedly added too much in regards to Trump's presidency. How a sentence created such turmoil is beyond me, but I called myself cutting my losses and finding another topic to contribute on, which was the healthcare issue. Now I've had the same user from before bother my content by first moving it to another section and then beyond my understanding "trimming" it because they apparently thought four sentences will consume the entire article and make it unreadable. I placed this information in the senate section because all of what he said and did in relation to this issue was while he was a senator and was told that bills that were voted on were where this would be included. So I ask a second time, what constitutes as being necessary for that section if not the things that relate to his tenure as a senator? - Informant16 May 15, 2017
 * There are no hard and fast rules about what is too much - I suggest you discuss the individual edits on this talk page. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I felt that this was an excellent edit in that it showed a shortcoming of the article: Healthcare was not covered. I moved the info down to the political positions section which seemed to me to be a more appropriate section as it is just one of his many political positions. To better round out the information to cover his overall position rather than his more recent one as related to Trump I added:


 * Sanders is a staunch supporter of a universal health care system, and has said, "If you are serious about real healthcare reform, the only way to go is single-payer." He advocates lowering the cost of drugs that are expensive because they remain under patent for years; some drugs that cost thousands of dollars per year in the U.S. are available for hundreds, or less, in countries where they can be obtained as generics. As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders has introduced legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the Older Americans Act, which supports Meals on Wheels and other programs for seniors. Sanders supported the Affordable Care Act, though he felt it didn't go far enough.

I did not keep all of this:


 * On January 4, 2017, Sanders spoke on the Senate floor in support of retaining the essential elements of Obamacare. To highlight Trump's campaign position to Republican legislators, Sanders displayed a May 2015 tweet of Trump's in which he claimed, "I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid". On March 12, Sanders charged Republicans with trying to "shove" through—by not holding hearings—the American Health Care Act, a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. After House Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the bill on March 24, Sanders called the cancellation "a major victory for the working families of this country and for the hundreds of thousands who attended rallies and town hall meetings in opposition to this bill." On May 4, in response to the House voting to repeal and replace Obamacare, Sanders predicted "thousands of Americans would die" from no longer having access to healthcare.

I shorted it to this which I feel is adequate:


 * On May 4, 2017, in response to the House voting to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, Sanders predicted "thousands of Americans would die" from no longer having access to healthcare. Gandydancer (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you shortened. My question relates to why you choose to only change or edit content after I add something? The information seemingly was fine the entire time that passed between my last entry and this one so why now bother it? Also I'm having a hard time understanding what is supposed to go in the Senate section given that everything relating to healthcare that I added took place and had to do with him being a Senator, which is why I chose to include it there. - Informant16 May 17, 2017
 * Hi, Informant16. Thank you for the material that you introduced. I concur that it was a helpful addition. I can make two observations here:
 * If the material had covered an action that Sanders took, regarding Senate business, it would have properly remained in the Tenure section. However, he was commenting about legislation on the House side, so it properly belongs in the Political positions section.
 * The other question is how much material to add on a given news item. As discussed in a now-archived section, adding only summarized essentials in the main article keeps it from growing overly long. Political positions of Bernie Sanders has more room for detail.
 * Therefore, I support Gandydancer's decision to relocate and trim. However, I feel that we owe you the courtesy to discuss making such changes to your contributions, since you are comparatively new to how editors interact. We want you to stay interested and engaged—you're doing good work! However, this is a place that runs on consensus and we have to expect our contributions to be transitory at times. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, HopsonRoad. Thank you for your input, but I'm having a hard time understanding some components of your views. Several times you've referred to the political positions article as being where things can be more detailed and therefore my content can be included, and yet when this user took it upon him/herself to delete my content, they made no effort to place that content on the political positions article, thereby reducing my work to a waste of time. Secondly, this article is not long, literally only being half the size of the Trump article and less than the HRC article, the latter of whom isn't even in office anymore. I would say we just compromise and I create articles on his term, ideally a Senate career of Bernie Sanders, 2007-2016 and Senate career of Bernie Sanders, 2017-present, akin to the Senate career of John McCain, 2001-2014 article. That way issues can be addressed within a presidential term similarly to the McCain one. - Informant16 May 18, 2017
 * Hi Informant16, you are welcome to start a discussion on your proposal in a new section, based on guidance found in WP:SUBARTICLE. Regarding your earlier more extensive contribution, you can quickly return to that revision, go into edit mode, and copy the text that you provided to place elsewhere. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)