Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 19

Request to edit
Hello, many of you may know that I have been a contributor to this article since 2015. I am not a regular user of Wikipedia and my edit count is in 400s, and so given the current protection status I am unable to edit the article. Are there any admins working on this article who can perhaps give me editing permissions? In particular, I'd like to work on expanding the 2020 Presidential campaign summary. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The blue lock requires users have more than 500 edits so you're almost there. See User access levels. Qzd (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi there HW. I agree it needs to be expanded but what we really need to do first, IMO, is to pare the 2016 info way down.  The 2016 run article looks pretty good at a glance, but I would think it will be a lot of work to compare the two so as not to lose anything. ...I should think that you could write up what you want here and someone could possibly add it?  Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there Gandy! OK, I will work on a draft and post here when it is ready.  HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Time to explain party affiliation in the article
I recommend that Section 9 include a subsection 9.1 on Party affiliations that reflect analysis for reliable sources regarding his past practices and current circumstance on this topic. This should help avoid the rapid shifting of how his party alignment and affiliations are shown in the inbox, sometimes by editors who have not read the discussion here. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, good idea. An explanation would be helpful for the reader and probably help with article stability on this issue. BTW I didn't get your ping, I think you have to sign in the same post as the ping for it to work, so I'm re-pinging: Leviv&thinsp;ich 14:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There needs to be a consensus and explanation for his party affiliation since it is a unique situation. Thanks for pinging me in on this. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made a stab at it, which I expect is subject to further improvement and clarification. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Your edit is good, I think. Your two sources however do not call Sanders a Democrat, they call him a Democratic candidate for president or the Democratic runner-up. By comparison, calling a Mexican national in the U.S. army an "American soldier" is not the same thing as calling them an American.
 * Also, I find that adding Sanders previous affiliations in the info-box makes it too busy. No doubt Sanders also registered as a Democrat or Republican when he was 21 and may have had connections with other parties before his first successful election. But he achieved notability when he was first elected as an independent.
 * TFD (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with the tenor of your thoughts about the infobox, TFD. However, mention of the Liberty Union Party bespeaks Sanders's transition from radical to practical politics. I would prefer to keep its mention in the infobox, but am fine if there is a consensus to omit it.
 * I see your point about how news sources referred to him, as well. I took that combination of refs from elsewhere in and paraphrased the passage. I have deleted the assertion that the press called Sanders a "Democrat" during the 2016 campaign in both places, until there's a preponderance of articles supporting that assertion. Unfortunately, it's difficult to search what was written, then because current topics are the first million results.
 * Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the info-box is to provide a brief summary, not to explain someone's political journey. Sanders is routinely described in mainstream sources as the independent senator from Vermont. If people want to read about all the various political organizations he was involved in before achieving notability they can read the article. In comparison, many notable people held other jobs when they were teenagers or in their twenties, but we don't put them in the info-box. The info-boxes for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and John Boehner for example don't list the years they worked in bars While tending bar was significant to their career development, it is not what made them notable. TFD (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He was notable enough to elicit this story reporting his resignation from the Liberty Union Party. His participation in that party, both as candidate for office and party functionary, was his initial work in politics, quite distinct from tending bar. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So there was an article "Liberty Union Party Chief In Vermont Quits Position" published on page 10 of a newspaper in Neighboring New Hampshire. That would not establish notability in Wikipedia. Notice his name does not even appear in the headline. Do you not think that Sanders is better known today than he was 40 odd years ago? TFD (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox
Should their be a caption under the infobox's image? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Unless there is a compelling reason not to, then MOS:ACCIM suggests to use one "in most cases" to aid with accessibility. WP:CAPLENGTH gives further guidance that, if the image is something that can change over time (such as a person as they age), then at least a short caption should be used. Beyond that, I think there does become a compelling reason to include a caption as the picture gets more and more inaccurate over time as the subject changes/ages. Certainly, its a courtesy to readers to inform them that the image is not current, being 12 years old, and it also points the same out to editors, which encourages them to replace it with a more current image. -- Netoholic @  17:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No, there shouldn’t be a caption. We don’t do it for other politicians, why should Bernie be any different? Guidelines policies, they’re simply a guide. Corky  17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * why should Bernie be any different?
 * Already stated. See above.
 * Guidelines policies, they’re simply a guide.
 * "I don't like it" isn't even a guideline. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


 * From the Manual of style:
 * In a biography article no caption is necessary for a portrait of the subject pictured alone; but one might be used to give the year, the subject's age, or other circumstances of the portrait along with the name of the subject.
 * An infobox image and, in the absence of an infobox, a photograph or other image in the article's lead section, serves to illustrate the topic of the article, as such, the caption should work singularly towards that purpose...Infoboxes for things that change over time can mention the year of the image briefly, e.g. "Cosby in 2010" Bill Cosby.


 * So yeah, absolutely nothing wrong with a caption generally and given the age of the photo, recommended. --Calton &#124; Talk 01:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hitler quotation should be removed
The quotation about Hitler winning an election is wrong so it should be removed. Hitler was never elected as Chancellor of Germany, and in the final free election in 1932 the Nazis lost massive support. The myth about Hitler being elected is only used by the far right to justify the carpet bombing of German cities, so it should be removed. (86.148.226.63 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC))
 * See explanatory note (a), after the quote. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It has been discussed before. First, statements made by people do not have to be correct in order to present them. Second, in in parliamentary systems, first ministers are not directly elected but are chosen based on whether they can maintain the confidence of the legislature. Yet in common speech, they are referred to as elected. In the U.S., it is typical to say that the president is elected, although they are actually elected by an electoral college, not by the people directly. TFD (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hitler was appointed, not elected. The Nazi Party never won an election so the quote is wrong. (109.145.42.75 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC))


 * Whether or not Sanders was correct in what he said, the quote is what he said. It describes what motivated him to participate in politics. That is why it is in the article. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2019
Put all of Sanders' Senate roles into a collapsed infobox section, such as the one in Joe Biden's infobox (should it not be removed as of 4/14/19). Hsidun (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittlePuppers (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Undone by - Why isn't this done (and why articles about politicians specifically)? LittlePuppers (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * MOS:DONTHIDE says, "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." I hope that this helps. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * per above. The information doesn't appear trivial enough for removal, nor does it appear infrequently accessed enough to warrant collapsing. If any editors disagree, another discussion can be opened on this talk page. Nanophosis (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela
The article lacks his position on Venezuela and Maduro regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.255.202.159 (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See: Political positions of Bernie Sanders. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious what you're implying with the word "regime", clown. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:F174:AC39:DAC9:D441 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please review No personal attacks and WP:CIVILITY. We assume good faith here and communicate in a civil fashion. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Where's the personal attack? I love clowns. You should assume good faith! 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:F174:AC39:DAC9:D441 (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

DNC leaks
I recently added the following text to the article:

"Democratic National Committee email leaks

Main article: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak

Emails from the Democratic National Committee(DNC) were leaked to the public in June and July 2016. Some of the emails show that the committee favoured Clinton over Sanders and worked to ensure that Clinton was selected as the Democratic nominee.[206] The leaks led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda".

It was reverted. As far as I can tell at the moment the actions of the DNC are only mentioned tangentially in the sentence "Critics alleged that the small number of debates and the schedule, with half of the debates on Saturday or Sunday nights, were part of the DNC's deliberate attempt to protect the front-runner, Hillary Clinton". It seems an odd omission to me considering the impact of the actions and the relevance to Sanders' campaign. Additionally, in the 'Conclusion' section we have the text: "Some of Sanders's supporters attempted to protest Clinton's nomination and booed when Sanders called for party unity". Readers seeing this is isolation and without the background may wonder why Sanders was booed by his own supporters. What do other editors think? Burrobert (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing your suggestion to the Talk page, Burrobert. I concur with the reasoning of Calton, who reverted your contribution. The episode that you describe is already alluded to at the level appropriate for a biography in the section on Post-election commentary and there's also a "See also: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak". The level of detail that you provided is appropriate for Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and beyond that which is appropriate for this biography. As to why Sanders supporters booed in the incident mentioned, we can only speculate—it could be reported here only if there were a poll of those present and booing, which was then reported in a reliable source. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I did notice the "See also: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak" which points to another page. The subsection "Post-election commentary" seems to be discussing something else, namely what Russia may or may not have done etc. My point was that the actions of the DNC to subvert Sanders' campaign have not been dealt with in a section dealing with Sanders' campaign. As I said it seems like a strange omission and also makes it hard for readers to understand the reactions of Sanders' supporters to the Clinton nomination mentioned in the next subsection. Burrobert (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The info was deleted with this reasoning:No, it belongs in an ARTICLE about te campaign, perhaps. And you misspelled "rationalizes". I  strongly agree with Burrobert's inclusion in this article.  Perhaps we could compromise by cutting the second part:  "The leaks led to the resignation of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda"." wording.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that compromise suggestion, Gandydancer, and thank you, Burrobert, for your observation, as well. I have worked the text into the introductory section of 2016 presidential campaign. See if that works. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your edit but perhaps it would have been courteous to wait for a reply from Burrobert rather than to just step in and make the changes. Gandydancer (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks HopsonRoad and Gandydancer. I am happy with the edits you have made to mention the DNC actions. I included the sentence listing the resignations to show how seriously the revelations were treated however you have covered the main point.Burrobert (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Voting Rights
I think we should add Bernie Sanders's stance on voting rights. He wants to restore the voting rights for everyone, felons included. Here is a USA today article by Sanders himself describing his stance on the issue. ttps://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/30/bernie-sanders-felons-deserve-vote-participate-democracy-suppression-trump-column/3621258002/ He justifies the reasons to why in this article.

Also another reference can be https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-voting-rights-felons_n_5cc1ffd1e4b031dc07ef9b97 where he states, "“I was roundly criticized for this, but you know what, once you begin taking away somebody’s right to vote, it’s a slippery slope. ... “Remember 100 years ago, women in America didn’t have the right to vote. Remember 70 years ago, our African American brothers and sisters had to put their lives on the line to get the right to vote.” and also said "You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad. But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote. I believe in that, yes, I do.” https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-felon-voting-rights_n_5caa349ae4b0a00f6d414374 Darkninja505 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should enter this at the Political positions article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Emphasis of lead
I'm a little surprised by the overall emphasis of the lead section. It seems to prioritize some of relatively minor aspects way over other aspects for which he's much better known (and for which he's received much more coverage in reliable sources). Specifically, I think I'm on solid ground saying that, along with being a longtime Senator for Vermont, Sanders is best known for:


 * Advocating against economic inequality and for single-payer healthcare
 * Being a self-described democratic socialist and progressive
 * Running for president in 2016

Brief mentions of these things belong in the first paragraph. Certainly, they're more significant and more extensively covered by RSs than the fact that his caucusing with the Democrats at times gives them a majority.

I understand that what I'm proposing would be a departure from the most common politician template. However there's no rule or guideline saying that all politicians' lead sections must be structured exactly the same, and Sanders isn't your average politician. R2 (bleep) 18:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * R2, you make a fair point. I have re-arranged the existing text to change the emphasis of the lead by changing the order of its topics. See if this works for you and other editors. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not quite what I was thinking of. I'll make some changes, you can revert if you disagree, and then let's discuss. R2 (bleep) 21:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha, I think we got our wires crossed a bit, but we're right where we should be, at the status quo ante. Here's your version, here's my version, now we can compare. R2 (bleep) 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hoho from here! I'm fine with your edits, in principle, R2. I reverted myself after I saw that your edits were a work in progress! (An edit comment would have clued me in.) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I accidentally clicked rollback instead of undo, preventing me from adding an edit summary. No hard feelings. R2 (bleep) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fix the lede
"In some polls the two are tied."

This is not encyclopedic, dammit. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:F174:AC39:DAC9:D441 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to suggest text that you feel is more appropriate. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting it be deleted, because polls change by the day. And don't touch my personal page anymore. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:47F:F174:AC39:DAC9:D441 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that all polling data on the 2020 race should be removed from the lead section. It's recentism. Yesterday's front-runner is tomorrow's has-been. R2 (bleep) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2019
In the polling section for the June 2018 poll Clinton is listed as the second place person in the poll when it should be Elizabeth Warren. Clinton isn't running. 2605:E000:1B05:150:0:CE52:61B9:88E3 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ This would not reflect the source, which did in fact list Clinton in second place. However, I believe this issue is moot because I removed the entire sentence. R2 (bleep) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2019
Can Category:American socialists and Category:North American democratic socialists be replaced with the subcategory Category:American democratic socialists? Thanks, 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! —  Newslinger  talk   05:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation #266
Reference #266 has a cite error.

Religion
wiki policy is to acknowledge everyone who is Jewish,   why no mention here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.22.214 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No such policy exists and his religion is mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hitler quote
The quote about Hitler is wrong. Hitler lost the election in 1932, and only became Chancellor in 1933 because he was appointed by a senile President Hindenburg. The Nazis actually lost considerable support in the last free election in 1932. (86.160.101.211 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC))
 * This has been discussed at Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 19. The point is that, whether or not Sanders was correct in what he said, the quote is what he said. It describes what motivated him to participate in politics. That is why it is in the article. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There should be a note in the text mentioning the quote is 100% wrong and seriously misleading, in fact it should be removed altogether. The Nazis lost both elections in 1932, as well as the rigged election in March 1933. Hitler never actually won an election. (86.149.119.162 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC))
 * There is a clarifying note. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification needed tag
At the end of the first para in the Personal life section, there's a clarification needed tag. Apparently, the point being whether his grandkids are biological or step-grandchildren. I'm really not sure why the distinction is important but I looked into it and found that all the grandkids are non-biologically related to Bernie.


 * Levi Sanders is Bernie's only biological child. NYT reports Levi and Raine Riggs have three children, all adopted from China.


 * People magazine verifies the other three children are Sanders' step-children from Jane O'Meara Sanders' previous marriage.


 * Probably not a reliable source but does combine some family info in one place.

I couldn't find a single reliable source to verify this so it depends on a combination of sources. This is pretty much WP:SYN and WP:OR of the sources I found and that's not usable. I generally stay away from current political articles or controversy so I'm just dumping the sources here in hopes better editors can either finagle the wording in the article or find a precise single source. I have no idea why I researched this oddly specific tagged issue because seems so minor. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I submit that the distinction is unimportant for an encyclopedic entry and the clarification needed tag should be removed. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Can someone reword this?
In the opening paragraphs, the phrase "Initially considered a long shot..." is used. Can this be reworded as it seems like too colloquial a form of English. -User:VF01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VF01 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest as better? Perhaps, "Despite low early expectations....". Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * and : Done. Thank you both! Nerd271 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the term is fine because it is commonly used in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit
I proposed adding the following to the article, but I am first interested in hearing what other editors think. I will go with whatever the consensus is. What do you think?

In July 2019, it was reported that Sanders had been paying some of his own employees only $13 an hour, despite his own verbal support for a $15 minimum wage. Sanders also said that it was “not acceptable” that some of his employees had complained about this low pay.

Ten Little Flintstones (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Please proceed. Nerd271 (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , sounds like you're trying to use Wikipedia to score some political points. The headline of the article you cited says "Bernie Sanders defends campaign salaries", and all you wrote about his response is criticism. Without having read the article, I'm sure there's more to it than what you're proposing, meaning it fails WP:NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When we cite a news article, we do not cite the title but rather the contents. Why does Sanders have to defend the salaries of his campaign staff? The answer is in the content of the article. Nerd271 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , and now that I clicked the link, my point remains. We summarize the contents, and "Sanders also said that it was “not acceptable” that some of his employees had complained about this low pay" is a cherrypicked and non-neutral summary of what supposedly happened. It certainly seems more biased a proposed edit when noticing that the update on the situation was completely ignored. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * further, it is disingenuous to say that they were being paid $13 an hour. They were being paid $36,000 a year, which, when factoring in the overtime they were working, worked out to about $13 an hour. But $36,000 a year would be at least $15 an hour, if they were working 40 hours a week. That nuance is important. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed edit: biased content about Brazil in foreign policy section
I'm a Brazilian editor, and have put some work into Brazilian history articles; I consider the bit of th e"Foreign policy" section that mentions Brazil in this article to violate WP:NPO; it seems to have been written by someone either biased or ignorant. The mentioned "leaked documents" (actually Telegram and Whatsapp chats involving judges and prosecutors) relating to collusion against former President Lula in the Brazilian justice system are not evidence that the case against Lula is entirely fabricated. They are actually evidence (if they are genuine, and they likely are), that judges and prosecutors were biased against Lula and conspired to hasten legal procedures so as to deny Lula political rights under the Lei da Ficha Limpa, which prohibits those convicted of corruption (and other stuff) from running for office for eight years. It was the eve of the 2018 Brazilian general election, and Lula was likely to win. They also prevented him from taking interviews while in prison.

However, this article makes it seem as though Lula is definitely innocent of the corruption charges he is in prison for, which is a popular conspiracy theory among more hardcore Brazilian leftists. There is no real evidence to support it, though. He and his aides have a lot of evidence against them, uncovered during Operação Lava-Jato. This played a big part in the 2016 impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. Lula's party, the Workers' Party, and other allied parties, support these theories. They are stretching the truth about this leak, however. There was collusion, but Lula was convicted by two separate courts already, one of which was a collegiate decision.

This can definitely be mentioned, but leaving it as it is violates WP:NPOV, because there is no consensus that Lula is in fact innocent (and in my opinion, it is very likely he isn't). Vandergay (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has not been convicted in a fair trial is presumed innocent. TFD (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This article merely summarizes what Sanders said. It can't provide judgment on the appropriateness of his statement until someone else's judgment of Sanders' statement is reported in a reliable source. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2019
I need to edit this page, as their are several things wrong with it. In need to get the truth out there about his opinions. Oh yeah, if it helps, I work for the Bernie Sanders campaign. Macmacy123456789 (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. Not an actual edit request. Request to lift the protection can be made at RfPP, but I don't think that based on your reasoning it has a good chance to succeed, to be perfectly honest. El_C 01:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Change picture, it is 12 years old
The metadata of the photo says it is from 2007, that's 12 years old, there has to be a more recent picture avilable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.142.248.186 (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions for a newer photo? Geolodus (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders smiling at UNC-Chapel Hill.jpg

I found this one from a couple weeks ago on Wikimedia Commons. It can be cropped to be a perfect infobox photo. I understand that it's conventional to use a senator's official portrait, but I do think that in this case it makes sense to invoke WP:IAR given the age of the photo and the fact that many more recent ones are available. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I have to chuckle over this one... I was all ready to say that I don't at all care for what we're using and I was going to mention how a few years ago when a lot of young people were set on fire by their love of Bernie (who they'd never heard of before), and they wanted to change the photo in which they thought "he looks like a perv" (which I thought yes I guess he does...) but then I was going to say that we've got to stick with the "official" one we've got.  But then I looked to our article to remember how pervie it makes him look and it's already been changed...and I LIKE it!  I say nice job and let's keep it.  Gandydancer (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see how re-visiting why we lost the election when we had the most qualified candidate ever nominated is going to help in determining this issue. I agree though, that it was the fault of the voters. TFD (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a new day! And we're all getting the second chance we don't deserve. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 October 2019
Change the alt from "Bernie Sanders campaigning at UNC Chapel Hill, September 2019" to "Official U.S. Senate headshot of Bernie Sanders" as it is inaccurate. I suspect the infobox image was changed and then reverted and someone forgot to change the alt as well. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Phil  roc  (c) 23:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Heart attack
The New York Times is reporting that Bernie had a heart attack. Should the page be changed to reflect this? p b  p  01:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A reference to Senator Sanders 2020 campaign is out of place.
As of October 8, 2019, this Wikipedia article on Senator Bernie Sanders starts with a link to an article on Bernie Sanders' 2019-2020 campaign schedule.

This link regarding Senator Sanders campaign is placed immediately below the title of the entire article. It precedes 100% of the remainder of the overall article. It is the very first thing a reader sees when looking at this article.

This Wikipedia article is a general biographical article on Senator Sanders. It is not an article specific to Sanders' current campaign.

The topic of Senator Sanders 2019-2020 campaign is located at section 8 of this article & is titled, '2020 presidential campaign.'

I request that the reference to his campaign be moved to section 8 which is dedicated to the topic of his 2020 campaign.

The person who posted this at the top of Senator Sanders article was Doug_Grinbergs on October 9, 2019. Grinbergs has been entrusted with the power to edit the Senator Sanders article. That authorization indicates he is experienced at working on Wikipedia projects & that he would be able to make this correction.

Evonline (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Nancy Volle (evonline) October 8, 2019

October 15 Debate
It states that Bernie Sanders “will participate” in the CNN debate on October 15. This happened and he did participated. The article should be changed to reflect that, also adding details and citations on his performance in this debate.

Yoleaux (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Requesting edit for grammar
I request that the following text from section 8.4:

"Though the nature of Sanders's condition was not initially disclosed, it was later reported that he had a heart attack."

be amended to:

"Though the nature of Sanders's condition was not initially disclosed, it was later reported that he had had a heart attack."

This is a grammar fix for tense, as the heart attack occurred before the "later report[ing]" and should therefore be in the pluperfect ("had had").

As I am not extended-confirmed (I've been here for 12 years but have only 230 edits) I am requesting someone do this for me. Magic9mushroom (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Can a registered editor please fix the footnote error in the "Early life" section of the article. Thank you. 2607:FCC8:944C:5300:9496:D745:2727:7456 (talk) 00:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Two issues
"War and peace:

Sanders opposed funding Nicaraguan rebels, known as contras, in the CIA's covert war against Nicaragua's leftist government." - Perhaps change this to "left-wing" as it is more in accordance with the terminology that Wikpedia uses. Also, the last book in Sander's publications is a dead link.VF01 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
In section fundraising please add: "Sanders' campaign raised $34.5 million during the fourth quarter of 2019. "


 * ✅ thanks! 🌿  SashiRolls t ·  c 14:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Populism
This article is categorized as "Left-wing populism in the United States", but populism isn't mentioned in the text of the article. Perhaps it should be. I notice one of the sources already in the article describes him as populist, and from a quick search, it looks like there are plenty more. Has this been discussed before? Benjamin (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pledged Delegate vs Popular Vote count
The article currently reads "Despite initially low expectations, he went on to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates, to Hillary Clinton's 55%." However, the 55% and 43% numbers come from the popular vote numbers, the pledged delegate ratios are somewhat different, so I suggest changing this to 'approximately 43% of primary votes, to Hillary Clinton's 55%' --DrCruse (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , if those are the "popular vote numbers", those need to be changed to pledged delegates. There is no "popular vote" in primaries, especially when you consider the inherent differences between a primary and a caucus. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a popular vote total though, we list it on every Democratic/Republican primary page, here is an example. Yes caucuses don't have a popular vote, but that is why we use the word "approximately" here. Seems if we're calling it 'popular vote' literally everywhere else, would be fine to use it here. --DrCruse (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The numbers are still inaccurate. Can we get it changed to say 'popular vote' since that's what those numbers are? DrCruse (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Communist
Bernie wants free college and healthcare. This is a communist set up and the average person would pay double taxes if America switched to this!


 *  Cool --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, seconded GameEnd (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM --Tomb Blaster (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Gun-related votes section
"He voted against the bill four more times in the 1990s, explaining his Vermont constituents (high on hunting, low on homicide) saw waiting-period mandates as more appropriately a state than federal matter." That's a weird way of phrasing the bit about Vermont having a low homicide rate and Vermonters being interested in hunting. I'm sure there's a clearer way to put it. Ungulates (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of random individual polls in 'Polls and news coverage' section
Why does this section cite two random individual polls? We should generally not cite individual polls. Furthermore, why are polls included in a section about media coverage? What does this content add? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * These are not random polls. One shows that Sanders might have won the race if he rather than Clinton had run up against Trump.  The other shows that Sanders may have contributed to Trump's victory because more voters switched their vote to Trump than Clinton voters would have.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (1) The poll does not show that, and that's not how the world works, as the experts explain in this PolitiFact piece. (2) Why is this in a section together with 'media coverage'? It feels like a coatrack. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Bernie Sanders voted for this and it should be discussed or broadened in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.249.220 (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders has been a Senator for quite some time, so I'm sure he's made votes on hundreds of bills, and we can't detail each one. Do reliable sources describe this as a particularly significant vote in his career? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The response from Seraphimblade should probably be considered disingenuous but it won't be. That wouldn't be fair at all would it? A contributor asks why Bernie Sanders voted to make the USA more of a police state. So the immediate challenge is that I need to dig up "evidence and sources about Bernie's vote" and qualify my "way over the top insinuation that Bernie voted for a police state".

Why does a contributor need these things? Can you use Google and look up what 3 strikes did to prison populations? Does it make Bernie look bad? Is that why you're telling 73.120.249.220 to get some reliable sources on his vote but curiously not on the bill he voted for? He voted for it. This needs to be mentioned in the article. The Act has enormous consequences but it's not my role to do what is near universally understood at this point. Unless of course we want censorship because it makes Bernie look bad or we don't want the public to understand the Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.24.111 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade is right. If there are reliable sources that give WP:WEIGHT to the idea that this vote is more meaningful to his career than other votes, then we can include it. But if you're just trying to make Bernie look bad, then that doesn't fly here on any page. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinion would justify censorship? WP: CENSORSHIP The fact that Bernie voted for and authorized the death penalty for 60 new federal offenses, life in prison for three felonies and to destroy children by dragging them through the criminal justice system or all sorts of crimes is just that - a fact.

Moreover, the crime bill is important enough to Bernie Sanders and his campaign that he has mentioned his vote repeatedly. He's told the public over and over that this is a vote that he regrets, or that he regrets his vote but he had to do it, or he didn't like what he saw but voted for it, or it was about assault weapons so he was forced to vote. This is a politician handling an issue (his vote) which is seen as a lightning rod of controversy otherwise he would drop it and move on. So Bernie continues to mention this vote. So does the media. I can't think of many other votes Bernie regrets so consistently and repeatedly and publicly. This is clearly something he feels he needs to do in a Presidential Campaign. Bernie feels that this is one of his most meaningful votes, so he's constantly explaining what he meant. Wikipedia needs to stay objective and simply add facts: "He voted for the crime bill ... " He regrets voting for the crime bill" .. perhaps "It's one of his most important votes" done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.147.71 (talk) 11:34, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, but we consider what is due and undue WP:WEIGHT, and none of your words, presented without reliable sources, indicate that there is any due weight to add what you're suggesting. You have to find a source to say he regrets voting for the bill before we can add that he regrets voting for the bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is censored, it's just not referred to as censorship. The issue remains that we need to list his vote for the '94 crime bill in the main article. A very important vote in his career. For some reason this is being censored. If we include that he regrets voting for the crime bill Wikipedia can cite CNN, Vanity Fair and less reliably Axios. Since he's actively engaging coverage of his vote - Sanders has also defended voting for the crime bill as I've mentioned above - cite CNN. Regret, not regret, wish that things were different - all these can be included - but what should be included in the main article is his vote for the crime bill.


 * If it is included proper context should be added. Sanders opposed 3 strikes you're out but supported the anti-violence against women and gun control sections. There's a lot of compromise in legislation. TFD (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed research related to 2016 media coverage
Why were the best sources on the topic of media bias in the 2016 election removed from this article while punditry and minutiae about alleged bias are kept in the article? We should clearly use the best available sources: peer-reviewed research and academic assessments which provide an overview of media coverage in the 2016 election and directly address whether the media was biased against Sanders. If there's a need to keep the article short, then the random punditry and minutiae about bias should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about the biography of Bernie Sanders not even about his campaign.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So the "polls and news coverage" section which is exclusively about his 2016 campaign should be removed? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , no I am saying it should be shortened not much detailed as we have a separated article for that.
 * BTW, where is that part about Sanders getting coverage in consistent with his polls from? This study, for example, says that he got less coverage than Ted Cruz despite the fact that Cruz quit the race.
 * Sanders in particular struggled to get the media’s attention. Over the course of the primary season, Sanders received only two-thirds of the coverage afforded Clinton. Sanders’ coverage trailed Clinton’s in every week of the primary season.... Sanders received even slightly less coverage than Cruz, despite the fact that Cruz quit the race and dropped off the media’s radar screen five weeks before the final contests.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Tesler, Sides and Vavreck 2018 find that his coverage was largely consistent with his polling. The Shorenstein Center report that you cite above does not track coverage and polling as precisely as Tesler, Sides and Vavreck, but the report notes that coverage of Sanders was low when he polled poorly and rose as he increasingly closed in on Clinton in the polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "the report notes that coverage of Sanders was low when he polled poorly and rose as he increasingly closed in on Clinton in the polls"
 * Are you talking about this study? It says the opposite. It explicitly says Sanders received even slightly less coverage than Cruz, despite the fact that Cruz quit the race for that book, I cant currently have access to it to verify.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That line has nothing to do with how they are polling. The Republican race got vastly more coverage than the Democratic race (which is text that I tried to add before GandyDancer deleted it), so the #2 in the GOP race got more coverage than the #2 in the Democratic race. For the Democratic coverage, Sanders got coverage proportional to his standing in the polls vis-a-vis Clinton and the others. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you provide the page numbers for these detailed trackings of coverage that you say T-S-V go into? All I see are detailed tracking of Clinton's coverage (page 109 for example). I would be interested in knowing who they cite for footnote #16 on page 107  (for a claim about the pre-primaries, ...) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 03:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific page numbers that I have cited are in the citation: pp. 8, 99, 104–107. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just curious if it's Crimson Hexagon Brandwatch in footnote 16 on page 107. Could you indicate the main source for pp. 104-107, please...    🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 03:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Note the difference between Clinton's graph (data between 80% and 35%, concentrated around 60%) and Sanders' graph (data between 5% and 55%, concentrated around 35%). As predicted this data comes from Brandwatch and does not support the text Snoog has edit-warred into the entry. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Verbatim quote from Page 105: "Sanders’s media coverage and polling numbers were strongly correlated". You didn't see this or did you just link to a random Google Books preview page without knowing what it said? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Of course I saw those words about a 0.69 correlation. It is not particularly well explained or overly interesting.  I suppose the claim is that Clinton's was uncorrelated and that she got much more press than she would have been expected to because of her different bad press issues?   The fact shown quite clearly in the graphs is that Sanders got substantially less press than Clinton.  That's all. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 21:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a strong correlation, and for what its worth to the extent that there was a clear discrepancy between Sanders' polling and his media coverage, it was during the early campaign when "Sanders’s share of news coverage far exceeded his share in national polls." (p. 105 – the same page that you found in the Google Books preview) When you say, "The fact shown quite clearly in the graphs is that Sanders got substantially less press than Clinton. That's all." No one has ever disputed that Clinton (the front-runner) got more coverage, so I'm unclear what that remark has to do with anything, and it's yet another demonstration how incredibly hard it is to try to have a discussion with you about anything. No one is arguing to include text that says "Clinton and Sanders got equal amounts of media coverage". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I just discovered that two days ago, all the content which failed to substantiate media bias against Sanders (including the best sources on the topic) was removed whereas all the content that suggested media bias against Sanders was kept. It's a pretty clear NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is good reason to use this information at the new media page rather that in this article. For example you added this:


 * Studies of media coverage have shown that the amount of coverage of Sanders during the 2016 election was largely consistent with his polling performance, except during 2015 when Sanders received coverage that exceeded his standing in the polls.[181]


 * But is the same paragraph you added the other ref you offered says:


 * By summer, Sanders had emerged as Clinton’s leading competitor but, even then, his coverage lagged. Not until the pre-primary debates did his coverage begin to pick up, though not at a rate close to what he needed to compensate for the early part of the year. Five Republican contenders—Trump, Bush, Cruz, Rubio, and Carson—each had more news coverage than Sanders during the invisible primary.[23] Clinton got three times more coverage than he did. (Authored by Thomas E. Patterson,,) Patterson suggests that the early months of the campaign are the most important months as they give the candidate the much needed exposure they need.  The fact remains that Sanders was drawing huge crowds and remained largely ignored by the press and that is what we should keep in the article, while we let the new media article get into the nitty-gritty of it.Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Patterson is not specifically looking at whether polling is consistent with coverage, and he does not say that Sanders got less coverage than what he was polling (he's saying he got less coverage than Clinton (who at all times outpolled Sanders)). If that's the sole line that you disagree with, then that should have been removed – not all the academic content. The line should of course be in the article, given that it's consistent with the findings of Sides, Tesler and Vavreck's authoritative Princeton University Press book on the 2016 election. Also, it's beyond me how you can describe three sentences from "overview" academic assessments of media bias in the 2016 election as "nitty-gritty" when they are by far the least nitty-gritty things in that entire section. Everything else in that section is minutiae and random punditry. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries. From March 15th to May 3rd 2016, Patterson says Sanders got 39% of the coverage in the Democratic primary (which got 36% of the media coverage of the primaries) in the outlets he studies. Sanders quite rarely polled below 40%, and occasionally polled ahead of or equal with HRC during that time (and most often within the margin of error looking at the data above quickly), contrary to what is asserted above. HRC never polled at 61% during the period but this is the coverage she got in Patterson's sample. This debate can take place on the page dedicated to media coverage.  As Sharab said above, this is his bio. 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 23:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be in the business of original research, 538's aggregate poll tracker shows that Sanders's poll numbers ranged from 38.4-41.7% during that period, making the media coverage entirely consistent with his share of media coverage. Besides that, the race was effectively over by mid-March (an assessment reflected in peer-reviewed assessments). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As people have been trying to explain to you for a while, the conclusion that the race was "effectively all but over" (given the superdelegates and the general media/DNC ambiance), does not necessarily change matters of fact concerning media coverage.  I see you are citing 538, which didn't do too well in Michigan or Indiana as I recall with their own predictions.  Again note that at no time during the 2016 period they aggregate was HRC at 61%. :) 🌿   SashiRolls t ·  c 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) SS, Please do not twist what I said. "Nitty-gritty" means "what is essential and basic : specific practical details", so I clearly did not suggest the information is not important.  The trouble is, there is nothing harder for us to do than whittle a complicated issue down to just a few words and sometimes it is next or is impossible.  That is why I feel that this information is best included in the new article.  As for your suggestion that "Everything else in that section is minutiae and random punditry", I don't agree and apparently thousands of readers and plenty of good WP editors don't either because it has been in the article for years and nobody has complained or tried to remove it.  Gandydancer (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a falsehood. I tried to remove some of the nonsense more than 18 months ago, but it was immediately restored by you. Furthermore, just two days ago, you delete all the long-standing content in that section that conflicted with the claim that the media was biased against Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So now I'm a liar posting nonsense and editing bias into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

DNC bias against Sanders
Not sure if this is already in this article. I found reports from WaPo and other RS about DNC leaks that revealed that the DNC was trying to undermine Sanders campaign in 2016. It says that they even used his religion to attack his campaign. A lot of other stuff also leaked and was according to the WaPo "the most damaging." see the source. The DNC had to apologize to Bernie Sanders supporters after the leaks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I found it but it doesn't look like a neutral reflection of what the source is saying. Some of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to the public in June and July 2016 showed that the committee leadership had favored Clinton over Sanders and had worked to help Clinton win the nomination. The source has mentioned many instances where the DNC worked to undermine Sanders campaign, trying to make his religion an issue, this should be mentioned especially the stuff about religion. where all that stuff in this article? The paragraph seems like a whitewashing, also doesn't mention that they apologized to Sanders supporters. It should be reworded.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders and Lockheed Martin
Lockheed Martin is the largest U.S. government contractor and the largest weapons producer in the world. Bernie Sanders lobbied this corporation. Please add this fact to the article. It won't be necessary to write a book about the Lockheed Corporation, or write an explanation of Bernie's behavior, intent, compromise, edification, posturing or whatever creative description the morass of insta-journalists will zealously use as a weapon to defend the merits of some candidate who they feel has been slighted unfairly. Because for these people it's a war of some kind, it's never an honest attempt at objective fact based journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.139 (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind your biases. They are not helpful here. If you want something to be added to the article, please propose some text and provide reliable sources to support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Text: "Bernie Sanders lobbied Lockheed Martin both to base the F-35 in his state and for Sandia National Labs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.234.0 (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Source? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC) * https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html     * https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/state-woos-national-research-lab

The article could also mention that he opposed the federal government subsidizing the merger of lockheed and martin marietta back in the 90s. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, to be fair we should also mention Sanders support for Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia back in the 90s, his vote for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted and his backing of Obama’s Libyan debacle and support for an expanded US role in the Syrian Civil War. Naturally we'll both need sources for these statements.