Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 20

Infobox image
Should the infobox photo be changed to a more recent image? The current infobox photo is from 2007, which is quite a while ago. (Sidenote, I'm sure this has been discussed previously, but can't find any discussions about it on theis page's archives.)  Nixinova   T   C  01:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Considering the age of the 2007 photo as well as the significant shift in Sanders' public image since it was taken, I feel that User:HappyWanderer15's invocations of WP:IAR and WP:UCS are justified in this case (is there even any actual rule that official government portraits must be used on the articles of elected officials?). Vrrajkum (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In light of this edit, I'm officially adding my support for the second image (the one that has the red letters in the background). Vrrajkum (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the one where he is looking towards the camera is better. Is there a new one which shows him looking towards the camera?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure, but here's another angle of the new one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders_July_2019.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.54 (talk • contribs)
 * Looks better. Thanks!. I think this one the IP proposed seems to fit in the infobox.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support newly proposed image This is the image suggested by the IP editor and supported by SharʿabSalam. I support it, too. A more recent image than the previous is appropriate. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In this instance, I think the use of a more recent image is reasonable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Found the older discussion (here) which had a semi-consensus for the new image from a few months ago, but for some reason the image was changed back (and I cant be bothered to look extensively through page history to find why).  Nixinova   T   C  02:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The image was changed back with this edit and the edit comment, "Get a consensus". We appear to have a consensus. Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 19 did not result in a consensus, it was only an assertion that the image was out of date, but did not agree on an image. The discussion then turned to the politics of the 2016 election. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well now reading that old copy just makes me chuckle again. {  I was afraid that I must have said something boring like "oh drats, we can't because it's not official" and I didn't at all say that!  So I'll say it again:  Let's change it - I like the first one best.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)  Or either, they are both an improvement.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I concur with Gandydancer; either is fine. Sanders' expression is nicer and the lighting is better (IMO) in the second one, but the background is cleaner in the first one. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I support updating the image as well. I get that the old one is his official portrait, but he looks very different after 12 years. Maybe there's a more recent official image we could use? In the meantime, I support using the first of the two new images, as the background is cleaner and he's looking more towards the camera. Birb ebooks (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Myabe I'm a bit biased, as I'm the uploader of "Bernie Sanders July 2019 (cropped).jpg", however I agree with Birb ebooks, this one is clearer and he looks more towards the camera. Moreover, it's better cropped. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: the first one of the new images was even tweeted by Bernie (1) -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There is unambiguously a consensus to update the older image; 4 editors (myself, SharabSalam, HopsonRoad, and Gandydancer) have expressed support for the second new image, while 4 (Gandydancer, HopsonRoad, Birb ebooks, and Nick.mon) have expressed support for the first new image. expressed support for replacing the old image, but did not express any preference for one of the newer images over the other.

I initially supported the the first new image before I saw the second one; I feel that the second one is superior because Sanders' left eye is shadowed in the first image, which makes his expression look odd in the thumbnail. Sanders' smile and overall affect is also nicer in the second photo. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 February 2020
There is a single letter m on the very front of the page, could you remove it? Hkfreedomfighter (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

✅ (my fault) -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 01:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Political positions
I'm thinking most of these subsections should be migrated over to the designated "Political positions of Bernie Sanders" article. There should really just be a general description of his overall philosophy here with the specifics in the political positions article.

Just putting it out there before I start tackling it. Woko Sapien (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * This is consistent with previous discussions found at: Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 15, Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 16, and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 18. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeable to Woko's suggestion. How far do you plan to go with that, just from the Political positions section or more?  Gandydancer (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I suggest moving all the subsections into the Political positions article, from "Banking and campaign finance reform" to "War and peace". In place of them, I think we should move the "Commentary of others" section from the Political positions article and relocate it to the main article in the Political positions section (we can probably remove that section title once that's done). In addition to making the main article longer than it needs to be, it currently seems arbitrary which political issues we have in the main article versus which ones we have in the Political positions article. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See my sandbox for an idea of what I have in mind. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So do you think we should keep all that information listed under his years in the House in the article? These decisions can get tricky when we are dealing with a politician who's been around as long as Sanders when one considers that the press tends to cover some things more than others, gun control for example.  That vote against the Brady bill when he felt he was representing what Vermont wanted certainly set him up for extended press on guns.  But do we still need so much?  Would it make sense to set out a list of things that stand out that we want to keep here and then move the rest?  Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Inquiring minds want to know...(because I really do think I might be...{)  Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)  PS - missed your sandbox suggestion...I will look at it.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't believe there is a perfect solution. First, political positions pages get seen a lot less than do bios.  As such they tend to be less of a target for those who want to use the megoglophone.  Once you evacuate the political positions they have a habit of growing back, sometimes embellished with those elements considered most damaging by opponents, or most appealing by fans.  Your suggested substitute text is quite good, but it is also quite general, focusing primarily on discussion of social democrat versus democratic socialist labels.  As TFD said somewhere on the TP, these labels  don't represent "political positions" as much as "political positioning".   Neither has a wikidata item, for example, as far as I can tell (though there is Q51480354 ^^)  tl;dr:  I would go slowly. . --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sashi voices some of the same concerns that I have experienced over the years. We keep a few positions here and move others?  Well as WoKo pointed out, keep which and move which (and how do we decide which is which?).  Then if we keep a few people will constantly add something they just read to what we've got...and the list will grow and grow or a mean more experienced editor will, "in good faith", move it to the Positions article.  And as for the "people don't read the splits", totally agree here.  But they will ask, in a way that suggests the article is lacking, where are the political positions???  Sashi is right, we won't be coming up with the perfect solution no matter how hard we try. But now we've got a politician who has ran for office numerous times, including for pres X2, so not surprising we need to do some figuring...  Gandydancer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)  (BTW, our Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign seems to have a good compact version of positions if we would decide to take that route.)  Gandydancer (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no magic solution. If there's a stance he took in Congress that is generally agreed to be essential to understanding his tenure there, then I'd say it belongs both on the main article (but in the House or Senate sections) as well as the separate Political positions article. Also, I've copied a large chunk of the 2020 campaign's political positions section (which is fantastically written BTW) and pasted it into my sandbox proposal. I think this makes it a good middle ground: succinct enough that it doesn't try to list every issue under the sun, but specific enough that a reasonable person could sufficiently understand Sanders's philosophy (which addresses Sashi's concerns). --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, first I want to make it clear - I believe that you are doing good and unbiased work for this article. But..., I am wondering, have you recently read the Political positions of Bernie Sanders? If my memory serves me correctly I have watched it bloat (in my opinion) into what we now have.  Again, if my memory serves me correctly, at one point I complained and the editor that was adding so much information felt offended and said as much.  So after that I just stepped aside.  I decided that our readers could just move through what we've got to find something of interest to them.  But at this point where we are attempting to judge what to keep here and what to move it comes up again, IMO.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * First, thank you! I know political articles (especially during election years) can be downright nasty places on here - so I appreciate the kind words! Second, like I said earlier, I think some paragraphs should stay but be relocated to the House or Senate sections. For instance, the 8-1/2 hour filibuster in 2010 is a good thing to keep but move to here since it has to do with a piece of legislation he was fighting against. As for the political positions article, that's sort of the next thing I'd want to tackle. Clean up the main article first, then bring a little more law and order to the political positions article after. For what it's worth, my vision is to bring Sander's article more in line with similar politicians' articles (like Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren). --Woko Sapien (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've worked very closely with this and Warren's article for many years and in my experience this one has been pretty easy with editors willing and able to cooperate. But Warren's article has been pure hell and I've spent countless hours over there.  And nothing was ever settled for good, for example now it's back again to that we need to say she broke a law when she put some of her family recipes in the cookbook that the small museum her cousin worked for was using as a way to raise money.  I dunno, but after all she did teach law at Harvard...one would think...  OK, back to this article. It still has info about various bills introduced or passed, for example one on cancer, a few words about a Vermont post office, something about Vet's payments, etc.  and I don't understand what logic you are using to keep them.  The Sanders political positions has many, many comments on this or that legislation.  I would think that some of these might be better squeezed in along with the rest...?  Again, nice work and many of us know how time consuming the sort of task you have taken on is, and appreciate it.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually done anything yet. I'll start making the edits I'm talking about throughout the week. I'll let you know when it's done.--Woko Sapien (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I'm done making the changes I wanted to make. It didn't come out exactly like my sandbox proposal, but that was just a rough idea of what I had in mind. Anyway, the section much more succinct, which I think is a good thing.--Woko Sapien (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism?
In the article Sanders is called a "self-described democratic socialist", but what Sanders clearly means by this definition of himself is that he is a Social democrat, should we not link to the page for Social Democracy when we use the term in this article, or at least when he is called a "self-described democratic socialist"... This would end a lot of confusion and hopefully cement the fact that Sanders is using a modern reinterpreted definition of Democratic Socialism, actually meaning Social Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Whiteley (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , what you think he "clearly means" is your original research, unless you know of reliable sources that talk about him being a social democrat. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * simply look at the political positions section of this article or the page Political positions of Bernie Sanders and compare them with the pages Democratic Socialism and Social democracy... or alternatively, take a look at this article. TJ Whiteley (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * and Sanders' brand of socialism shouldn't link from his self description, unless he has clarified further what he meant by that term. A discussion of his brand of socialism should be a source to a link to Social democrat from such articles as:
 * "Bernie Sanders’s brand of socialism is hard to pin down" Megan McArdle WaPo
 * "Bernie Is Not a Socialist and America Is Not Capitalist" Marian Tupy Atlantic
 * "Bernie Sanders and the rise of American social democracy" Ryan Cooper The Week
 * but contradicted at:
 * "Bernie Sanders: ‘Democratic Socialist’ Is Just a Synonym for New Deal Liberal" Eric Levitz NY Magazine
 * HopsonRoad (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See this edit, where I have put "democratic socialist" in parentheses and have added a discussion of Social democracy, below. That may be redundant with the discussion in Bernie Sanders. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest linking to the Political and economic philosophy section of the page Political positions of Bernie Sanders here (where Sanders is described a "democratic socialist"), although this article in itself needs some work making clear that Sanders is not under most definitions a Democratic Socialist. Possibly even the 'Academics' section of the page, which explains the controversy over the term best. TJ Whiteley (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Different writers assign differing meanings to democratic socialism/social democracy. Generally social democrat is a term of abuse used against people one does not consider sufficiently left-wing. TFD (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought it is a slur the opposite ie. "against those too far left of center!?" but the evolution of derogatory terms can & will change over time :-( --GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 06:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)
 * I admit I find all of this amusing, for social democrats themselves used the democratic socialist moniker since the 20th century. I think the problem is that people conflate social democracy with what self-professed social democratic do, so they conflate social democracy with the Third Way since the neoliberal shift. However, as correctly pointed out by elsewhere, does that mean now social democracy itself advocate the same? Does that mean now deregulation, free trade, neoliberalism, privatisation et all are social democratic rather than policies simply adopted by social democratic parties due to pragmatism to win elections in the neoliberal world?
 * Indeed, social democrats adjusted to the political climate since the 1980s that favoured capitalism by recognising that outspoken opposition to capitalism in these circumstances was politically nonviable and that accepting capitalism as the current powers that be and seeking to administer it to challenge free-market and laissez-faire capitalists was a more pressing immediate concern (Romano 2006, p. 113). Sources like Adams 1998, p. 127 refer to the Third Way in Britain as liberal socialism. The problem is that it seems people see socialism as an economic system rather than as an ideology too, so apparently if someone doesn't advocate socialist policies (which ones then?), it isn't socialist. However, that's the curse of socialist reformism; because all social democratic parties have to govern the economy accordng to capitalist, not socialist, logic. That doesn't mean they aren't still ideologically socialists as defined by The Historical Dictionary of Socialism or similar sources. Indeed, what would be the difference between social democracy and social liberalism? Social democrats are socialists; social liberals are liberals (this is also the difference between Sanders and Warren). Many sources which claim that Sanders isn't a socialist is because they define socialism as state ownership in the means of production, therefore Sanders isn't really a socialist but a social democrat, gotcha! Then by this argument all but state socialists aren't true socialists. They also wrongly conflate democratic socialism with the pink tide, notwithstanding they're nothing but more populist social democrats opposed to the neoliberal shift, even when they still had to surrender to the neoliberal logic per their reformism.
 * In other words, Sanders nicely fits the centre-left of the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist. The problem is that there wasn't a strong social democratic/socialist movement like in Europe, so that makes it harder to unabashedly saying Sanders is a socialist, but this markedly difference between democratic socialism (socialism) and social democracy (capitalism), as if they aren't both socialist ideologies, is unnecessary when they're much closer, although by no means the exact same thing. Finally, I redirect you to these Four Deuces's comments here and here.--Davide King (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as this discussion of Sanders' politics interests me, we have to remember that a talk page is a place to discuss how reliable sources characterize his politics and other biographical matters, not how we interpret his politics. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, . I was trying to put things in perspectives and I thought my comment was helpful in clarify a few things. I think the issue shouldn't be whether Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat but rather whether he's a social democrat or a social liberal because social democracy is a socialist (reformist) ideology, not simply advocating a few social-democratic policies or the Social Democratic parties that moved towards the center since the 1970s. Yes, Sanders doesn't advocate economically socialist policies, but neither do many other people routinely described as democratic socialists or again the hundreds of political parties around the world that are routinely described as socialist and I mean actual socialist/social-democratic parties, not what Republicans mean by socialism. I mean, the same thing could be said about Corbyn, who's pretty much an old-style social democrat in actual policy, notwithstanding red baiting against him. And yes, I have problems with sources like Marian Tupy who define socialism as state ownership of the means of production (we should use no sources that define it this way when talking about Sanders; of course Sanders isn't a socialist if in that sense) and apparently claim the United States isn't a capitalist country, conflating socialism with the Communist systems.--Davide King (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image v2
As per this discussion, Sanders' official Senate portrait from 2007 has been updated to a newer image. However, there is some disagreement as to which of the two new proposed images to choose. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Left: As I stated above, Sanders' left eye is shadowed in the right image which makes his expression look odd in the thumbnail. Sanders' smile and overall affect is also nicer in the left image. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Either The lighting is better in the left; downside: the background is cluttered. The right image is dark and less cheerful. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment In the left image, it would be easy to remove the blue stripe (left) and the red stripes (right) from the background, since they are distracting and provide no substantive information. In the right image, it would be easy to improve the exposure with some lightening. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Left not a strong opinion but its slightly better than right one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Left: Also not a strong opinion, but it's a slightly clearer image of his face, even if he's looking off to the side a little bit, which I think outweighs the negatives. Birb ebooks (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Right: I think that in this one he's more "institutional", and he's looking more towards the camera. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Left, though only by a bit. (Also, I didn't mention above, but we should ensure that his official Senate photo does still appear somewhere within the article, as many readers may have seen that image and visually recognize him by it.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Either is fine with me. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the broken link "Mayoral career" in the sidebar to point at Mayor_of_Burlington_(1981–1989)
I can't do that myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flegozoff (talk • contribs) 22:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you change the signature to the one on his website
He uses this signature on his campaign website. https://cms-assets.berniesanders.com/static/img/bernie-signature.png can you change it to this one like the series infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copelonian (talk • contribs) 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2020
Hello I'm just wondering if you can add a New Hampshire Primary and Iowa Caucus section because Bernie Sanders won New Hampshire and second place in Iowa Thanoscar21 (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I think you want 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which is linked from this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The victories in Iowa and New Hampshire are extremely important to his biography. Without them, it looks like the article has been badly neglected. Except for a mention of his recovery from the heart attack, it appears he DIED from it, as there is nothing afterward. So yeah, I added some stuff. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment invitation
Please participate in the Request for Comment about a change proposal for the infobox for caucus results. Xenagoras (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently, someone wants to end the article on his return hom from the hospital. They undid my mention of it THREE TIMES. I don't mind their editing it to within an inch of it's life, but we need the primary resuts mentioned. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working on updates to get your information into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In 1987, U.S. News & World Report ranked Sanders one of America's best mayors.
The Wiki states that "In 1987, U.S. News & World Report ranked Sanders one of America's best mayors." Now this may or may not be true, as I can not find a copy of "THE BEST OF CITY HALL." U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 12/21/87. But the Wiki cites a Bernie political ad on Youtube as a source. I would argue that this is not a valid source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.219.196.58 (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the source with two reliable sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Photo
Shouldn't his photo be his official Senate portrait? This is how it is for all other Senators and especially for those running for President. This feels like a biased choice of photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashbron (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hashbron, see the two discussions above on the infobox photo, Talk:Bernie Sanders and Talk:Bernie Sanders. This has been decided by consensus. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We cite aggregate polls – we don't cherrypick individual polls
There are lots of random individual polls in the article. These do not belong in the article, in particular when there is aggregate polling available on exactly the same topic as the individual polls. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quinnipiac is considered the best of the best and is just fine to use. Gandydancer (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do not make new rules and then enforce them without group consensus. There is no reason to insist that we use only the poll of your liking.  See for example the Elizabeth Warren article where many different polls are used.  Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not rocket science. Why on Earth would we use individual polls when aggregate polling exists on the same topic? If the Warren page uses individual polls on a topic where aggregate polls exist, then those should be replaced as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have a rule or a consensus that says this. As long as they are reliable, we should add them. Don't invent rules for your own preference.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk)
 * But what possible reason would there be for using an individual poll when you can use aggregate polling? Unless the intent is to cherrypick polls to suit a particular narrative? This is just bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires.  Considering that the Qunnipiac polls are very highly-rated (please read their article) they are an excellent choice for our readers, and even more so when combined with narrative that offers more info for a reader that wants to dig further into poll information.  Here is the article that I used for RS [ https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3655] (Also SS, I am very, very sick of your constant stream of suggestions that editors that do not agree with you are a bunch of dopey cheaters and so on.  This article has been very fortunate to have had, for years, editors that know how to work with others and it would be nice to go on in that manner.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandydancer (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is well-documented that our readers do not spend much time on these articles. Looking at the page that you want to use it is confusing and hard to find the info that one desires." This is a strange comment. The readers do not read the Wikipedia article closely, so we should link to sources on Wikipedia which are easier to read, because the readers do want to read the sources instead? What? And no one is disputing that Quinnipiac is a well-regarded pollster (B+ according to 538)... it is one of many. Again, why can't aggregate polls (which include Quinnipiac) be chosen instead of an individual poll? It is absolutely mind-blowing that there is a controversy over this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , who is "SS"?. Snooganssnoogans, there is no cheery-picking in the polls.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is Snooganssnoogans. (Sorry, I hadn't noticed that SS could suggest you as well.)  Gandydancer (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aggregate polling can be cherry-picked as well. There are different aggregators that use different polls and different time frames. Best practice is to cite polls that have received a lot of coverage. The Des Moines Register poll in Iowa for example would have been worth citing because of its high profile. TFD (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Snooganssnoogans has not received support for the instructions about the sort of poll that WP allows. I will return the  Qunnipiac poll that they deleted.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Outlier poll results get more coverage than poll results that are consistent with other polls, which makes this a strange way of determining which polls to cover, and this again does not address the point of why we wouldn't use aggregation of polls (which includes those who receive more media coverage). I do not care which aggregate poll is used and I have no idea which one is better for what candidate (538 or RCP are the most commonly used on this encyclopedia), and it's honestly astonishing to see editors defend the use of individual polls on a subject where aggregate polls exist: last time I saw this was years ago when pro-Trump editors picked individual polls to misrepresent the state of the 2016 race. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Snooganssnoogans, you make some interesting proposals with good logic behind them. However, SharʿabSalam has a point too about there being no rule on this. It would be a good topic of discussion to develop consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This never seemed to be an issue (because I thought editors could agree that aggregate polling is infinitely better and has more long-term encyclopedic value than randomly picked or cherrypicked individual polls), but it will apparently be one. I had considered proposing it as a manual of style change, but I haven't looked up the proper procedures for doing so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point of concern, Snooganssnoogans. It would be good to have a list of reliable, unbiased polls, something like Reliable sources/Perennial sources. However, this topic is above the "pay grade" of a discussion at one article. That's why I suggest introducing the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't want to apply your proposal only in this article and when we remove individual polls from other articles we get problems. It is better to propose a rule or a guideline so we can make sure it is going to be applied in all candidates articles like Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary to determine which polls are better. The criterion for inclusion is weight. If a poll receives a lot of coverage we include it, if not we exclude it. Sometimes sources decide that a result from a reputable company is an outlier. That's the nature of statistics. A certain number of polls, as high as 5%, may be inaccurate due to the laws of statistics. 5% of the time you will flip either heads or tails 5 times in a row. TFD (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
To include this information:

"The documents from the Sanders archives include a letter from Soviet Embassy First Secretary Vadim Kuznetsov in March 1983, congratulating Sanders on his reelection as mayor and thanking Sanders for receiving him in Sanders’s office. Kuznetsov had been in Burlington to attend a conference on nuclear disarmament at the University of Vermont a few days earlier. Neither Sanders nor conference organizers appear to have read a 1976 Time magazine article that identified Kuznetsov as a member of a “Soviet intelligence squad” posing as diplomats to infiltrate U.S. politics."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/bernie-sanderss-foreign-policy-is-risk-democrats-against-trump/

MaineCrab (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:UNDUE However, the article cited could be part of summarizing various critiques of Sanders' political views—in this case on foreign policy. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minutiae sourced to an op-ed. Every politician has met countless foreign intel operatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - an opinion piece. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, speculation from an op-ed is not significant enough to be in the article. If it in fact becomes a major issue in the campaign, rather than one op-ed writer speculating it maybe could, we can revisit it at that time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mainly per Seraphimblade’s rationale. If it becomes relevant, and widely covered, then we’d certainly mention it. But as of now, this is unremarkable, especially for something that happened decades ago, and was not an uncommon occurrence. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree: this should not be included. However, the cited source makes an entirely different point: "If and when the president turns his media machine on Sanders’s record, all of this will be new and relevant for most Americans." "All of this" means not only his connections with the Soviet Union, but other things noticed in the article. However, this is also not the biggest issue. The biggest problem is his age and health. According to doctors, he is probably afraid to disclose his low heart ejection fraction. But again, this also needs to be much better known and sourced for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional source on medical records
Stopped by to add this info. Sanders has released more medical information than any other candidate. The article reports that as of February 24, 2020, candidates had released the following medical records testifying to their health. In order of the amount of documentation from least to most: •	Pete Buttigieg has not released any medical records. •	Amy Klobuchar has not released any medical records. •	Mike Bloomberg has released a one-page letter from his doctor declaring him in “great physical shape.” •	Joe Biden has released a three-page letter from his doctor describing him as a “healthy, vigorous 77-year-old male.” •	Elizabeth Warren has released five pages of documents revealing her blood pressure (115/57) and thyroid condition, along with a doctor’s letter declaring her in “excellent health.” •	Bernie Sanders has released letters from three doctors, including a cardiologist who expressed confidence that the senator from Vermont “has the mental and physical stamina to fully undertake the rigors of the presidency.”  Ironically, Buttigieg, who has been demanding transparency regarding medical records, has yet to release his own.

WebMaven2000 (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wealth Section
Why does Bernie Sanders have a section describing his wealth when other candidates with more money such as Elizabeth Warren do not have such sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.134.159 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it makes no sense. I will remove it. TFD (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. Thanks for acting on that, TFD. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The content should not be in its own section. His personal wealth and residences should be in the 'personal life' section. WP:OTHER is a thing, but Obama's personal wealth and residences is in his "Family and personal life". I don't see a reason why such info shouldn't be included. It's certainly been covered by RS and is not factually disputed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added back the info on his residences to the main section of Personal Life since it was there before an editor started inserting this. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is inconsistent with other articles about non-billionaire candidates to include this information. I don't think anyway it is unusual for a senator to own a residence in Washington and one in their home state as well as a cottage. TFD (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This has become relevant because it was used as a debate challenge, so users will be searching out this information. This article does not clearly express it, but Sanders' wealth does not originate in any sort of corruption, as would be suggested by the challenge.  The majority of his wealth came from sales of Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In which probably sold well as a result of the popularity of his political activities.  Yeah he has moved into the 1%, but his wealth is microscopic, .02 percent behind Bloomberg.  By omission, or with both ideas placed in separate section to be deceptive, makes this subject of the article misleading.  Trackinfo (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be included since his wealth has been brought up what with his run for president. I agree with editors that say it should not have a labeled section but be included under Personal life.  Also I agree that it is quite the norm for congressmen/women to have two homes with one in Wash. D.C. and the other their home state.  As for summer cottages, in some parts of the nation even people of modest incomes have modest summer cottages, usually on a lake.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how politically important this issue is, but according to Snopes Sanders' "cottage" is a $575,000 (2016) 4-bedroom house with 500 feet of frontage on Lake Champlain, should that become relevant.—Blanchette (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing significant about that. It is not unusual for two professionals with no kids and one of them inheriting her parents' home. TFD (talk) 23:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders has often discussed the wealth of other candidates. This has, in-turn, caused media attention to scrutinize his own wealth. A number of reliable sources have covered it and the information is out there. Comparisons to other articles, or, even worse, the relative wealth of other candidates, aren't extremely relevant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a $575,000 cottage represents wealth. Where are you from? TFD (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Wealth" here is used in the sense of personal fortune or net worth, not "wealth" as in abundance. See definition 3 here: . An alternative is "Personal net worth." Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't choose words that can have more than one meaning when we are reasonably certain it will convey to readers the wrong meaning. Anyway the current wording seems fine. It mentions and describes Sanders' homes without the Fox News editorializing. TFD (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer we use the NYT or WSJ. . And where is the information? Was it removed along with the subection? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate citation
This edit introduced two paragraphs on Israel and Palestine, which are now one part of Bernie_Sanders. Checking the quotation with the source, the word 'dramatically' is not there. Can someone please delete the word? I have no right to do so. Thank you. --直蔵 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a reference that fixes the problem. Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for editing. So he did say that word. I've updated the Japanese page accordingly. --直蔵 (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes he did, here --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Front-runner status
Look, now that Biden is slipping in the polls and Sanders expands his lead and how he's leading in the popular vote overall and will probably lead in delegates after New Hampshire, could we add his front-runner status to the lead? I mean Joe Biden's lead has "Throughout 2019, [Biden] was seen as the front-runner for the nomination" perhaps Sanders could be "In 2020, Sanders is seen as the front-runner for the nomination" or even add a little Biden like "In 2020, Sanders alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, are seen as the front-runners for the nomination". The fact that Sanders performed well in Iowa should be documented. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't concur. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER tells us, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Week-by-week status of candidates in the polls would require too much juggling among articles. People should look to news outlets for that kind of information. Additionally, this is a biography. Tracking how the polls stood over the course of the campaign is more appropriate in Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, once the campaign is complete. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with HopsonRoad. Things are very much in flux right now as that goes. Once things settle out a bit, then we can see the consensus of sources and decide what the right way to approach that is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree w/ users above. I want to see several major publications, think NYT, CNN, WSJ, calling him the frontrunner before we incorporate that into the article. This is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Optimistic speculation about his future performance is not what matters here. Status described widely in reliable sources is what we go on. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Update [The https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/19/us/politics/democratic-debate-nevada-recap.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage New York Times] called him the "national frontrunner." I now believe this to be appropriate for inclusion in the article lead. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. Again, Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper, and recording every jot and tittle of a months-long campaign -- especially when it's this early and therefore completely meaningless except as a campaign bandwagon tactic -- is not Wikipedia's role. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you don't think the fact someone was a front-runner in the Democratic nomintion is not of lasting significance to their biographies?
 * Ed Muskie: "Before the 1972 election, Muskie was viewed as a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination."
 * Gary Hart: "He was the front-runner for the 1988 Democratic presidential nomination...."
 * Howard Dean: "Dean was the top fundraiser and front runner...."
 * Why is it significant to all these people but not to Sanders?
 * TFD (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It would help to know how long Sanders has been considered the front-runner. If it's only been for two weeks, then it's premature to describe him as such. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if tomorrow the polls changed, it would still be of lasting significance to Sanders' biography. TFD (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all the examples cited, above, TFD. It is significant that they are written in the past tense in the light of history, not in the present tense in the light of the news. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because they are about events that took place in the past. The criterion for adding current events is whether they will be significant in the light of history, when we can change the tense. TFD (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I don't think it should be written in present tense, as in "he is the front-runner" because of the erratic nature of an on-going race (and the fact that some editors will inevitably resist attempts to change the text if he at some later point stops being the front-runner and claim that the status quo version of the text is sacred in the absence of consensus). Maybe "Since date X, he has been considered the front-runner". And if he stops being the front-runner, then we can change it to "Over the period X to Y, he was a front-runner". If he stays being the front-runner for an extended period, then "he is considered the front-runner" in present tense. And it goes without saying that aggregate polls, coupled with RS descriptions of him as the front-runner, should be used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we mention in the present tense that he is a candidate and also that he is a senator. All of these things will be in the past tense at some point. It doesn't mean we can't mention them in the present tense now. TFD (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added "...the press reports..." to the lead. After all, this is really a pretty big deal and the article would certainly be lacking without this mention.  While there are always those editors that say "too recent!!!", in truth our political (and other) articles just don't work that way.  I've done a lot of work on many articles where we update on a daily basis. Gandydancer (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best to wait until after Super Tuesday, then come back to this issue. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User:GoodDay, there will always be a reason to exclude the information. The policy is that we report stories the way they are reported in mainstream sources which means major news outlets until historians write the story. Maybe mainstream media should not call Sanders the front-runner and at some point historians may correct them at which point we can too. All these time-consuming discussions could be avoided if we only agreed to follow policy. A good approach is to pretend that we don't care about the outcome. You might be right about attributing the description in text. TFD (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do as ya want. It's not something I'm gonna fuss over :) GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I note that the misogyny and racism charges made in the debate in Las Vegas against Bloomberg are in his article already, as one would expect. I don't see us waiting for several weeks before entering current events at other articles.  To repeat myself, this is really a big deal.  I really just can't imagine that we would not include it in his article.  He may indeed drop back, but this (as has been said), will remain noteworthy.  Gandydancer (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with the sequence of tenses that depend on the duration of front-runner status, described by Snooganssnoogans, above. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Well this conversation is moot now, isn't it? Additionally, I think that we should just get rid of any mention of which primaries he's won at the beginning of the article. Either we do that, or we do the same for Joe Biden's page, given that it's essentially a two-man race now. I don't think the introduction of the article needs to be a running tally of states won or lost. It should only mention that the candidate has declared for the 2020 race, and is still in it. Thenextprez (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

"Sanders was born into a working-class Jewish family and raised in the Brooklyn borough of New York City."
This statement is unsupported and is contradicted by Bernie Sanders' own words, as well as other evidence. I plan to change it to "middle class family" but want to give folks some advanced notice for discussion.

His father was a salesman, widely considered a middle class job. In his only statement on the subject, Bernie told CNN:

"I am not going to tell you that I grew up in a home of desperate poverty. That would not be true. But what I will tell you is that coming from a lower middle class family I will never forget how money – or really lack of money – was always a point of stress in our home, . . ."

Similarly, the Times of Israel's profile quoted that line and added this about his neighborhood of Brooklyn, called Midwood:

'''"When Sanders was a boy, Midwood was defined by residents’ awareness of their immigrant roots — and their ethos as middle class and striving.

'''“Our parents for the most part were American-born, but our grandparents weren’t, and we knew what it was to struggle,” says David Sillen, a neighbor and classmate who walked to school with Sanders every day for years. “The fact that our parents were more successful than their parents left us with the family construct that we should be more successful than our parents, and that was pretty pervasive.”'''

'''Sillen and others recall that time fondly, with life shaped by the neighborhood’s safety, good schools and middle-class solidity. But Sanders’ memories are decidedly less rosy." Msalt (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that these terms mean different things depending on context. Donald Trump's family could be considered middle class too, but obviously the circumstances of the two families were vastly different. TFD (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you say more about that, please? I'm not sure Trump's situation is directly relevant, but I also don't understand how the owner of a company that owns a billion dollars of real estate could be considered "middle class" under any definition. In any case, if there is any semantic or factual dispute, wouldn't you agree that in a biography of a living person, the person's self-definition should be accepted as the default, until clear evidence to the contrary is provided? Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This wording should not be changed. It is correct as written.  Gandydancer (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any support, sources or analysis by which you came to your conclusion? Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The quote from Bernie and what is in his article are not contradictory ("lower middle class" vs "working-class"). David Sillen's opinion is irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that lower middle class is not different from working class? Do you have any support for that position? For that matter, is there any source at all for Bernie Sanders being working class? I'm not able to see any here. Msalt (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not say that you would like to change it to lower middle class. You said you'd be changing it to "middle class".  There is a big difference.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, how about "lower middle class" then? Msalt (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not have gone ahead and made this change with an edit summary that suggested there was TP agreement. Gandydancer (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I understood your earlier comment to be suggesting LMC, and everyone seemed to have lost interest. Msalt (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders has also referred to his family as "working-class". So, if anything, he seems to use the two terms interchangeably. Given that, I do not think we are inaccurate in saying "working-class". Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Since it's impossible for the average reader to distinguish where the borders between "upper middle class" and "middle class" and "lower middle class" lie, it's clearer to use "working class" in the sense of Working class in the United States as referring to "adults as those lacking a college degree". I recommend "working class" in this context. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like excellent reasoning to me. Gandydancer (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please remove "formidable" from the lead? This is not a WWE magazine
Thanks! Replace it with "recognized" or something.

SarumanTheBlack (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with "strong." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Melanie. You rock.SarumanTheBlack (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove all the superlatives entirely and keep this neutral. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hitler quote should be removed
Hitler lost both elections in 1932 and the rigged election in 1933. The Nazis were never elected. The quote by Sanders is 100% false and misleading so it should be removed. (86.160.101.213 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC))
 * "In the federal election of July 1932, the Nazis won 37.3% of the popular vote (13,745,000 votes), an upswing by 19 percent, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag, with 230 out of 608 seats." – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed extensively in Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 10 and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 14. The upshot of these discussions is that the quote stays, despite its debatable historical merits. This is an article about Sanders and what he said and did, not an article on the history of Germany. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hitler lost the election in July 1932, and he lost again by a greater margin in November 1932. Sanders' quote is factually incorrect. (86.160.101.241 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC))
 * As is explained in a footnote to that remark in the text. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added, "He said (incorrectly)", to clarify the footnote to that remark and hopefully avoid recurrences of this same conversation. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Most people would say that someone who won a plurality of seats and formed a government was elected. Otherwise we would say that David Cameron and Elizabeth May lost the elections of 2010 and 2017. Or maybe we could say that anyone who received less than 50% of the vote lost - so no one has won an election in the UK since 1931. TFD (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)