Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 23

Which is it?
In a single paragraph, Bernie is described as both a social democrat and as a democratic socialist. Despite sounding pretty much the same, these two terms have their own articles and clearly have different, possibly incompatible meanings.

This confuses me. Do our sources support this mixed message? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He calls himself a democratic socialist, while come detractors call him a social democrat. Some writers draw a distinction between the two terms while others do not. Sanders meets some of the definitions of both terms. TFD (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can find many sources confirming that he self-identifies as a democratic socialist, so we should definitely include that in the article, especially if we attribute it directly to him. These sources characterize democratic socialism is politically democratic (pro-voting) and economically socialist (anti-capitalist). This is significantly different from modern liberalism, the Democratic Party's core position, which is not socialist at all, instead accepting some form of capitalism, albeit more regulated than the right-wing wants.
 * Other sources -- who are not necessarily detractors (such as https://qz.com/1805692/bernie-sanders-isnt-a-democratic-socialist-he-is-a-social-democrat/) -- insist that he's a social democrat. This view does accept (regulated) capitalism, and sounds compatible with, if not identical to, liberalism.
 * This is my understanding from these sources; our articles on the two are more confusing, but they're also out of scope right now. And just to be very clear, I'm not interested in debating any of this -- Wikipedia is not a forum, right? -- but we do seem to be contradicting ourselves here. We probably can't resolve the contradictions, but we can at least highlight which sources support which labels and in which context.
 * So, for example, we could say that he self-identifies as X while sources A, B, and C identify him as Y. We could also distinguish between sympathetic and critical sources. For example, critic A calls him a Y while supporter B calls him an X. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, except for some writers the two terms are synonymous. See for example Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (2000), p. 7, "[Democratic socialism] is sometimes called social democracy or simply socialism." I note that your source describes Elizabeth Warren as a social democrat, which is false. TFD (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with that source. Sure, it's reliable, but that doesn't mean it's right. I used it as an example of someone who's defending Sanders by making a distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism. This isn't a detractor and it isn't anyone who equates the two, although I'm sure there are people who do that, too.
 * Warren is definitely not a (democratic) socialist, given her explicit support for capitalism, but she would fit in as a social democrat. Frankly, the more I try to research this, the more confusing it gets. For example, this source (https://inthesetimes.com/article/22165/sanders-warren-populist-progressivism-new-deal-democratic-socialism) says that Sanders uses "socialism" to refer to the distinctly non-socialist New Deal platform, which is true.
 * I wish there was a simple, clear answer but I don't think there can be. Still, we can do better than to contradict ourselves. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most of those sources I've read that make this comparison is that they basically define democratic socialism as a Soviet economy with political democracy while conflating social democracy for social liberalism. What should be asked and discussed is not whether Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat, but whether he is a democratic socialist/social democrat or a social liberal (i.e. whether Sanders is a socialist or a liberal). They make a sharp separation or distinction when there isn't none, or in fact it's very small. However, this is further complicated by the fact that there is no nuance, so an actual socialist who see the welfare state as a development in the direction of socialism (as most post-war Social Democrats saw it; while liberals and conservatives accepted it for vastly different reasons), or who simply take a more evolutionist or gradualist view rather than revolutionary (which of course would make many not a real socialists, according to revolutionary socialists), isn't counted as socialist unless he advocates at once the whole nationalization of industry (state capitalism/socialism). Basically, they conflates socialism as a whole with an economic system only whereas socialism, unlike capitalism (which is really an economic system and liberalism its ideology), is also an ideology and movement, drawing a sharp line between revolutionaries and reformists when both agree on the ends but simply disagree on the means (basically the history of socialism summarised). Another issue that many don't seem to get or gasp is that reformism itself is always going to results in socialists, no matter how much socialist, going to govern according to capitalist logic, but that does't mean that just because they didn't adopt socialist policies (then which ones? For some right-wingers, the existence of the state itself is socialism; for some left-wingers, nothing can be said of socialism unless all capital, industry and land are socialised), because they're forced to govern to capitalist logic by their socialist reformism, they are no longer socialists.--Davide King (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Warren isn't a social democrat; she's a social liberal. Obama isn't a social democrat either; he's a social (neo-)liberal (many past social liberals would be opposed to neoliberalism, or the neoliberal turn of social liberalism), as most of Third Way/New Democrats are. I don't understand why social democracy should be only about the post-war social paradigm or right-wing socialism. Nor do I understand why democratic socialism is seen as more left-wing and social democracy as moderate when the reverse was true in the past; it's arbitrary. However, if one wants to make a distinction between the two is that democratic socialism basically represents modern socialism as it developed in the 18th and 19th century which emphasised democracy (as a political tradition, it rejects the Stalinist and in some case Leninist development too, which in turn reject democratic socialism as social democracy), made democracy synonymous with socialisation and basically argued that one is lost without the other; and social democracy, as contrasted to liberal democracy, which developed in the 1860s and later saw the SPD model spread worldwide. In this sense, they aren't mutually exclusive either and indeed represent a strand within each and vice versa.--Davide King (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do my best to respond without turning this into a forum.
 * "What should be asked and discussed is not whether Sanders is a democratic socialist or a social democrat, but whether he is a democratic socialist/social democrat or a social liberal (i.e. whether Sanders is a socialist or a liberal)."
 * Sanders is very clear on rejecting modern liberalism, despite his praise for the New Deal:
 * "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat."
 * This has been noted both by supporters and critics, so there's no undue weight or synthesis or whatever involved. It's a core part of his political identity, and the article should be painfully clear on this issue, independently of what he means when he says he's a socialist.
 * Having said that, Sanders does identify as a socialist, and this term could mean democratic socialism or social democracy, or possibly both somehow. The Democratic Socialists of America support Sanders and they are, by name, democratic socialists, not social democrats. This is the issue where our sources get mutually (and sometimes self) contradictory and just plain confusing:
 * "He's a social democrat, not a democratic socialist."
 * "He's a democratic socialist, not a social democrat."
 * "He's not any sort of socialist, but I think America isn't capitalist anyhow, so what do I know?"
 * "He's a socialist but not a communist or anything."
 * "He's a floor wax and a dessert topping!"
 * Pretty clearly, we're not going to resolve this conflict. But we do have to admit it exists and point at these sources. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So what's your issue and proposal, exactly? I think the current wording is perfectly fine and reflected in the main body. It says that Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist; that he promotes progressive and social democratic politics; and that various political commentators described his politics or policies as aligned to those of the New Deal. As correctly pointed out above by, the terms aren't actually mutually exclusive and in meaning they're synonymous. They're indeed mutually exclusive only if you wrongly define them such as those sources did, i.e. democratic socialism with communism (basically the Soviet Union with liberal democracy) and social democracy with social liberalism (the social liberal paradigm during the post-war consensus). Historical context is also important. When Sanders first said that, that was already in the 1970s when the Democrats shifted to the right and in practice rejected the New Deal (indeed, the New Democrat label was to signify they were different from New Deal Democrats) and some have described him as a liberal New Deal in the sense, so it shouldn't be ruled out. Again, the real question is whether he's a socialist or a liberal.
 * The DSA is social democratic insofar as they clearly advocate social democratic reforms. The SDUSA uses the terms interchangeably and still claims to not [having] given up [its] vision of the new socialist society that incremental change would eventually bring. Similarly, The Left is more social democratic than the SPD. Many democratic socialists are simply social democrats who want a return to Keynesian mixed-economy and the post-war consensus. Again, one can be both a democratic socialist and a social democrat. It's mainly opponents that make a sharp distinction between the two. Many social democratic parties see democratic socialism as the goal and social democracy as the practice and vice versa.--Davide King (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

While we're at it, why is it that we don't even mention populism? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's neither a socialist nor a liberal but indeed a (left-wing) populist, but the main body and reliable sources need to be added or changed to reflect that.--Davide King (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not mutually contradictory. He can be a left-wing populist and (some sort of) socialist. He says he's not a liberal and he's on record opposing liberal policies such as gun control.
 * So if we have reliable sources characterizing him as a populist, then we should include this prominently; more prominently than the ambiguous "social democratic" and "progressive" we go went with. We must include the fact that he identifies as a socialist while rejecting liberalism, and we should acknowledge that there's some level of uncertainty still about what he means by socialism.
 * That would be a balanced, well-supported view; properly encyclopedic. Currently, it's a confusing mess that pretends it's not a confusing mess.
 * Oh, and there's a "citation needed" request about the Brady Bill that's easily satisfied. Will someone please add this? 68.197.116.79 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the suggested ref. I agree they aren't mutually contradictory. However, I wouldn't exclude him as a liberal just because he oppose what some regard as liberal policies (the absurdities of American politics); in practice, he seems to be very in line with FDR, a liberal New Dealer; and he's opposed to neoliberalism, which is what he and many other people seems to understand to mean nowadays when talking about the New Democrats, hence why he reject that type of liberalism but not that of FDR. So I think it's more nuanced than that. For instance, some have argued that American liberalism is European social democracy, so if he's a social democrat that sense, it's not a contradiction to describe him as a liberal in the American sense of the word. Maybe the issue is that there's no consensus even among sources on whether he's a socialist (democratic socialist/social democrat), a liberal (New Dealer, social liberal), a populist, etc., so that's why it may look confusing to you. I think it's fine, but maybe we can change some wording like While Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist, [s]ome commentators have described his politics as aligned with the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.--Davide King (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Let's start with the easy part: populism. Reliable sources not only support the application of this term, but its importance. . I believe that some mention of this belongs in the second paragraph. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that all of the current descriptors should remain in the second paragraph.  Sanders does indeed identify as a democratic socialist.  This obviously matters, regardless of others who may disagree.  If we were to not take his self-identification seriously, we would have to also reject self-described "liberal Democrats" and "conservative Republicans" whose detractors question their ideological purity.  It is clear that Sanders philosophical statements and policy goals are consistent with a "democratic socialism" which would be considered within the mainstream in most Labour and democratic socialist parties in Europe.  Indeed, the British Labour Party continues to describe itself as "democratic socialist" despite its shift toward Third Way politics, so in that context, Sanders may even be considered to the left of the party mainstream (though certainly to the right of Jeremy Corbyn). Likewise, I have no problem with the inclusion of populism in some form, as sources support the label.  But I would be careful to word it in a way that does not adequately distinguish Sanders' populism from Trumpism and alt-right politics.  I think that Sanders' stated support for elements of the Nordic model would also add some clarity, and the sources support the inclusion of this as well. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the sources explicitly contrasts Bernie's left-wing populism with Trump's right-wing populism, so I think we're fine so long as we specify that it's left-wing. 68.197.116.79 (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No good reason to delete long-standing information
Thousands upon thousands have read this article and no one ever complained that it said that Sanders announced his run for the presidency on Vermont public radio. That it should, out of the blue, concern one editor is odd, though I guess I can imagine one attempt to change it. But two? If that happened to me I would reconsider and decide that it was just me and not the article. I will revert the changes. Gandydancer (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thousands upon thousands have read this article and no one ever complained – Well there's some truly stupid logic, though I assume a review of your contributions will show that you only edit articles in response to complaints. It concerned me because my eye happened to fall on it. If you like I'll be happy to go over the whole article cutting all such risotto, such at the exact vote counts in one of Sanders's senate races and the percentage of the electorate supporting various candidates for the Weimar presidency. EEng 00:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm and your labeling my logic as stupid are not acceptable. I like to enjoy my time here and very seldom run into this sort of behavior and I am thankful for that.  Now, as for my stupid logic, I believe that it would have been better for you to have brought your disagreement to talk rather than to revert Trackinfo as you did.  I hope that this puts an end to the "stupid logic" discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, you're not denying the logic, only denying that it's stupid? In other words, you actually believe that articles should only be changed in response to complaints? Also, you didn't address the question of whether the article should give exact vote counts for Sanders's senate races and background on the German elections of 1932. EEng 02:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As the person to revert this change the first time, I agree. There was a question about whether it was reported by sources, so I sourced it.  Also added and sourced the conditions of his 2015 announcement.  And yes, I do feel this information is significant. Trackinfo (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the content in question is now properly sourced, it seems to me to be a level of detail more appropriate for the article about his presidential campaign rather than his main biography. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said in the edit notes, I think this goes to the low key style of the man. Starting from the ABC News article I sourced, I think a paragraph could be written on his almost abhorrence for fanfare; his disheveled appearance at a poorly arranged press conference in front of the capitol, as opposed to the photo op set up locales of other candidates (in front of battleships, Statue of Liberty etc.).  This goes to the essence of the man, not a particular campaign. Trackinfo (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah but, see, your idea that making an announcement on public radio goes to the low key style of the man, or that it's of a piece with his almost abhorrence for fanfare; his disheveled appearance at a poorly arranged press conference, is just your WP:SYNTH. The two sources (one of which is the NPR interview itself) say nothing like that. Here's more such nonsense:
 * Sanders announced his intention to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for president on April 30, 2015, in a rushed news conference held on the Capitol Lawn. Sanders later confirmed the announcement in interviews and emails.
 * A rushed news conference! He's so jus' folks! And then he confirmed the announcement in interviews and emails! We wouldn't have guessed that! See WP:ASTONISHME. It's with stuff like this that a good, tight article becomes bloated with numbing detail in which only a small group of fans see deep significance. EEng 00:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Vermont senator was noticeably in a rush that day, almost uncomfortable or dismissive of the event. With his now infamous messy hair blowing in the wind and the far-from-thought-out shot for the cameras, it’s easy to see why many people were a little dismissive of the announcement, especially those unfamiliar with his significant social media presence."--ABC News, MaryAlice Parks in a year later look back at the Sanders campaign. This isn't synth, this wasn't just a recent observation. Trackinfo (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's neither of the sources cited on the Vermont Public Radio announcement tidbit so, yeah, it's classic SYNTH that you're reading this thing someone said about his hair and figuring, huh, I guess announcing on VPR must be just like that! I actually think a paragraph on his personal style would be completely appropriate; but injecting little puzzling factoids here and there, like the VPR detail, because you think they illustrate something, isn't. E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As these articles are updated when news breaks, we often find too much detail added about recent events. Announcements that someone is running for president can often be iconic events, like Trump coming down the escalator. But I don't think Sanders' choice of venue for announcing his second run for the presidency received much attention. Sure it shows that he is low key, but that observation did not receive much if any coverage at the time. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It was recentism that led to it being added and there's good reason to remove it. It's not significant and adds to page clutter. That it is long standing text that nobody challenged before doesn't matter. Someone challenged it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Look, must I again be treated as though I'm using "stupid logic"? I don't think that it was unreasonable that I brought this to talk after feeling that the reasons for it's removal, which were "who cares?" and then returning it with a edit summary of "if this is, in fact, evidence of Bernie's homey low-key plain-spoken etc etc and so on and so forth" edit summaries to not be adequate. I have no objections to challenging long standing copy and no objections to changing it with group consensus, but I do object to doing it with just breezy edit summaries and without TP discussion when one is met with a reasonable objection. This said, while I like including the Vermont radio info it seems that consensus is not with me.  I felt that it was helpful in the same way, for example, in the way that Warren's Bread and Roses Strike info was important for her announcement in her bio. Gandydancer (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * edit summary of "if this is, in fact, evidence of Bernie's homey low-key plain-spoken etc etc and so on and so forth" – Funny how you truncated my edit summary, which actually said: if this is, in fact, evidence of Bernie's homey low-key plain-spoken etc etc and so on and so forth, there will be a source saying that. There's nothing breezy (as you term it) about that; it's exactly the right argument.
 * I felt that it was helpful in the same way, for example, that Warren's Bread and Roses Strike info was important – Yeah, well but see, Warren's article cites a source pointing out that Warren chose the starting place of the 1912 Bread and Roses Strike to launch her presidential campaign. So it's not about what you "felt", it's about what the sources say.
 * must I again be treated as though I'm using "stupid logic" – If you keep using it that's a risk. One option would be to say, "Now that you mention it I guess maybe 'No one complained' isn't a very good argument."
 * <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree "complained" was a poor choice of words--I should have done better. Yes, it was a mistake to cut your quote short--I was responding to the "breezy" part.  About the Warren comment, I know because I wrote that in her article.  That said, I strongly believe that as editors we must be willing to step aside when we do not receive group support, as is the case here.  I've done that a few times about issues but I've never been challenged about my integrity or intelligence.  I am done with this discussion.  Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * When we present evidence without commentary for the reader to consider that it is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that I did the right thing when I brought it to talk. I made a statement saying that I would have not reverted Trackinfo but I did not argue it any further. Gandydancer (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am in agreement with TFD's position and reasoning on this one. It isn't the biggest deal, but the detail is more excessive than informative. RedHotPear (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Populism sidebar
Can we add the populism sidebar into the section that shows Sanders' political positions? He's very associated with the modern left-wing populism movement in America, and his name is already included in the "People" part of the sidebar, thus it makes sense to attach it to his page. Josharaujo1115 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've actually just removed the 'People' section of that sidebar as there doesn't appear to be any sort of threshold for inclusion. Re this particular edit, it seems like most (albeit, not all) of the usage of that sidebar is on pages discussing political theories, rather than particular individuals. On that basis, I don't think we should make this edit. Darren-M   talk  11:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Populism sidebar for Sander? Strongly disagree! Quite the opposite, it was his opponent that ran on the color issue. With Sanders the present political conflict in America would likely be low-paid workers of all colors (including "blue") and the unemployed against the sweaters of all colors and flavors (including the boss of Amazon.com) and their enablers. --Sunsarestars (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to add the category: Democratic Socialists of America
Bernie Sanders explicitly said that he's a Democratic Socialist. Why don't add this category? There are 16 (!) categories included that reference to his religious background he was given by birth although for him religion is a non-issue. And that for what he stands his whole political life is not included. That's incomprehensible to say the best. --Sunsarestars (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist ideologically, hence his inclusion in Category:American_democratic_socialists. I am not aware of his being a member of the particular organization Democratic Socialists of America. To list him in that category, we would have to find a source confirming his membership in the organization. I don't believe he is a member. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sanders is not a member of the DSA. Note that Sanders support Benjamin Spock in the 1972 presidential election, while the DSA supported McGovern. TFD (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: We should keep the photos
I notice the photos I added got reverted:. I disagree that they have no value. They are public domain images, not fair use, allowing them to be used in any way. They show what Bernie looked like during the time periods 1970s and 1980s. And as a whole, the photos show how Bernie ages. FunnyMath (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And while we're at it, I also want to add a photo of Bernie from the 1960s. Overall, we'll have three images:

FunnyMath (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with FunnyMath, I believe that the photos should remain in the article. I looked at other presidential candidates and members of the U.S. Senate and found that they had photographs from their earlier days. I would be interested in hearing the counter-argument for removing the photos. Jurisdicta (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On that note, I was the same person who added the early photos for Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and many other US politicians. Almost none of them got reverted. FunnyMath (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support 1962 photo, it demonstrates how Sanders was an early civil rights pioneer. —The lorax (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC: create a DYK: Bernie Sanders is an independent
Wise editors,

I just learned that Bernie Sanders is an independent rather than Democratic and who have ended 2nd places in the last two primaries of Democratic party. I am thinking of writing an DYK for this fact. What do you think about this idea? Has any DYK been written before? (I searched but couldn't find it).

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In order for that to be significant, we would need a source to say that. The problem is that the party is organized on a state level, it has no members and it is not possible to register as a Democrat in Sanders' state. He's an independent in the sense that he was elected as Congressman and Senator as an independent but he caucuses with the Democrats. TFD (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad, bear with my ignorance of how DYK works. I withdraw this RfC. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Split request: Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders
Hello, I am currently working on Draft:Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders and I have been told that I need to request a split for this article. There is barely any overlap between the two articles though. Jon698 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you like to say anything since you were the one who decided that this was necessary? Jon698 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My Mayoralty of Bernie Sanders article is currently 18.87% the size of the Bernie Sanders article characters text and 19.04% the size of the Bernie Sanders word count. Jon698 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wanted to make sure the folks who have been developing Bernie Sanders articles are okay with the split, and how to deal with the potential content forks and new detail.  AngusW🐶🐶F  ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In case somebody should take issue with a split, I would comment that this page's size or main content matter could be overwhelming to somebody more interested in the local politics or history of Burlington (e.g. someone who wants to learn the history of their hometown). Jon's page being longer than the relevant section here and introducing a lot of new information that wouldn't really belong in the main Bernie Sanders article (e.g. specifics on historical disputes with the city council), it may be best to redirect the section here to the new page mayoralty as the main article for the topic and then balance the two. Chillabit (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

DuckDuckGo search result
I don't know if WP has any control over this, but when I search for "Bernie Sanders" on DuckDuckGo, the info box heading just says "nders" in bold. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' voice
This voice file from Wikimedia Commons is of a speech that Bernie Sanders made in 2019, and it should be uploaded either in the infobox (like Ed Miliband's article) or at the bottom of the article (like A.C. Grayling's) to show his voice: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senator_Bernie_Sanders%27s_Campaign_Speech_at_UNC-Chapel_Hill.wav Josharaujo1115 (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2020
I asked this before in the talk section of the article (I apologize if that's a problem), but I was thinking it would be good to add this voice file of Bernie Sanders giving a speech to his article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Senator_Bernie_Sanders%27s_Campaign_Speech_at_UNC-Chapel_Hill.wav ——— I see this on the articles for Ed Miliband and A.C. Grayling, and thought it would be appropriate given how notable Sanders is for his rhetoric and tone.Josharaujo1115 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Josharaujo1115 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, the voice is in the ibox. Thank you very much and Happy New Year!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much!! I wish you a great New Year too :) Josharaujo1115 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hitler lost both elections in 1932
The Nazis lost the German federal election in July 1932, and lost considerable support in the next election in November. The quotation is misleading and should be removed. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * According to July 1932 German federal election, with that election the Nazis became the largest party in Parliament, although they did not have an actual majority. I think it's arguably fair to describe this election as a Nazi "win". In any case it's not so far wrong as to need removal. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Nazis lost in July 1932, which is why there was another election in November. Hitler did not even win the rigged election in 1933, despite massive voter fraud. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * It's quite a stretch to describe the Nazis as "losing" that election when they wound up as the largest party in Parliament. And although they lost some seats in November, they were still the largest party. After all it is very rare in parliamentary governments for any party to win an actual majority. I don't know where you got the idea that Hitler "lost" that election, but it is not factual. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I studied Nazi Germany at degree level. It is well known that the Nazis lost both election in 1932. Hitler only became Chancellor because Hindenburg decided to appoint him in 1933. Hitler never won an election. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Well, if you are complaining about Sanders saying that Hitler won the election, that quote is followed by a footnote that explains the situation. BTW, if the Nazis lost the election in 1932, who won? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody won, like in the 2010 and 2017 General Elections in the UK. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * So, everybody lost? Is that how you understand parliamentary elections? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be OK to say the Nazis were the largest party, but they by no means won. Hindenburg could have continued to refuse to appoint Hitler as Chancellor until his death in August 1934. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC))

Well, we have a footnote that says
 * Although Hitler lost the election for the presidency of Germany on March 13, 1932, when Hindenburg received 49.6% of the vote to Hitler's 30.1%, the Nazi Party which was led by Hitler won a plurality in the July 1932 election for the Reichstag, Germany's lower house of parliament. The Nazi Party retained its status as the largest party thereafter. :
 * I think that is a fair summary of the situation. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A senile Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 only because Papen and others convinced him that they could control the Nazis in government. It had nothing to do with any elections as the Nazis lost both in 1932. Sanders' quotation is wrong and highly misleading, so it should be removed. (86.179.156.13 (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * This came up before. We don't fact check statements made by subjects of biographies, although we may (in some cases) report a fact check that specifically refers to the person. We usually say someone won an election if they end up as premier or chancellor. David Cameron in his first election and Theresa May for example failed to win majorities but in common speech we say they were elected, since they ended up serving as PM. Very few PMs have won a majority of the vote in the last 100 years. In fact, prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed by the Queen on the basis that they can command the confidence of the legislature, which is how Hitler came to power. After his appointment, a majority of legislators voted him absolute power. Note also that U.S. presidents are not elected by the people, but by an electoral college. Nonetheless, before the electoral college had voted, the article on Joe Biden said he won the last election. TFD (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden hasn't won until 6 January. Cameron lost in 2010 and May lost in 2017. The Nazis rigged the election in 1933. (86.154.234.233 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC))
 * There were two elections in 1933. In the first, the Nazis gained the most seats and Hitler became chancellor. The second election was indeed rigged, but it wasn't what Sanders was referring to. Otherwise a lot of the terminology used in reliable sources is inexact. Can you really for example say that someone lost an election, when there were 650 separate elections held in each constituency? Is there any specific reason why you chose this article to begin your corrections? TFD (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Nazis lost the March 1933 election, despite it being rigged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1933_German_federal_election Sanders' quotation is so blatantly wrong and offensive that I feel it should be removed entirely. The German people never voted Hitler into power. (86.178.202.96 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Sure they did, they gave the Nazis the largest share of votes. Do you want to add a footnote stating that the German people did not elect Hitler but gave the Nazis the largest share of the vote? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two problems with your edit: (1) Synthesis. You would need a source that says Sanders was wrong. (2) Weight. you would then have to show that this criticism was significant. I don't know why his remarks would be offensive. All parties in the legislature except the SDP and KPD voted to give Hitler dictatorial power in the Enabling Act of 1933. Together, these parties won almost 70% of the vote. So unless you voted SDP or KDP, you were voting directly or indirectly for Hitler. TFD (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The March 1933 election was massively rigged, and the Nazis still failed to win a majority. They had lost considerable support in November 1932 in the final free election. (86.178.202.96 (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC))
 * So what? Unless you can find a source that says that Sanders was wrong, we can't even consider adding the information. TFD (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even when I was studying Nazi Germany for GCSEs my teacher said Hitler never won an election, and that it was President Hindenburg's choice to appoint him as Chancellor in 1933. (86.178.202.96 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC))
 * So what? Unless you can find a source that says that Sanders was wrong, we can't even consider adding the information. Also, all parties in the legislature except the SDP and KPD voted to give Hitler dictatorial power in the Enabling Act of 1933. Together, these parties won almost 70% of the vote. So unless you voted SDP or KDP, you were voting directly or indirectly for Hitler. Had they not done that, Hitler would have just been another chancellor. TFD (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Nazis rigged the March 1933 election. The Nazis still lost the election and needed a coalition partner. (86.178.202.74 (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

So what? Unless you can find a source that says that Sanders was wrong, we can't even consider adding the information. If you want to persuade the world that Hitler lost the election, this isn't the place to start. TFD (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the final multi-party election in March 1933 the Nazis registered a large increase in votes. However, despite waging a campaign of terror against their opponents, they only tallied 43.9 percent of the vote, well short of a majority. They needed the votes of their coalition partner, the German National People's Party (DNVP), for a bare working majority in the Reichstag. (81.147.63.239 (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Again, unless you can find a source that says that Sanders was wrong, we can't even consider adding the information. Per no synthesis, we cannot take what Sanders said and what we know about the election of Hitler, conclude Sanders was wrong and add it to the article. We could only do it if news media decided to fact check what he said and came to that conclusion. That's because Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not analyze but merely summarizes the conclusions that have been reported. So it really doesn't matter whether Sanders was right or wrong, what matters is what whether reliable sources reported that he was right or wrong. TFD (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sanders was wrong: https://lobelog.com/no-hitler-did-not-come-to-power-democratically/ (81.147.63.239 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Again, you would need a source that specifically mentions Sanders. That is Wikipedia policy and we're not going to make an exception for you in this article. If you don't like it, get the policy changed or go to another website to argue your case. TFD (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor is now trolling and it is time to stop feeding it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Did You Know Fact
The Did You Know? fact says Bernie was the first socialist mayor in New England since Jasper McLevy. However the article for Bernie says he was a Social Democrat not a Socialist. So why does the Did You Know? section call him a Socialist? Ewf9h-bg (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Inauguration Memes
Which one should we use that can make it through Commons copyright criteria as 4.0? Charles Juvon (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I now see the original image of Bernie is attributed to Getty by the NYT Charles Juvon (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if one were to argue the memes are a derivative work that could be fair use, we already have lots of Bernie pics and the memes, while hilarious, are not encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think Bernie and Forest Gump (on the bench) are two copyright violations. I didn't see any of these recent memes on Commons. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Its already very late, its now a high time we add section on 2021 Inauguration meme section in main page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolninad (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Budget Committee Chair
Could someone change him from ranking member to chair? Thanks 86.156.207.224 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Gandydancer (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sanders Israel position
The article distort Sanders positions on Israel and Israel conflicts.

The article on his political positions states : Sanders supports a two-state solution, saying that "the Palestinian people, in my view, deserve a state of their own, they deserve an economy of their own, they deserve economic support from the people of this country. And Israel needs to be able to live in security without terrorist attacks."War and Peace, Bernie Sanders, Senate website

While this article describes him as anti-israel. This is wrong as Sanders expressed his support for Israel ( and even supported Israel by working in a kibbutz) and claim that his criticism target only the "right wing government". He actually does not criticize Israel but criticize the wars and conflicts and the lack of a peace process.

Regarding AIPAC his comment is just one tweet, not all his thought. This article gives it too much weight and presents it as his main and only opinion. However Sanders wanted to be part of AIPAC conference at several occasions. Please don't distort political views for propaganda purpose, thank you. --Vanlister (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , where does the article descrine him as "anti-Israel"? He has criticized Israel, that doesn't make him anti-Israel. The article mentions the time on the kibbutz. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what is understandable when you read that he only support "Palestinian rights" and has criticized Israel. I also think that adding a tweet about AIPAC is undue, as it is cherry picking between his many tweets and AIPAC comments.

Add that Sanders support Israel. For example few 2020 declarations : https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/views-on-israel-of-u-s-presidential-candidates-2020-bernie-sanders

As a kid, I spent time in Israel. I am not in- anti-Israel. I will do everything I can to protect the independence and the security and the freedom of the Israeli people. But [...] So, I am pro-Israel. I am pro-Palestinian. (“Face the Nation,” March 1, 2020)

The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. So do the Palestinian people [...] (@BernieSanders, February 23, 2020)

I have a connection to Israel going back many years. In 1963, I lived on a kibbutz near Haifa. It was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded. I think it is very important for everyone, but particularly for progressives, to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution. --Vanlister (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We should begin by saying that he supports the Two-state solution: “Israel has a right to exist in security, and at the same time the Palestinians have a state of their own.” His other views follow from this: opposition to the West bank settlements, moving the embassy to Jerusalem opposition to terrorism. His position is entirely moderate. We really don't need a lot of detail about specific comments on various events. TFD (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅.--Vanlister (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is going to change that? The article is under topic ban--Vanlister (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

how come his praise of socialist regimes are missing from this detailed article?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bernie-sanders-and-venezuela-11553109182

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/1/on-venezuela-bernie-sanders-has-a-lot-more-explain/

205.175.106.98 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources policy prohibits us from using op-eds and dubious news sources. I note the WSJ editorial, which was picked up by the Washington Times says, "In January of 2003 Mr. Sanders signed a letter of support for Maduro predecessor Hugo Chavez." There is nothing about what was in the letter or any evidence it was ever written. In fact, Sanders was criticized in Quillette for not signing a letter in support of Chavez in August 2004. Maybe your source got it mixed up. That letter was published in Venezuelanalysis along with the list of signatories, but I can find nothing about the alleged January 2003 letter. TFD (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure he is not in Democratic Party anymore?
I know it seems logical for his personality but what is the source? --Czarnybog (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , he never was in the Democratic Party. <span style="font-family:Avenir Next Condensed Demi Bold, Bahnschrift, Avenir, Segoe UI;">Thanoscar21talk, contribs 00:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He was. This is why we have that information in the infobox and you can even find a source that says he "quitted" Democratic Party in 2016 and became independent "again" here: . But I can't find source that confirms he was Democrat in 2019-2020 like infobox says. --Czarnybog (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

"Honeymoon" trip to Russia
Something went wrong and my rather long edit summary did not show up so I'll note here that the sources make it clear that it was not a honeymoon in the way that we generally think of a honeymoon but rather a business trip that had been scheduled for the day after their marriage. Per source, "Sanders and his wife did travel to Yaroslavl, a city in the Soviet Union, after their wedding in 1988. In the sense that the trip came after the couple were married, the trip was a honeymoon. The two have also referred to the trip that way, albeit sarcastically at times." Gandydancer (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A honeymoon but not as is normally considered to be one. Yes. However, as Sanders himself says, “it was a very strange honeymoon”. He used the honeymoon! Therefore, the inclusion of that quote is 100% legitimate.  It avoids the standalone mention of the word “honeymoon”.  In any marriage, the period immediately after vows are made is exceptionally important. The exclusion of the word “honeymoon”, particularly in view of the fact that Sanders himself made use of the word in the description of the trip that he provided, cannot be justified. I trust that we can now let this matter rest. Thank you.  Boscaswell   talk  21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Irony is "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning." (Merriam Webster) We should not misrepresent words meant ironically as words meant literally. While drawing a distinction may be difficult for editors who lack a sense of humor, the sources clearly indicate that it was meant ironically. While I don't know whether or not you have a sense of humor, a large number of people don't or have unusual senses of humor. Referring to a business trip as a honeymoon because one's newly wedded spouse accompanied is meant to be humorous. It's because humor may be misunderstood and taken literally that we are advised not to use humor in discussion pages and it is frowned upon in many serious settings, such as courtrooms and airport security checkpoints. TFD (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Snopes calls this "mostly false". See here:    Gandydancer (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021
Change "Political party	Independent (1978–present)" to "Political party	Independent (1978–2014, 2017-2018, 2021-present)", as his spells as a Democrat are ignored in the existing format, and are thereby misleading. I believe that it looking nice in the space is less important than it being factually correct, as many people look to Wikipedia for information. 24.143.78.15 (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The time as a democrat is the next line in the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead image
I'm fine with the current lead image, but I found a recent portrait of Sanders that he uses on his Senate website on WikiCommons and personally an updated portrait looks better than a candid good quality close-up. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think this photograph is likely a copyright violation (it's unclear if it was actually taken by the Senate sergeant-at-arms). In any case, the photograph is of too low a resolution to replace the current lead image. <b style="line-height:1.1;display:inline-block;transform:skew(-14deg);border-radius:2em;border:solid#34c 1px;overflow:hidden"><b style="color:#fff;background:#34c"> Mysteryman</b>blue </b> 03:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021
add this image file to the “activism” section of this page, as it depicts sanders being arrested at a civil rights protest 70.123.41.135 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Copyrighted work, can't be used. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Post Presidential Campaigns / Tenure as Senate Budget Committee Chairmen
Good day fellow editors.

Curious about others opinion & those more knowledgeable about the Wiki rules about creating a new section on this page (would be the new #8) that specifically denotes Sanders' time "Post-presidential campaigns" or "Tenure as Senate Budget Committee Chairmen." The name is obviously less important, but I'm interested about cataloguing the specific actions, accomplishments, and historically significant events that have occurred under his time in that position. I'm imagining things such as [American Rescue Plan Act], trying to get the $15 minimum wage in there, forcing a vote on that issue, and of course, the recent historic $3.5 trillion infrastructure reconciliation proposal (which obviously is incumbent on all or a portion of it actually passing), among other events I may have missed. Asking for honest thoughts as we obviously need to balance the recency bias and not being too detailed but also not missing a chance to denote sufficiently significant matters in this part of his career before too much time has elapsed.

So what say my fellow Wiki editors? Jccali1214 (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Official Photo
The official photo for Bernie Sanders is a fictional photoshopped photo that shows him as President of the United States.

Below is his real portrait.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bernie_Sanders.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4B00:1260:C8AE:C2F7:40F1:151A (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Official Portrait?
Hi, can someone verify that the photo used on this page (File:Bernie Sanders Official Portrait.jpg) is, in fact, an official portrait of Bernie Sanders? On Commons, the file was uploaded by one User:Tofusaurus, is listed as "Own work", and has the description "Fictional Bernie Sanders official White House portrait" and the category "Alternate history". As such, I'm not confident that this is the right image to be using. It's not clear to me how this came to be the file used on this page. Based on a preliminary reverse image search, it seems to be a photoshopped version of a photo of Bernie Sanders with the American flag added in the background. I'm going to revert the change and consult with the user who made it. --Sensorfire (✎&#124;‽) 21:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Merge Media coverage of Bernie Sanders into Bernie Sanders
I propose this merger because there are many controversial political campaigns in general, and he did not get the Democratic nomination in 2016 or 2020. Yleventa2 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the merger. See my rationale in old AfD discussions for the 'Media coverage of Bernie Sanders' article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The merger looks sensible, but Media coverage of Bernie Sanders needs to be cut back considerably and that needs an editor who knows more about the sources that I do in Australia. --Bduke (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support a merger, instead deferring to the keep consensus from the four AfDs through 2019 and 2020 (2 nocon and 2 keep). Those discussions support the existence of a media coverage page as a separate article subject. Of course, sufficient RS coverage to support an article's existence does not mean there must be a separate article if it could be covered in a more general one. But with the length of that page, it seems we would necessarily lose significant content were we to merge it into this general article on Sanders, so based on the AfD support for that article subject and based on the volume of RS coverage, I support retention of that page and I oppose a merge. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What are some examples of significant content? He seems to have the media coverage of a typical third party candidate. Yleventa2 (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For significant coverage in RS, see the sources listed by User:The Four Deuces and User:ImTheIP in Articles for deletion/Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (4th nomination), which was closed as keep. Freelance-frank (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That there have been many other controversial campaigns is not a reason for deletion. The justification for articles is coverge in secondary sources. Furthermore, the comment that the article has to be trimmed in order to fit into this article ignores Splitting. When a section is too large in relation to the article, we are supposed to create a new article.
 * In the fourth (!) nomination for deletion, excluding the sockpuppet who wrote the AfD and another sockpuppet who voted for it, the vote to keep was 10-5. (No sockpuppets voted to keep.) If a topic is sufficiently notable to support its own article, there is no reason to merge.
 * TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is relative though. If you look at other pages about media coverage, such as Media coverage of the Iraq War, the events are much more significant on a large scale.  The candidacy of Sanders was atypical, but not to the extent where significant change occurred as a result, since he didn't even win the nomination, and was second by a margin of 1,000 electoral votes. Yleventa2 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lost Springs, Wyoming (pop. 4) has a smaller population than New York City (pop. 8,804,190). That's not a reason to delete the first article. As long as a topic has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write a neutral and informative article, it is notable. TFD (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The articles should be merged. Listen, I understand that Walking Dead made it cool to have a TV show about a TV show, but an entire stand alone article about media coverage of Person X is ludicrous on its face.  Everyone complains about the media coverage of candidates.  Every candidate gets supposedly biased media coverage.  What's next?  Should we have Wikipedia articles about popularity polls for favorite ice cream flavor?  The act of having a stand alone article for this subject is a political act by Wikipedia--by isolating coverage about Sanders and uniquely elevating it, Wikipedia effectively validates the claims that Sanders has been treated differently by the media than others.  And if that's what Wikipedia is going to start doing, then it should close up shop immediately.  If anyone wants to have an article that addresses media coverage, the topics should be about coverage about the campaigns themselves.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaapje (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * per the August 2020 AfD. Nothing has changed in the past year to override previous consensus. The nominator's proposed reasoning, "did not get the Democratic nomination in 2016 or 2020", has no bearing on the notability of the media coverage subject. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Firefangledfeathers; it's true that he didn't become the nominee and thus did not become the president, but media coverage is what ultimately determines notability, and there's a decent amount of media coverage on the subject. Better to describe the topic here than clutter the biographical article with a tangentially related subject. I'm open to seeing the media coverage article trimmed, though. It might be a better candidate for a merger once we've figured out which parts of the article have lasting notability and which parts don't. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following this discussion for a while but I respect your civil viewpoint on the issue, thanks. Yleventa2 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose as there is significant notability to the topic, and it simply cannot be condensed into a couple paragraphs. He's been the runner-up for two Presidential nomination cycles in the Democratic Party, and there are many who believe his coverage was unfair due to the ideas he was expressing. On the flipside, there are those who think there wasn't any bias, and that means even more space is necessary to show the other perspective. No reason to merge the articles back together, when it was split for this very reason. -- Bobtinin  (talk)  18:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others--JTZegers (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He's one of the most well known figures of Congress and his media coverage is expansive, interesting, and at times historical in the world of journalism. I oppose a merger. Missvain (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

social security
Why is it people on Social Security disability get the bun end of the stick people on Social Security have already raised their families so they don'tget Child Care Credit or any kind of money for the children we are senior citizens no senior citizens that I know have been able to get any help from our state I live in Missouri there is no way a republican Governor is going to help us let alone where do we start I'm 61 years old I barely can use a computer where do we even start how are we supposed to file for this so-called help when I was young I made more money in the 1980s than I do right now I believe the United States doesn't care about 2600:1700:CFF0:64C0:5D12:73A1:4930:DF9E (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sectionworker (talk • contribs)


 * You can email Bernie at Sectionworker (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)