Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 5

competitiveness
I have been wondering what Sanders has to do say about promoting the competitiveness of the American economy and i have found nothing anywhere (not in Wiki nor without). It is very clear that he thinks american government policies and law currently favors the rich over the poor and wants to use government to reduce economic inequality. but what does he say about growing the economy as a whole - about helping companies generate high-paying jobs - and keep high-paying jobs - here in the US? It would be useful to add this to the article... Maybe he never talks about it.... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a question about improving the article. I am not interested in people telling me here on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog Bernie Sanders did talk about improving the US economy and can be seen in the article itself. Although here are just some I've quickly picked up. Probably not the best but still something  . And Zero Serenity, I don't think this section is a forum as you implied but a way to improve the article by adding info regarding Bernie Sanders and the economy as a whole. (N0n3up (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks. i looked at the huffpost piece and nothing there about competitiveness.   the feel the bern says that his plan to spend $1T on infrastructure will throw off extra benefits, citing this study - but that study doesn't say anything about america being more competitive afterwards (I had hoped it would and I see how it could be - better transportation lowers costs which helps companies that employ people stay in business and even grow) but that study only talks about all the benefits of that are thrown off while the infrastructure money is spent (e.g building a bridge means steel has to trucked to the site and someone gets paid to do that and has to eat lunch so restaurants benefit) etc). The USuncut article comes the close to making a case, saying that increasing wages (which is durable, not just happening only while gov't infrastructure-building money is being spent) will increase income which will "increase consumer spending" (which means money for  companies that sell the stuff that consumers buy, and workers of course need to create the stuff that is bought....but if they all go to Walmart and buy stuff made in China that doesn't help US workers).. and it says that reducing student loan debt will spur the housing market (and when the housing industry is doing well, it creates and sustains lots of local jobs).  but none of these make those points directly.  nothing about how he will (for example) help the few companies that still manufacture stuff in the US stay here - keep those jobs here - and still be competitive or even grow.  i do wonder what his plans are.  Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * this goes there but is a blog and not something Sanders seems to be saying. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should search for Sanders' views on each issue and report them. Instead article structure should be determined by what reliable sources consider important.  If you cannot easily find his views on this topic, then it lacks weight for inclusion.  What's his position on U.S. relations with Tonga?  Let's not turn this and articles about other candidates into battlegrounds in the U.S. election.  TFD (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * TFD It ain't a political "battleground" but an aim to go into further detail in each category, this one being in regards to Sanders and the economy. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC))
 * If we do not use the same weight in mentioning aspects of the subject, then we will present a different view than one finds in reliable sources. That is injecting our personal views about what is important and will present candidates in a different light from reliable sources, either better or worse.  When you start defending and opposing candidates, it turns the article into a battleground.  See Balancing aspects:  "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject."  TFD (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with TFD. If Sanders wanted to make  competitiveness of the American economy a major issue in his positions statements we would not need to go digging for it.  We are not here to write an editorial article to discuss his positions and where they may fall short if we hold that opinion.  Gandydancer (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or at least until Sanders makes such statements. (N0n3up (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC))


 * i found sources and added content first in the main article on his positions and then in this article Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent additions, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog Gandydancer Although some might be news outlets (I've checked them), I think they'll do. BTW this question might seem out of the blue, but, do you support GMO? this is regarding this message left on my talk page left by TFD. (N0n3up (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC))


 * Yes he does and I rather hope that we find no need to bring this up here as I have seen several editors needlessly (IMO) hounded and threatened since the recent GMO AfD. This article has no connection to GMOs and Jytdog should be perfectly free to edit here with no mention of his feelings re GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * well they were just reverted. I enjoyed learning about that stuff and adding it to the article.  ya'all can do what you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having a few minutes to look more closely at your edit that was deleted I have no argument with that either as it is true that we can only cover his positions in a very broad fashion here or it will be so lengthy and boring that people will just skim over it. I see that most of your addition was covered in one way or another elsewhere.  However, I note that you deleted his opposition the the TPP and replaced it with "He has opposed free trade agreements"  Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He has opposed every free trade agreement since NAFTA. I was summarizing very much with an eye to staying high level.  Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of NAFTA and CAFTA of course, and a China trade act, but what are all the other notable agreements that he opposed? Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Issues reports that he has opposed all the agreements. However, we would need reliable secondary sources to analyze his views and that would go into too much detail.  Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood.  And we seem to be moving beyond the topic of the discussion thread which was "competitiveness."  TFD (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * see this editorial by him from last spring for his overarching view.  here is the list of such agreements:  United States free trade agreements.  you can see his voting record on them here.  position on trade agreements is completely related to competitiveness.  free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers;  protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here.  Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, mention of the TPP should be included and I agree with TFD where he says, "Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood."  These are the ways that careful ways of using wording in an article can tilt the meaning in a certain direction.  We don't need that here.  It was a mistake for me to call this addition good before I'd had a chance to go over it better. Gandydancer (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You provide no reason for mentioning only TPP but hey if it makes sense to you to to focus only on his opposition to the most recent free trade agreement and neglect to mention his opposition to all free trade agreements (which is part of his consistent efforts to protect American workers) knock yourself out.  Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Sanders was writing about the competitiveness of the U.S. worker, not the competitiveness of the American economy. I note btw that Sanders says these are not free trade agreements, so saying he has voted against all free trade agreements is injecting your personal interpretation. That again demonstrates why we need reliable secondary sources to analyze his positions and not use our own synthesis, which is prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, the more detailed article re Sanders's political positions contains info on NAFTA, CAFTA, and the China trade agreements. This article contains only a line or two on each issue and there's not room for everything.  I must say, however, that after so many years of pointing out the danger of having one editor pretty much in charge of our numerous GMO articles, it is ironic that I would see your attempt to add a political bias to this article as well.  And here, as at the BP article, when you don't get your way you leave in a huff accusing the others of bias. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see no reason not to summarize his long-term position on free trade agreements and you provide none. It is a key part of his outlook and something that distinguishes him from other candidates. Nobody has any real answer to saving the rust belt that was created to a great extent by these agreements.  It is heart-breaking to pass through those towns.  Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't SYN when he himself says it.
 * It is his 4th bullet point on how he would reduce income inequality (his highest priorty) (see https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ here] - higher than free tuition, higher than universal healthcare.
 * "So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them" (his guardian editoral
 * "Trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) and the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China have been abysmal failures" again from the guardian source, emphasis added (he is listing only the famous ones - per United States free trade agreements and his voting record on them here (both already cited))
 * "The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade ... our overall trade policy must also change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs here again(again from the guardian editorial, again emphasis added)
 * "First, the TPP follows in the footsteps of failed trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, and the South Korea Free Trade agreement. Over and over again, supporters of these agreements told us that they would create jobs. Over and over again, they have been proven dead wrong." his Huff Post editorial
 * feel the bern links to this video posted by Iowa Pubic Television and titled "Sanders says he'd renegotiate trade agreements" where he says: "For Vermont, for Iowa, and for virtually the entire country, trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, have by and large been a disaster. I voted against all of them, and I am helping to lead the effort right now against the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  (and then he explains why, and then is asked, "How do you roll back the clock on those agreements?" and he says)... You renegotiate agreements. And what you say is, we want agreements that work for the American middle class."
 * here on the floor of the senate about the Korea agreement (source here: "Mr. President, I know that my colleagues who are supportive of these unfettered free trade agreements will be throwing out all kinds of statistics about how wonderful these trade deals will be for the U.S. economy and how many jobs will be created. Mr. President, we've seen this movie before and it ain't gonna happen. Those jobs didn't materialize after Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Those jobs didn't materialize under NAFTA. And, they won't materialize under the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade agreements that we are debating today. Unfettered free trade has destroyed jobs in my state of Vermont and in every single state in this country. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Mr. President, let's be clear: approving these trade agreements is insane. Unfettered free trade has failed us in the past, and they will fail us in the future. We need trade policies that are based on fair trade, not unfettered free trade. ... Mr. President, we have got to fundamentally rewrite our trade policy so that American products, not jobs are our number one export. The middle class will not survive and our economy will not flourish if large corporations continue outsourcing American jobs to China, Vietnam, and other low wage countries. Over the past thirty years, we have been told by the Administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama that unfettered free trade will increase jobs in America. They have been proven wrong. emphasis added)


 * His stance on trade has been very clear, and very consistent, for a long time. It is something he cares a lot about and is a major theme of which TPP is only the most recent.   Not including this is just bizarre, and "I don't like it" is not a good answer in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I don't think that anybody is arguing against the fact that he has oppossed NAFTA, etc., for years, as have most others in the progressive segment of the Democratic party. As one example, the US is directly responsible for bringing untold misery to Mexican farmers (for one) who had no choice but to leave their small farms when US corporate grown (and subsidized) corn was cheaper than what they could grow. A lot of them came to the US to find work and joined what I term a modern day slave class - sad but true.  That is what is being called "free trade".  It is the wording that is the problem.  If you look at Sanders's stuff you will see that he never calls it "free trade" but calls it so-called free trade, etc.  As for including it, it is in both of our additional articles, twice mentioned in one of them.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article, which summarizes his positions at a high level, misrepresents him - a lot - by discussing only his opposition to TPP.  We are talking about something like three words here.  Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, NAFTA, CAFTA, and China can be added but that's not what you did. You removed TPP and replaced it with "free trade".  There's a big difference.  BTW, I had a little time to look at your other edits and noted that you found the info re Greenspan "hilarious".  I ret'd that info. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources.  We cannot connect a vote for a trade deal 20 years ago with the TPP.  We cannot report what Sanders says unless it is filtered through reliable secondary sources that take into account the different views on the subject.  TFD (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please actually look at the free trade article. It mentions NAFTA in the first sentence and if you look at the opposition section, the arguments there = Sanders arguments.   Gandy and TFD what exactly is your objection to linking to that article?    In my view the best secondary source for his opposition to all free trade agreements is this from Vox which contextualizes things  - making it clear it is probably the biggest difference between him and Clinton and has a quote from him saying that he has opposed all of them - the next best is this video  I linked to above posted by Iowa Public Television (to the extent videos are ever good sources, but PBS is one of the most trusted news sources in america.


 * Gandy, yes, the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic Greenspan acknowledged that his model was flawed in a congressional hearing and it was made into a political "gotcha" with an edited video and added here  in a SYN way to show that Sanders "won" the argument.  We don't do gotchas in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is not our role to imply that Sanders is wrong, when no secondary sources make that comment.  You need to familiarize yourself with WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY.  TFD (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not using WP as a source. I am saying that our free trade article describes what Sanders is opposed to.  Your claim that it is not, is made on your own authority as far as I can see.  I asked you above to explain and you have not. Please do.  Please also respond to the sources I suggested (Vox and Iowa Public Television) for his consistent opposition to free trade agreements.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See Manual of Style/Linking: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links."  Readers who have better things to do than read the 200 articles linked to this one might assume that Sanders is opposed to what is commonly called "free trade", viz, where goods and services can be freely traded.  Regardless of guidelines, it is wrong to misrepresent people in order to discredit them.  TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, to say, "the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic" is a gotcha and to then say, "We don't do gotchas in WP" is a sad attempt to bias this article, IMO. If there were any doubt at all that anything that has been stated may not be accurate, that would be one thing, but there is not.  In this bio we are restricted to just a few words related to each of Sanders's achievements and his history and we must do the best we can with those few words.  If this were a long article in a magazine we'd have several paragraphs to cover this.  We don't have several paragraphs to cover it here.  I have added yet another ref, though it is a blog.  However, considering that no controversy is involved I believe that it should be acceptable.  Gandydancer (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the trade issue.... Sanders has a very clear and consistent stance on the free trade agreements the US has negotiated and signed since and including NAFTA, and on US trade policy, and this is important to him and his economic vision for the US. I have provided two secondary sources I think are good for that and a wealth of primary sources, including statements by Sanders himself, to support that. Please respond. Thanks. This may be something we will have to bring to a dispute resolution process, but before going there I wanted to get a response to a concrete proposal. Which is, in the "Political positions" section, replacing: with something like:
 * He is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
 * He has opposed all United States free trade agreements since NAFTA, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the US trade policy under which these agreements were negotiated and signed; he holds that these agreements have benefited large corporations at the expense of American workers and he proposes renegotiating the agreements to better protect American workers.

I haven't properly formatted the refs yet. Happy to tweak that (and notice that I didn't link to free trade - am trying to work with you here) but the content on his position on trade needs to be here. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this Gandy. It is a move in the right direction.  It doesn't say that he holds that these agreements have harmed Amercian workers and that is a big part of what concerns him - that is what he always talks about when he talks about these agreements, and I tried to capture that above.   But it is more accurate now than it was. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * actually it is fine now, as it starts with "disaster for the american worker." thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There has never been an objection to including that he was against the previous agreements (it most likely was missed when we had to highly abbreviate this page when we added another article), but it was the way you wanted to word it, calling it free trade. Even above you admit, free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers; protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here., and yet you have insisted on using the term "free trade" which sounds like a good thing, but Sanders objects to it.  This is very basic George Lakoff stuff and I'm sure that you must know that.  I really do not understand your objections here any better than I understand how you so snidely removed the Greenspan mention seemingly because you thought it was synth but now seem OK with it per your ref that is little different than the NPR ref, or even the YouTube as far as that goes.  All in all this has been a very unpleasant experience and I hope that things will get back to normal here where we only need to discuss whether or not he's Jewish and/or a Socialist every few days. :=) Gandydancer (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * According to a 2006 CBS article, the US subsidized corn farmers $20,000 per year, while Mexico subsidized its farmers $100 per year. As a result of the elimination of tariffs under NAFTA, cheap corn flooded into Mexico and 2 million Mexican farm workers lost their jobs and emigrated (illegally) to the US.  Note that today 90 of corn is genetically modified.  There are a number of reasons some people have criticized the agreement on corn, and they are not all categorical opposition to free trade, amd some people might not consider this free trade.  We would need reliable secondary sources to make that determination.  TFD (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposing subhead

 * At present, Sanders' early political commitments - notably to desegregation/Civil Rights - are buried in a section headed: early life, education and family.
 * I propose breaking them out starting from "Sanders joined the..." the 2nd sentence of paragraph 3 in the present childhood section, and moving the rest of that paragraph and the next paragraph through to its end: "as been a strong supporter of veterans' benefits."  down the page into the next heading: Early Political Career, under a subhead entitled" ''Early political activism, or something similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * support Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. I think looks/reads better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
Article claims Senator Sanders is a Democrat, that is not correct he is an Independent. He is caucusing with the Democratic party, but he is not a member of the Democratic party. The article listed as a source is talking about that specific issue, as he is not a member of the party each state could refuse to put him on their ticket. Here is a proper source for his status, http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Sanders&nState=VT or http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about You will see he is listed as an Independent. Also the correct marking for him is (I-VT), not (D-VT).

144.59.38.41 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Objected to, per prior discussion in the archives, and the plain language of the reference. -- Kendrick7talk 06:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also a current discussion of this, a few headings up the page. Neutron (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He can sit as an independent in the Senate and still be registered as a Democrat, which he has had to do in order to get on the ballot in several states(most importantly New Hampshire, as Kendrick has shown). 331dot (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which makes him both an independent and a Democrat at the same time, as I discuss in the section above. Neutron (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --allthefoxes (Talk)  19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have proposed: "Political Party:Democratic/Independent" for the infobox, with a footnote explanation. See above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

MLK in lead
Sanders attended the "I Have a Dream Speech" in 1963 along with 200,000 others including those pictured at far right. It's fine to mention this in the body of the Wikipedia article, but in the lead? It's not in the lead for the BLPs of the people shown in this image at far right, nor even mentioned anywhere in some of their Wikipedia articles, and some of these pictured people actually accompanied Dr. King. So, I suggest to remove it from the lead of this BLP, but keep it later in this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal. It's very weird. "Attended event" is not something that I've ever seen in the lead of a Wikipedia biography before. This just seems to be an attempt to link Sanders with MLK.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  18:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanders/O'Meara honeymoon
October 2007 interview with Jane O'Meara Sanders in the Vermont Business Magazine.: "Sanders: Yes. We got married in 1988. The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day Parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslovl with 10 other people on my honeymoon." Q&A: Jane Sanders, Burlington College Smith, Robert. Vermont Business Magazine35.12 (Oct 2007): 51. . The bride says it was her honeymoon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's accurate that they honeymooned in the USSR, but we need to put it in proper context. See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out: It is not reasonable to write in a way that implies that he was in any way soviet friendly. I understand that it's election campaigns going on right now, and as a consequence there are many who want to smear various candidates. Wikipedia should not become such a battleground. Dnm (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be reasonable if there's solid sourcing for it. I have no idea if there is or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the Sister Cities International policy of the Eisenhower administration, U.S. cities were paired with cities in other countries, including the Soviet Union. Burlington participated and sent its mayor and some of its councillors to visit their paired city.  One result was that Ben and Jerry's set up a factory the Soviet Union.  TFD (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A reasonable reading of her statement shows that it was ironic. Reporting the statement at face value is dishonest.  TFD (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably a typo...
Article states that Sanders' family members died in 1912 "in the Holocaust." In 1912, the Holocaust was still decades in the future. Perhaps "1942" was the year the writer intended? -- User:Sagebrush52
 * I can't find what you are talking about. (also signed your post) -- Kendrick7talk 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does he qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors?
Is anyone able to find more references about his father please? When exactly did he move to the US? Would Bernie Sanders qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors? Has he spoken/written about this at length anywhere? Btw, is anyone able to find out if he is Orthodox, Conservative or Reform?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s, Although there is no precise definition, the term "Holocaust survivor" is usually reserved for individuals who were actually in Nazi-occupied territory during the war. Judging form dating in the article, it appears probable that Sander's father left before the Invasion of Poland (most Poslish-Jewish immigrants to the U.S. came earlier than 1939). You would have to find the date of his emigration to know for sure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your response. I am hoping that we can figure it out together. If that is the case, what a great message it would send to the world for America to elect the child of a Holocaust survivor--freedom over barbarism! Either way, he must have written or talked about it, but I am not sure where to find reliable sources. I haven't read his book, Outsider in the White House, and anyway that wouldn't be a third-party reference. Perhaps journalists will ask him during the campaign and we'll be able to reference those interviews/articles then? But there must be some already. Please help me find them if you can. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s He emigrated in 1921. from Słopnice. . E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Still, it would be nice for America to elect its first Jewish president--especially these days, with the rise of antisemitism globally. In any case, thank you for finding this out. I still wonder if he is Reform, Conservative or Orthodox though. One of his top advisors, Richard Sugarman, is Orthodox.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

insufficient for wiki-purposes as it would require some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but you can glean quite a bit from this article. Not orthodox. spoke at a conservative temple at least once. but most important, repeatedly described as secular or non-religious, so I think the whole R/C/O paradigm doesn't apply at all. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-is-proud-to-be-jewish-yet-low-key-on-religion/Content?oid=2758284. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did he not attend a synagogue in Brooklyn as a child?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Per the articles I've seen, they attended mainly on holidays only, but he did attend hebrew school, but mainly went to get out of school and as social/cultural value. Regardless, where he went to 60+ years ago (primarily controlled by his parents) has not much to do with how we should describe (or think of) him now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It should absolutely appear in the "early life" section, but it has to be referenced and specific. Which synagogue, etc. Since he grew up in Brooklyn, it may be a historic/notable synagogue. Equally significant to know if he was raised as Orthodox or other.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

per my link above, he says he was not orthodox, but does not say what he was. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I attended protestant church services for children and even had an aunt (deceased decades ago) who was a theologian as well as being confirmed when 15. My life's experiences have led me to become an opponent of religion per se. I am not seeking any office but would be extremely unhappy if you held my past over which I had no control against me. In a hospital form I recently wrote 'no religion'. One would have to know what Sanders's habits are to say how Jewish or not he is. Being genetically from Jewish stock is a biological description and does not tell us anything really. He was not drafted into the Army, it appears, and why that is would be more interesting. 58.174.193.5 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Senator Sanders has not made the details of his religious observance and/or lack thereof a significant part of his campaign, or of his public persona in general. I don't think we need to make an issue of it in the article. He's Jewish, we say he's Jewish, I don't see the need for much more than that. If I look at the Hillary Clinton article, will I learn how often she went to church as a teenager? I hope not. It's not relevant. Neutron (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reflection of political campaign ads. Indeed, that would be a form of COI, which we reject. His religious background is relevant. (HRC is a Methodist, but we're talking about Sanders here.) It would indeed be relevant to his article if he attended a notable synagogue in New York as a child/teenager, regardless of his campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are making a somewhat common error. What is notable/relevant to wikipedia, is that which has been covered, and the degree to which such coverage is WP:DUE here, is directly proportional to the amount of WP:WEIGHT and attention it is given in the real world. One may be able to dig and find a source that answers your question. But the fact that such extensive digging was required makes it very unlikely to be something that wikipedia wants here. If it was indeed a notable part of his biography, it would be written about in a sufficient number of sources that answering the question would be trivial (or if not answering the question, it should be easy to point out multiple sources discussing the question itself). What is notable/relevant can change on a case by case basis. For example, the details of Obama's religion is more notable, due to the various controversies that have arisen in that area. Indeed it is very easy to find dozens and dozens of top-tier reliable sources discussing the minutiae Obama's faith. of There are no similar controversies for Sanders. Hes Jewish. People have talked about that. We talk about it too (primarily to say hes Jewish, but not religious, which is what the sources spend their time saying). Nobody (or very few) has talked in any depth about his R/C/O status, or which temple he attended as a child.  Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No! Details matter, and we wouldn't add very much anyway. But this is exhausting. (Did you follow me from the HRC talkpage?) Unless you can be constructive and present references we could use, I am not interested in being patronized by you; please don't hound me. He is Jewish; it would be good to know if he was raised as Orthodox/Conservative/Reform and which synagogues he has attended.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the one asking to include information. The WP:ONUS is on YOU to provide the sources and to build consensus for inclusion. I did not follow you. WP:AGF Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This started as a very nice and collaborative discussion with User:E.M.Gregory. Please, User:Gaijin42, if you have nothing constructive to add, stop talking to me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided you with a link directly (or as directly as possible) answering the question you asked, and gave you policy based reasons why I disagree with your position. Constructive is not a synonym for "agrees with me". Gaijin42 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zigzig20s, The Reform/Conservative/Orthodox classificaiton doesn't apply at all well to the Brooklyn of the 40s/early 50s. Only a few American Jews were Sabbath observers in tat era. The great majority of Jews might attend an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue or - very commonly - a synagogue organized by people from a particular village, mostly attended on the high holidays or personal occasions (saying kaddish, bar mitzvahs).  Jews like this are sometimes called traditional (went to synagogue on the holidays, didn't eat pork).  They were culturally Jewish and lived in Jewish areas, but not "religious" on the modern sense.   There were also what is referred to in retrospect as "red diaper babies", i.e., the children of Marxist parents - this was also on a spectrum, both politically (the full Marxist spectrum had its Jewish adherents) and because some red diaper babies were taken to their grandparents synagogue on holidays, while many, many Jewish leftists were aggressively secular.  Reform was for upscale neighborhoods and German Jews - not for Eastern European immigrants and their children.  (The grandchildren of the 1880-1920 immigrants became Reform)  Probably the majority of immigrants and their American-born children of Sanders generation were culturally Jewish in a passive way, attending on the holidays, but not observing much.  Orthodox was a tiny minority, extremely unlikely to have included Sanders parents.  It was very rare.  I am painting here in broad, sweeping brush strokes.   What might make be interesting would be to have articles on Sanders' parents.  There are articles on Clinton's parents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems very unlikely that Sanders' parents would be notable enough for articles about them. I have read the articles on Hugh and Dorothy Rodham and I do not think they are notable either, but that's not a battle I wish to fight.  Neutron (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not know if Clinton's parents are notable, but there is sufficient information about them in Clinton's biographies to write complete articles about them. That is not the case here and may never be.  TFD (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to address the original question— this might be helpful: http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-parents-holocaust/ —Morning star (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanders Campaign DMCA Against Wikipedia
Why is there nothing in this article on Bernie Sanders' lawyers DMCA takedown attempt against the Wikimedia Foundation (and its withdrawal)? I looked in the talk page and didn't see any discussion of it. Though the story was not covered my the major media outlets, it did make the news in a number of sources usually considered reliable by Wikipedia.


 * Ars Technica
 * Boing Boing
 * TechDirt
 * Reason

I ask because I came to this page to see what Wikipedia said about the issue as it has shown up in an anti-Sanders meme alleging he "sues wikipedia on pretense of political button copyright, drops suit when wikipedia "sanitizes" his bio, removing Communist & Socialist Party details". I was surprised to see it not mentioned at all. I think that in the interests of transparency, when Wikipedia becomes part of a story, we should write about that, lest we give the appearance of a cover-up.

However, as I've done zero work on this article, I'm not inclined to Be Bold and got add this without seeing what the people who actually have written it think first. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, we're not big on WP:NAVEL gazing. -- Kendrick7talk 06:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable sourcing is not sufficient to include information, it also must meet weight, which is determined by coverage in mainstream media. The Sanders campaign demanded that Wikipedia cease using copyrighted images and changed their mind on Jan. 15.  No information was removed from the article and you can check the edits.  On which conspiracy theory website did you get that information?  TFD (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It was being circulated as part of a pro-Hillary; anti-Sanders meme on Twitter. I was not saying that the meme was true; just that it was out there. But to a casual observer, who is not versed in the details of Wikipedia, it does not look that far-fetched after reading the article. I know enough to look at the talk pages; most people using Wikipedia will not. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, you can check the edit history of the article. It shows every change made to this article and every version since its creation in 2003. Also, this article says, "While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America," and has a whole section about his membership and involvement with the Liberty Union Party.  There are no reliable sources that he belonged to any other party and AFAIK the article has never made that claim.  TFD (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Democratic
change ((Democratic Party|Democratic)) to ((Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic))
 * Done, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the fate of his paternal relatives
I don't know what the proper Wikipedia conventions are, but I feel the text isn't as detailed and precise as it could be. It currently reads: "Eli's family was killed in the Holocaust." There are four sources given for this:
 * The NPR article states: "Sanders' father's family was mostly wiped out during the Holocaust."
 * The New York Times Magazine article states that Eli "saw his family wiped out in the Holocaust".
 * Stone's book, The Jews of Capitol Hill, states that "his [father's] family had been wiped out in the Holocaust."
 * And, the most detailed description, from the Tablet article: "Most of Eli’s family was sent to concentration camps where they were killed."

Perhaps it's the best we can do at the moment — without more information— but I just wanted to put it out there.—Morning star (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I think our summary is accurate to those sources, but the relevance of the information to Bernie's bio is limited - we do not have any detail about how close of family/relations this is. At closest it would be uncles/aunts/cousins, and presumably ones that Bernie never met since he was born in 41 in America. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder about Original research
Some editors on this page seem to have forgotten WP:No original research and appointed themselves Kings of the Jews. There is no such a thing as an "inactive Jew", and I challenge them to produce reliable sources that say there are or that Sanders is one. Until they can do so, it is impermissible original research| to say that he is an "inactive Jew".

I'd like those editors to carefully re-read the Washington Post article on which they're relying. It never calls Sanders an "inactive Jew", because there is no such thing as an "inactive Jew".

Furthermore, I challenge them to explain why Donald Trump says in its infobox that Trump is a Presbyterian with no qualification when the article says that he "is 'not an active member' of his church[334] and he "has not asked God for forgiveness for his sins".[337] Why is there one standard for Trump and another for Sanders? One for Christians and Jews? That's called ORIGINAL RESEARCH! (There are other names for that as well, but I'm going to try to be polite today.)

Before some troll starts running at the mouth, yelling "But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!", let me remind that troll what that essay actually says:
 * This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.

I look forward to an explanation about why describing Sanders as an "inactive Jew" is not something an editor made up one day. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC) The cited Washington Post article says quite clearly (emphasis added): [A]s an adult, Sanders drifted away from Jewish customs. And as his bid for the White House gains momentum, he has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president — but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious. "I am not actively involved with organized religion," Sanders said in a recent interview. Therefore, it would be entirely proper to say in the infobox "Religion: Jewish (inactive)". In fact, I doubt it would be proper to omit the parenthetical self-identification, because readers would assume that he is an active member of the Jewish religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "inactive Jew" and the article doesn't say that Sanders is such a thing. You're making up a class of people ("inactive Jews") that doesn't exist in reliable sources or in the real world. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're quoting me as supporting insertion of "inactive Jew" into the infobox. Your quote is bullshit, because I never said to do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're full of shit, as these quotes from above show:
 * One source says that, and another source says that he is an inactive member of that religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Curly that merely stating "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox does readers a disservice, and makes it seem like Sanders actively practices the Jewish religion, which he has said he does not. But I don't agree with Curly that we ought to remove that material from the infobox.  It would be much more straightforward to simply add the parenthetical "(inactive)".  Sanders self-identifies as inactive, and we have lots of other parentheticals in the infobox.  It's true that we don't add parentheticals to clarify how active the other politicians are with regard to their religion, but that's probably because other politicians have not identified as inactive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If Person X says "I am an inactive member of religion Y" then Wikipedia editor Z is not engaged in "original research" when he writes "religion: Y (inactive)". If you think otherwise, then I'd advise you read up on WP:OR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Either of those would be okay, I guess, but the best thing would be to use the words that Sanders himself uses: "not active" (or equivalently "inactive"), unless you can find a good source that uses "secular" or "nonobservant".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph and Cullen, you are both mistaken about the facts. Yes, Sanders self-identifies as being of the Jewish religion, but he also identifies as being inactive in that religion.  So there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with us saying that he is of the Jewish religion and is inactive in that religion.  The position that you are both taking puzzles me, because you are both asserting that I am seeking to characterize Sanders in a way contrary to his self-identification, which is simply false.  Since you have both been participating in this conversation for quite a while now, you ought to realize that it is false. I should have known better than to get involved in a religious war at Wikipedia! Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You falsely conflate "religion" with "organized religion",, which indicates that you know very little about contemporary Judaism, where expressing a Jewish religious identity outside the confines of "organized religion" is quite common. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're making stuff up out of whole cloth, and that's original research. (I advise you to read WP:OR. You're the one who wants to add material for which no reliable sources exist.) Sanders says he is Jewish, period. You are the one who wants to add qualifiers. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're full of it. See my article edit here.  Does it say "inactive Jew"?  Of course not, because I never suggested inserting that language into the infobox.  Does the language that I inserted into the infobox say that he's an inactive Jew?  Not explicitly in that way, because the cited source doesn't say that explicitly.  So please stop trying to twist what I inserted into this BLP, and address what I actually inserted into this BLP.  Do you think that what I actually inserted was original research?  Thanks in advance for your opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are making the mistake of conflating "inactive with organized religion" with "inactive with religion". The infobox is for "Religion". not "Organized religion". You know nothing about how Sanders practices religion and faith in his private life and home, but saying he is "inactive" says we know. We do not know. We only know he isn't involved in organized religion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Judaism is an organized religion. If he's not actively involved in organized religion, then he's not actively involved in Judaism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone were to say he's an inactive Jew, whatever that means, that means he's an inactive Jew. That means for Religion, he's a Jew. If the infobox would ask if he practices his religion, then we can say, No. But it doesn't, it just asks an identification, what is his religion, the answer: Jewish. So until you go through the 534 other members of Congress, it is not really nice to single out the Jewish person. And Judaism is not an Organized Religion, you have 1 Jew and you can have 3 opinions. Why don't you let the Jewish person, namely Bernie Sanders, decide if he's Jewish nor not. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Ted Cruz BLP says in the infobox: "Religion: Christianity (Southern Baptist)". Southern Baptist is a denomination rather than a religion, but it's a perfectly acceptable parenthetical because it clarifies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as you said, that's a denomination, not his practice. Catholic and Protestant is a denomination of Christianity, as well. But if you want, feel free to remove. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is an WP:OR assumption. Many people do not have access to an organization, yet they are still Jewish (or Catholic, or Muslim). Beyond that in the more liberal forms of Reformed Judaism, there is very little organization at all. What are your sources that say someone who is not involved in organized Judaism is not involved in Judaism? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Here are some contrary sources :
 * Columbia Encyclopedia "Also part of contemporary Judaism are the several Sephardic traditions maintained in Israel, France, Canada, and the United States by immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa and by European Sephardim in Europe and the Americas; the several Hasidic groups in Israel and the United States; the religious and secular Zionists in Israel and the Diaspora; the unorganized secular Jews, who maintain an atheist's or agnostic's adherence to Jewish values and culture; and those unorganized Jews who seek a religious life outside the synagogue
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=cqMdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA316&dq=unorganized+religious+jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF1_zL2tnKAhUjyYMKHUKeDVMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=unorganized%20religious%20jews&f=false
 * Search google books for "unorganized jewish" and you will find hundreds of references. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's blindingly obvious from the cited Washington Post article that the Post took his statement that he's "not actively involved with organized religion" to mean that he's not actively involved with Judaism. He very obviously wasn't saying merely that he had no active involvement with Catholicism or with Hinduism.  And so putting the parenthetical "inactive" in the infobox is faithfully (pun intended) following Sanders's self-identification, and providing Wikipedia readers with the same useful clarification that Sanders himself has provided.  The Post says he's "not religious", he says he's not religious, so I cannot understand the problem with indicating that parenthetically in the infobox.  Many of the google hits you refer to are consequences of the fact that Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion, just like "gay" is both a sexual orientation and a state of happiness.  In any event, "organized religion" is a special term with a special meaning, and ought to be your search term.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quotes from the same sources that can be used against your pov, But in any case, this is mostly moot, because you do not have consensus. In fact, I would say there is a clear consensus against your changes.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sanders said he believes in God, though not necessarily in a traditional manner"
 * "Sanders’s religious views, which he has rarely discussed" (not lack of religious views or lack of religion)
 * " rejecting the formal trappings of religion" (note,rejecting trappings, not rejecting religion)
 * There is no consensus to put "(inactive)" in the infobox. But I emphatically disagree that doing so would reflect any POV at all other than the Washington Post's POV and Bernie Sanders's POV.  Anyone who reads the Washington Post article can easily see that, according to the Post, he is not active in the Jewish religion.  I'm all done here.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While I haven't seen anyone actually advocate putting any variation of (inactive) in the infobox (it appears to be a straw man, used alongside the equally false claim that someone here says Sanders is not Jewish) I would note that we recently closed an RfC at Template talk:Infobox that showed an overwhelming (75%) consensus for the following:
 * "In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion = ' parameter of the infobox."
 * Any variation of (inactive) would be a nonreligion, and thus not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Luckily for us, he makes his religion very clear in the closest thing to an infobox a person can make for themselves, the press packet. He self describes as "Religion: Jewish" Parabolist (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rules for a politician's press packet and the rules for a Wikipedia infobox are not the same. For example, if a politician puts "Children: None" in his press packet, we leave the "children = " section blank. Bernie Sanders has made it clear on multiple occasions that, while he is a Jew, he is not currently a member of the Jewish religion. See [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html ], which says:
 * "He has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president — but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious."
 * " 'I am not actively involved with organized religion,' Sanders said in a recent interview."
 * "Larry Sanders sums up his brother’s views this way: 'He is quite substantially not religious.' "
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody knows what Sanders' beliefs are and we have no evidence he is an "inactive Jew"—only that he doesn't participate in organized religion and perhaps puts little emphasis on spirituality in his life (?). He could very well be a practiser of Judaism in a personal way—we have no WP:RS evidence one way or the other.  This "(inactive)" thing needs to be put to rest. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mayoral/house pictures
I would look for pictures of Sanders from his mayoral/House tenure, but I believe they will be copyrighted.

Why is the main picture under "Mayor of Burlington" that of the city hall? Buffaboy talk 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Official photos from the House of Repesentatives are in the public domain. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor language change in 'Tenure' section
Specifically the paragraph beginning "Sanders was a vocal critic of Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan"

The second sentence reads "In October 2008, after Sanders had been elected to the Senate, Greenspan admitted to Congress that his economic ideology was flawed" I feel the language of this sentence is too strong, and furthermore implies Greenspan admitted Sanders' statements quoted in the previous sentence were accurate.

As the cited NYT article explains, in his 2008 testimony before congress Greenspan admitted the financial crisis had revealed "a flaw" in his earlier blanket support for deregulation, but overwhelmingly stood by both his own actions and his wider ideology. I recognize that the headline of the other cited source (the NPR one) is "Greenspan Admits Free Market Ideology Flawed" but looking at the actual quotes the two articles provide, Greenspan's criticism of his own ideology is very limited. The single regulation he supports is "that companies selling mortgage-backed securities be required to hold a significant number themselves"

As such, I feel the language in the second sentence should be watered down, or that individual sentence removed. The link between that particular hearing and Bernie Sanders is fairly tenuous. --Mf299 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Rabbi Manny Schevitz"
Bernie was in a low-budget movie in 1999, where he portrayed "Rabbi Manny Schevitz". I'm not kidding. We have to add this. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Has he been in other films?  Perhaps he merits a "Filmography" section  Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it, using the JTA reference. I don't think he's acted in anything else.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was removed without consensus by User:Gandydancer, alongside his 2013 visit to his ancestral town in Poland and his limited knowledge of the Polish language, all of which was referenced content. I believe it should be restored. What do others think? User:E.M.Gregory (since you expressed an interest about his father's hometown)?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it merits a - very brief - mention, CNN brought it into the news cycle, and says he did cameos in 2 movies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by what cable channels bring into the news cycle, but if there are references for film cameos, I would say we should include a brief mention of it. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Split Early life, education and family
I think I'd be easier if we split the family as in (brother, wives, children wise) in that article section and creating a Personal life section and the info with his early life, high school info, college should be under Early life or Early life and education. Just my two cents. Also with the info about his Other pursuits can be merged into the personal life section like the Simple English article on Sanders. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a crack at it and see if it sticks. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How does it look? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, but I'm sure somebody will find fault with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about religion
The religion section cites an obscure source saying that some people speculate Sanders is lying about his belief in God. Crap like that does not belong in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC) This BLP says: He has rarely talked about religion and downplayed questions of religion.[221] which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic.[227] Sanders has said he is "proud to be Jewish" but is "not particularly religious",[30][221] saying he believes in God.... Sanders says he believes in God. We state that correctly. A belief in God precludes agnosticism and atheism. Thus, we should delete the words "which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic". The speculation that he's lying is from unnamed people in an obscure source, and it has no place in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither the source nor the article says what you claim. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The source doesn't say that people are accusing him of lying. The source says that his reticence to talk religion has led people to erroneously believe he may be agnostic or atheist.  As does our article.  The source reports on wide speculation, but the both source and the article refute it.  Further proof is Zigzag20s's statement that "many readers will be relieved to find out that Sanders is not an atheist".  It's not a non-issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have inserted the word "erroneous" for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic"
This statement has been added to the article, and cited to an April 2015 student opinion piece in a California State University, Northridge newsletter (not a reliable source). The student opinion piece does not back up the statements, linking only to one April 2015 Patheos article:  which does not substantiate at all but instead links to this site/article which disproves the whole thesis: http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/bernie-sanders-disappoints-atheists-strong-religious-feelings/. Since we've got multiple sources confirming that Sanders believes in God (and we've stated and cited that he does in this Wikipedia article), this inaccurate and non-RS speculation has no place in the Wikipedia article, and at worst is a WP:BLP vio. I think it should be removed as both irrelevant and inaccurate. We publish encyclopedicly notable facts, not random inaccurate speculations. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please remove it per current WP:CONSENSUS. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain your motives, Softlavender. The article makes it crystal clear that Sanders is a Jew who believes in God, so that's obviously not the issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Softlavender, I've already removed it twice, User:Gaijin42 has removed it once, you have removed it, but Curly keeps putting it back despite rules against edit-warring. I'm not going to edit-war about it.  Maybe another editor will get involved, to remove this stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: talk about it. I've refuted your accusations fairly thoroughly.  Why not address that instead of tag-teaming to get it removed? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been no "tag-teaming" here. Editors have not coordinated their actions.  Instead multiple editors happen to think you're wrong.  In any event, I have inserted the word "erroneous" into the BLP, which should take care of the problem for now, somewhat.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since it's a WP:BLPVIO (and cited to a completely non-RS source which does not even substantiate but actually does the reverse), I've removed it per this consensus. Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination, nor is there anything resembling a consensus for what you propose. You'll have to self-revert.  You have this habit of bullying your way in these articles, don't you, Softlavender?  You didn't even attempt to address any issue I raised. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, whatever, fuck this noise. Fuck the fucking article up any fucking way you want—you can all call each antisemites till your fingers get sore.  This article's a lost cause.  Take the fucking keys, Softlavender, the house is all yours to push whatever fucking editwarring POV you want.  You can all have a great big motherfucking circle jerk to celebrate one less voice of moderation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a break. Unwatch the page. Others here have got this. I have every intention of bringing this situation up at WP:AE, and will drop you a note on your talk page when that happens so you can comment where it counts. This is not the sort of problem that can be solved with incivility. This sort of problem can only be solved with topic bans. (To all reading this, note that I expressed no opinion regarding Softlavender or his edits. I haven't even looked into that and have no idea at this point what was done or whether or not it was within policy) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP-violating "sources"
Since when are opinion columns reliable sources for a BLP? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've pretty much settled this and removed the material entirely, per current consensus, for all of those reasons and because the "sources" the student opinion piece links to happen to refute the entire statement. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

kibbutz name
accoriding to Haaretz newspaper, sanders was in kibbutz Shaar Haamakim. pleas add the kibbutz name. source: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/us-election-2016/.premium-1.2842479 (hebrew) Yoodale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's an English source saying the same thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tlooks like it's being widely reported now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So someone tweeted that 25 years ago Sanders told them he had stayed there 20 years earlier. I think that rates as a possible, but only because the press reported it.  TFD (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's not confirmed, then it would be a bad idea to add it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody has added it anyways. Should it be removed? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I took it out. There is no deadline and we need to present reliable information.  TFD (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not "someone tweeted". It's Sanders in an interview from 1990. You can find the interview in the archives of Haaretz. Tzafrir (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Confirmed : .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Lead - Socialist
Bernie's political affiliation in the lede and infoboc needs to be rethought in light of the attention it is drawing. Whatever an independent may be - and it is unclear that the term has meaning when applied to a politician, as opposed to a voter - it fails to accurately describe Senator Sanders is a lifelong, self-described, ideologically-committed socialist, now running for the Democratic nomination. At present, our entry is inaccurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More links form this article: .E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Third-party references
User:MrX: Regarding your revert, have a look at Wikipedia's policy on Third-party sources. I believe Sanders' self-published press package is a primary source, so that is original research. Besides, there are many third-party sources saying he is Jewish; I don't see a need to add this primary source.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You linked to an essay which has little to no weight in a content discussion. Primary sources can be used for plain facts, and sources published by a BLP subject can be used in some cases. WP:BLPSELFPUB is the applicable policy here. The important fact in this content is the juxtaposition of "religion" and "Jewish" and the fact that it comes from Senator Sanders.- MrX 18:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like original research to me.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:MrX could not be more correct, in this particular instance. Per WP:Primary, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Political positions in lead
This lead is unusual in that the last part of it discusses his political positions. That may be somewhat useful during this election season, but this article is supposed to take a longer view. It would be much better, in my opinion, to mention in the lead notable legislation that he has proposed and wikilink the legislation, plus use adjectives to describe his general political philosophy. Including a laundry list of specific issues does not seem appropriate, and it also does not seem biographical because, for example, we do not say when he adopted those positions; we imply that he's always taken those positions, which is false (he probably wouldn't have been elected even in Vermont during the 1970s if he had been pushing transgender rights, and the primary climatic concern in the 1970s was an impending ice age so he probably would have been deemed unacceptable on that basis too).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Anythingyouwant: I strongly disagree with your bold edit. I have reverted it while we discuss it. I truly believe that we should reach a consensus before we make bold edits to this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So go ahead and explain why you disagree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because 1) We should not make bold edits on such a contentious article without prior consensus. 2) Your edit ended with 'socialist', which looked potentially POV. 3) Hillary Clinton's lead summarizes her political positions and both candidates should be treated equally. Again, this is not the right article to make bold edits, as he is running for POTUS.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) I started this talk page section four days ago, and no one has objected until now. (2) I have no objection to ending with a different word than "socialist" if you think that's important. (3) The Clinton lead is nothing like the laundry list of issue positions that you have restored.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It talks about Hillarycare, her leadership positions during 9/11 and the Arab Spring, etc. It's the same. Let's treat them as equals.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we say that Bernie Sanders used to be First Lady of the United States? Sanders and Clinton are different people with different records.  HillaryCare was obviously a detailed proposal that she wrote and tried to champion.  We do not list her other issue positions, with respect to which she and hundreds of other people are "leading progressive voices".Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. She is not "more equal" because she was formerly married to the POTUS. She's just as equal as Bernie Sanders. There is no consensus, so please don't make bold edits again. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can see that the last part of the Sanders lead is completely different from the Clinton lead, and it reads more like campaign literature than like a Wikipedia BLP. If other Wikipedia editors agree with you, then obviously there would be no point in me making further bold edits, but the converse is also true.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, there is no consensus (i.e. I disagree with you and I believe both leads are similar), so please don't make bold edits again. Other editors will probably reply later. We all have lives. But making bold edits is not recommded for such contentious articles, ever.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It you want to argue that I've done something improper here by giving a full explanation, then waiting four days without any objections, and then making a bold edit, then you'll have to point to some particular policy or guideline. You haven't done so, and I did nothing improper.  What is improper is to turn the Sanders lead into campaign literature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing personal about a talkpage; it's about improving the article; it's not about Wikipedia editors themselves. Again, I disagree with your assessment, so there is no consensus, and bold edits are not recommended on such contentious articles. Be patient when you wait to hear back from other editors; we all have lives. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Was the edit that inserted this campaign literature into the lead a bold edit? Hmm?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. And it's been there for months. Sorry, I really don't think you have a case, but as I said, others will reply when they can. I am not interested in going around in circles over this with you. There is no consensus for your bold edit; that's it for now. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course there's no consensus, so I look forward to further input from others. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing Sanders's political positions from the lead. He is a politician running for President of the United States. The vast majority of people accessing this article, many of whom use Wikipedia as a primary point of reference, are here to understand who Bernie Sanders is and what he believes. I can understand getting more specific and making the writing flow better, but I can't understand why we wouldn't include a summary of a prominent politician's political views in the lead. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Adding filmography section
Sanders is reportedly to appear on SNL today. He had two small cameo roles and has appeared in dozens of documentaries according to IMDb. Should a filmography section be added like that of Patrick Leahy. I personally think it'd be a good idea. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't. Are you going to add one to Hillary Clinton's article with a list of all her television appearances as well? Of course not! He's not in the film industry.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)