Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Should Bernie be listed as a Democrat now?

In his press conference in New Hampshire, Bernie says he's running as a Democrat and that "I am a Democrat now." I can't link the video per rules, so just look up "Press Q&A | Sanders Files in New Hampshire’s Democratic Party Primary " on his YouTube account. 74.107.74.186 (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is a Democrat, but continues to serve as an Independent in the Senate and will be an Independent until the end of that term. He will be no longer be running as an Independent in any future election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.118.126 (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

He is not a member of the Democratic Party and as a resident of Vermont cannot join it. The Democratic chair for New Hampshire wrote a letter saying he was a Democrat,[1] and the Secretary of State accepted it. But it remains a matter of dispute. TFD (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Not arguing, but I will say that Howard Dean is listed as a Democrat, and he is a Vermonter as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

So we cannot have primary sources saying someone is a Democrat in Vermont, we have to rely on secondary sources. When they consistently refer to him as a Democrat, then we should too. Also would mention that he is currently and independent senator, so calling him a Democrat is confusing. TFD (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. He caucuses as a Democrat, and he is a Democratic presidential candidate. It's likely going forward that sources going forward will begin referring to him as a Democrat now.Kerdooskis (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I added a cite to an article from the Burlington Free Press indicating that Bernie is now a Democrat. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that citation. That pretty much settles the debate in my opinion.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Typically, a person's national party affiliation is dependent on which party the person is affiliated with in the state where the person is registered to vote. Bernie Sanders may have declared himself a Democrat for New Hampshire ballot purposes, but has he changed his party affiliation in Vermont to Democrat? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 17:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Except in Vermont one cannot register as a Democrat or become a party member. Howard Dean, former chairman of the DNC and governor of Vermont says Sanders is not a Democrat.[2] TFD (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

That's an awfully poor gloss of Howard Dean's reply that "Bernie Sanders is what he says he is." Dean plays no role anymore that I'm aware of in the party other than that of a voter and a talking head. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm a Justice of the Peace in Vermont, and one of my duties is conducting elections. I am also a member of the Democratic Town Committee for my town. I do not believe it is possible for a Vermont voter to declare a party affiliation. For example, on the voter registration form (called Application for Addition to the Checklist) there is no place to indicate a party affiliation. The lowest level of party involvement I can find is to be a member of a town committee. As seen in this law, the members of the public who show up at a town caucus elect the town committee members; one cannot demand as a matter of right to be added to the town committee. In my experience roughly 1% of the voters are members of a town committee. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Vermont voters cannot declare a party affiliation, we must look elsewhere to make an informed decision regarding the issue at hand. As mentioned above, Sanders declared himself a Democrat while filing another state's official paperwork. Unless someone files a challenge with New Hampshire's ballot law commission, Sanders will officially be listed as a Democrat going forward. That seems like enough to put this discussion to bed.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is he listed as a democratic. That reason you gave is really bad. Over 30 years of being an independent doesn't go away just because he's declaring himself to be a democrat for election purposes. As a senator he's still an independent. When he's president he'll get a (D) next to his name, not now. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading through this some of you lost site on who Bernie Sanders is, and that is a democratic socialist who is an independent. I've edited the info box and intro to show that he's an Independent with democratic affiliations, and that he's running as a democratic president candidate., I recommend freshening up with this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016 also ~~ AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@AlaskanNativeRU:, what does "As a senator he's still an independent" mean? Is there some special form senators file with the senate clerk about their party affiliation? Is this your personal interpretation of how he acts in the senate? (If so, we don't recognize personal interpretations by Wikipedia editors.) Do you mean that he was listed as an independent on the ballot the last time he was elected to the senate? (If so, there is plenty of precedent for senators changing party affiliation mid-term, including Bernie's immediate predecessor, Jim Jeffords, who switched from Republican to independent. Can you supply a reliable source for your contention that Bernie is an independent in the senate? I will check your edit; if you changed from a claim supported by a reliable source to an unsupported claim I will revert. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Senate lists him as an Independent.[3] TFD (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you search the U.S. Government Printing Office Member Guide for the 114th Congress, you will find that Sanders is listed as "Independent, Senator, Vermont". Sanders' website says that "Bernie Sanders is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate after winning re-election in 2012 with 71 percent of the vote. His previous 16 years in the House of Representatives make him the longest serving independent member of Congress in American history." User:HopsonRoad 15:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither the Senate website nor the GPO website give dates for when the data was last updated, so they are not very persuasive. Sanders' website is more persuasive; you would think he would make sure his people kept important stuff up-to-date. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

He is an independent, you are using an article about him declaring as a democrat for election purposes in NH. He is still an independent. Now when you Google it says Bernie Sanders (D-VT), which is incorrect, and this whole page is incorrect. I have no idea why you reverted my edits. Seems like you're using personal interpretation@Jc3s5h:. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur that the U.S. Senate—Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present website should be regarded as definitive for purposes of listing Sanders' party affiliation in the Senate. Obviously, he's a Democrat from the standpoint of describing his presidential race. There's no one-size-fits-all answer here. User:HopsonRoad 21:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Jc3s5h, the Senate website for a roll call on November 10th lists him as an independent.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In view of the sources provided, I would be content to list him as an independent, so long as U.S. Senate—Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present and Sanders' website are cited as sources. Any disagreement? Jc3s5h (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. He should be listed as an independent, especially in light of these sources from the U.S. Senate. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly disagree. If the man says he's a Democrat, he's a democrat, per WP:BLP. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He said he was a Democrat in the context of the NH primary ballot. He said nothing more. And regardless, someone's party affiliation is not measured by what someone says, but by official records (usually a voter registration file, but also sometimes other records, such as a record of which party's ballot the person voted in the last primary election, or in this case, U.S. Senate roll calls). If Obama came out tomorrow and said he is now a Republican, but he did not actually change his party affiliation, then his Wikipedia article could certainly indicate that he said he was a Republican, but it would be erroneous for the article to indicate he is a Republican. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The paper work Sanders filed in NH certainly counts as an official record. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the New Hampshire law and the exact wording of the paperwork. I don't know about New Hampshire, but in Vermont, for the less important offices, it is common for two or more parties to nominate the same candidate. But we wouldn't use that situation to claim that "X is both a Democrat and Republican". Jc3s5h (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It really doesn't depend on those, per our WP:PRIMARY versus WP:SECONDARY sourcing requirements. I would be shocked if when filing to be a Democratic Party candidate for President in New Hampshire, that words to that effect aren't in the paperwork there somewhere. Regardless, as a tertiary source, it's our obligation to report what secondary sources, such as the Boston Globe article,[5] actually say. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting changed. He should be listed as an independent. It looks so silly to call him a Democrat from 2015 to present and only a independent from 1979 to 2015, thats incorrectAlaskanNativeRU (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Verifiable sources disagree. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Silly looking or not, it is correct according to several sources.Kerdooskis (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Even more ironic, Independent is not a party affiliation, it is the opposite—it's the absence of affiliation! That's why Sanders is listed as an Independent in the U.S. Senate. Food for thought. User:HopsonRoad 20:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How is a senate roll call that happened less than a week ago http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00304, which lists him as an independent , not a verifiable source? You are saying just because he listed himself as a Democrat for election purposes in NH, and journalism sites are publishing it, that that's better than an actual senate roll call? And his own senate page/website still lists him as an independent.AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a WP:PRIMARY source; we typically defer to secondary sources. Besides, no one is arguing that Sanders wasn't (re)elected to the Senate as an independent. But that was in 2012 and the world has moved on since then. As the Boston Globe source points out, the time and place to complain that Sanders wasn't a "real" Democrat was at the New Hampshire State House several weeks ago. No one did, and WP:Wikilawyering about it now isn't going to change that fact. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the senate roll call lists are a secondary source. They report what the members describe themselves as. Either way, the entire discussion is a tempest in a teapot. Being a Democrat or Republican is not a life-long irreversible attribute, it's not like party-change surgery is performed to make the change irreversible. For primary identification purposes Sanders is an independent. For other purposes (caucus in Senate, running for President) he's a Democrat. Demanding either/or in his case doesn't work. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They report what the members describe themselves as. Nonsense. "I'm a Democrat" — Bernard Sanders, 11/5/2015.[6] As such, you are correct in that the change has been easily made. Pretending he is otherwise is a WP:BLP concern. Take it from me, you don't want to be caught screwing around with this kind of stuff when the hammer comes down. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"Religion: Judaism"

A few days ago I added a "citation needed" tag to the religion parameter of the infobox—where Sanders's religion is given as Judaism—explaining in the edit summary that we need a citation to show that Sanders actually practises Judaism as opposed to just being of Jewish descent. Bus stop removed the tag yesterday, saying "If you believe that a citation is needed please use the Talk page". So here we are. Has anyone any evidence to support the assertion that Sanders's religion is Judaism? —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just skimmed through the talk page and had not properly taken in the discussion above on this subject. I see this has been discussed at length already. All the same the case remains that for a potential BLP issue like this an inline citation would be advisable in my opinion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian—why wouldn't we use the formulation that all other sources use? All of the infoboxes from good quality sources use the formulation "Religion: Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We did have inline citations for this at one point, but with all of the disagreements they were lost in the shuffle. Sanders's official Senate website lists his his religion as Jewish [7]. The only quote I've seen from him is from the Christian Science Monitor Interview, where he says he is "proud to be Jewish," but "not particularly religious." This can mean a lot of things. It could mean he's an atheist or agnostic (which I suspect is true). But, it could also mean that he's the sort of Jew who shows up at synagogue for High Holiday services (like the majority - or at least a large proportion - of American Jews). I believe I've read somewhere that Sanders practices on this level.

It's a grey area, to be sure. According to one survey 38% percent of Jews claim to be religious, while 54% claim to be non-religious [8]. I have actually volunteered at a Reform synagogue where many practicing people were vaguely (and sometimes not so vaguely!) agnostic or atheist. For them it was more of a social club with some learning of history and philosophical discussion. Humanistic Judaism has some following and may somewhat match up to Sanders's views, but he is not a member of any Humanistic Jewish group as far as we know. In the past, I changed the wikilink for Bernie to Jewish identity, so that readers that clicked could get some background on the complexities of belief and affiliation in (especially American) Jewish culture. This may not be a perfect solution, but I'll bring it up again as a possibility for what it's worth. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, Bus stop and HappyWanderer15. I hope you're both well. I don't know much about Sanders, so I don't really feel qualified to speculate on his religious observance in great detail, but it does seem to me that his Jewishness has little to do with Judaism as a religion, which makes the infobox statement "Religion: Judaism", without a supporting inline citation, seem to me rather odd. Anyway: the salient issue for me is that as Sanders is becoming rather prominent with the 2016 election coming up, we follow the MOS guidelines at WP:BLPCAT (see the third paragraph)—infoboxes should only refer to religious beliefs when the person has so self-identified and those beliefs are relevant to the person's public life or notability, as confirmed by reliable published sources. Keep in mind that since Sanders is notable for his political career rather than anything religious, it isn't strictly necessary to fill in the infobox's "religion" parameter at all. If no reliable source on the matter presents itself we could just leave the "religion" parameter empty and let this be explained in the prose. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'd sure like to see any mention of religion removed from the info box. Gandydancer (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I can get on board with that. Sanders's Jewishness is covered in the article itself, and there really aren't any sources that provide any detail on his religious practice. If we end up finding something reliable that talks about his observance beyond just "Religion: Jewish," my position would change. I think we're all in agreement that Sanders's religion is not significant in his public life. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone added the "proud to be Jewish" thing from the Christian Science Monitor as a citation—in good faith I'm sure, but this talks exclusively about his heritage and not about his religious observance beyond Sanders saying that he's "not particularly religious". I've been bold and taken the "religion: Judaism" parameter out of the infobox, though I expect to be reverted any time. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cliftonian—why wouldn't we use the formulation that all of the sources that we encounter use? All of the other infoboxes that I have encountered, some from very good quality sources, use the formulation "Religion: Jewish". What is the objection to this? Bus stop (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop—the wording "religion: Jewish" is more open to interpretation and does not bother me as much as "religion: Judaism" does, and is supported by several reliable sources, as you say. So I would not object to "religion: Jewish" being noted, with at least two of the links you listed above put next to it in inline citations. Perhaps a hidden comment might be advisable to stop people changing it to the more contentious "religion: Judaism"? —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I will restore to a previous version. Tell me if this is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

OK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not okay with this. If Jewish is not referring to religion (Judaism), then the "religion" parameter should not be included at all. Why is the in-text mention not good enough? Dustin (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you recommending that WP:CAT/R be rewritten to make it okay? This is a policy issue as pointed out by AndyTheGrump in June. Did you read that? If Sanders self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" then we follow policy or change policy. There are many people who base their own identity on telling others how they can and can't label themselves, so the third option (and most likely option in the long run) is that new arrivals will create a new talk page section every two weeks until they get their way because people who are here to write an encyclopedia instead of arguing about the exact same thing every two weeks will give up eventually. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a category, so the page you linked is irrelevant. Please give me one valid reason why "Jewishness" in a non-religious context should go in the "religion" parameter. And as quoted by the user you mentioned: "I can't see how "not particularly religious" can be seen as self-identification as a follower of Judaism, or any religion at all" - how does that support your argument for keeping the parameter? And there were plenty of arguments made by people with the opposing view. I never argued against mentioning "Jewish" in-text, but with him identifying as "not particularly religious", why do we have to have the |religion= parameter? Or am I misunderstanding you? Dustin (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Individuals identify themselves and categorize themselves. Encyclopedia-makers and media outlets and reliable sources all recognize this, and that's what WP:CAT/R is about. You're not okay with it. That's your problem. Every few weeks, another person with the same problem as you will show up until people with your problem get your way. Because this is Wikipedia, we encyclopedia-makers will lose in the long run. Take your tendentious clueless meanderings about the nature of Jewishness elsewhere, and just reread my first two sentences above. I won't take the bait. Flying Jazz (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk about a rude response. This is a piece of information in an infobox. WP:CAT clearly is intended to apply to categories at the bottom of the page, not categories in the general sense of the word. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to try to stamp out all opposition. If the parameter were to not be included in the first place, I suspect arguments would be less frequent. Dustin (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My view is that policy exists to instruct people who don't know how to write an encyclopedia. Someone who wished to learn how to write an encyclopedia would read WP:CAT/R, learn from it, and apply that knowledge to the infobox. Your point seems to be based on the view that the common-sense idea that people identify their own religion using their own wording applies to categories but not to infoboxes. It's a point full of wikilawyering minutiae that's worthy of derision, and that's why I'm making fun of you and people like you for having it. My intent is not to stamp out opposition. It's to laugh at it and to actually hope it continues, so I can enjoy laughing at it again. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders has an official US Senate press packet with information about himself. Here is the PDF. Very prominently, it says "Religion: Jewish". That explicit religious self-identification should be enough for Wikipedia to also say he is Jewish, without anyone trying to second guess just how religious he actually is. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I keep seeing people change Sander's religion to "Jewish" in the infobox. "Jewish" is not a religion. "Judaism" is a religion. The first is an adjective while the latter is a noun. In the grammatical construct "Religion: X", X needs to be a noun (and a religion) to be correct. If a source says "Religion: Jewish", it is a grammatical error and if we are to quote the source in the infobox, MOS:QUOTE says to just fix simple errors like this. Regardless of this grammar issue, in light of Sanders "not particularly religious" remark, the curious use of "Religion: Jewish" in lieu of "Religion: Judaism" in his self-published fact sheet (and the possible reasonings this entails), and speculation that he may not be religious, there's a real danger here of making a false positive error if we include the parameter presently. Leaving the religion parameter out of the infobox would perhaps be the wisest decision until the situation is clarified by better or more specific sources. I'm okay with the parameter staying or going and decent arguments can be made either way (and have) but if we are going to use it, it needs to be "Judaism" or we are making a silly mistake. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not addressing in the Infobox how religious Sanders is. We are not for instance claiming that he is devoutly religious. But we are saying that he is Jewish. CNN constructs an Infobox reading "Religion: Jewish" for Sanders. And of course Sanders has vetted the contents of his own press release which reads "Religion: Jewish". We should be following the sources. Bus stop (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop, you didn't respond to a single statement from my comment. It's not even clear to me what you mean by "we are saying that he is Jewish". For the record, nobody is suggesting Sanders does not identify has being ethnically Jewish or having a Jewish history. The infobox's |religion= parameter is not for giving a person's ethnicity. So if that's what you mean, it's completely wrong. Are you aware that a "Jewish" refers to an ethno-religion and can mean either thing? You do not seem to attach any weight to any arguments against your interpretation of that source, including statements by Sanders himself suggesting the opposite. Lastly, considering my entire comment was structured around the grammatical issue, I find disappointing you don't even refute a single word but then go on to imply you still want "Religion: Jewish". Unless your reply is connected another's comments somewhat directly, no progress can be made. Yes, the degree of Sander's religiosity is open to debate and yes, even if it is just slightly non-zero, I would agree with you that the parameter should be used (with "Judaism"). So we agree to that extent. The people who disagree with you are saying that it's not established reliably, even with the self-published document, if his degree of religiosity is non-zero. This view does make sense in light of other self-stated statements by Sanders. A good debate would center around the pros-and-cons of each side, not just repeating that the self-published document exists and should be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Of course we need a citation that specifically says he identifies as a practitioner of Judaism as a religion. Explicit self identification is required, as Bus Stop knows very well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion one way or the other on the substantive issue, I would point out that "Religion: Jewish" is not ungrammatical, any more than are "Nationality: French" or "Status: Retired" or "Political Party: Democratic". It is standard English practice to use an adjective rather than a noun to define a category in this context. People who worry about this kind of thing - Cliftonian appears to be one of those - would probably be wise to go to the appropriate style forum to suggest some type of consistency in the matter, as Wikipedia infoboxes use both noun and adjectival forms. See, for example, Jeb Bush: "Religion: Episcopalian"; Mitch McConnell: "Religion: Southern Baptist"; Barack Obama: "Religion: Protestantism"; or Harry Reid: "Religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" (thus offering us both the noun and adjectival forms in a single infobox!).

Also, I would note that I did not find a single Senator or Congressman in Wikipedia whose religion is not specified. Well, I didn't look at that many, but still, food for thought, if you are considering omitting the parameter from the infobox. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Later: Further research has turned up three members of Congress whose religion is not specified: Pete Stark, Barney Frank, and Kyrsten Sinema. All three have emphasized their atheism on numerous occasions. Everyone else - including 24 additional Congresspersons who, according to the Secular Coalition of America, are agnostic but have preferred to keep the matter private - claims some religion or other. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The guiding principle is that we follow sources. Such as this one. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You know very well that is wrong unless the sources provide unambiguous selfidentification.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maunus—we follow sources, of which there is no shortage supporting the Infobox locution "Religion: Jewish". Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to want to depart from the precedent set by sources. Unless I misunderstand you, I think you are arguing for either of two solutions: 1.) the removal of the "Religion" parameter from the Infobox or 2.) the use of the locution "Religion: Judaism" in our Infobox. Correct me if I am misunderstanding you. I am only trying to understand you. Bear in mind that a multitude of sources support the Infobox locution "Religion: Jewish". This is because a multitude of sources use Infoboxes in relation to Bernie Sanders.

• Nationaljournal.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish"

• CNN.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• NNDB.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• Sanders.senate.gov has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• Media.cq.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• Friendsoftheuschamber.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• Takeaction.hollywoodchamber.uschamberpartners.com has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

• The book "November in New England" by Justin Trask Haskins has an Infobox. It reads, for Bernie Sanders, "Religion: Jewish".

I am going to ask you to please articulate your position on this question. Why would we not follow sources? Note that in this press package produced by Bernie Sanders we find the language "Religion: Jewish". Why wouldn't a Wikipedia biography repeat that same language for Bernie Sanders? He is using that language in reference to himself, is he not? Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous, you know very well that per WP:EGRS we require explicit self-identification for statements of ethnicity, gender religion and sexuality.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It is already in the article (in the Infobox) in the form of two sources. One is a Bernie Sanders "Press Package" in which his own Infobox reads "Religion: Jewish". Do you think he failed to read his own "Press Package"? The other source is a "Christian Science Monitor" article containing the quote: "I’m Proud to be Jewish". That quote is attributed to Bernie Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That "I'm proud to be Jewish" one isn't him saying anything regarding religion, though, so far as I can see: it's him saying he's proud of his family roots, like how other Americans would say they're proud to be Irish or proud to be African-American, etc. Just saying. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The disingenuous person in this discussion, it appears to me, is you, maunus and not Bus stop. A press package prepared by Sanders describing himself is certainly an explicit self-identification. A quote from Sanders saying that he is "proud to be Jewish" is certainly explicit self-identification. This picayune investigation of Sanders's religious practices is not in good taste. Does he keep Kosher? How many times a week does he say the morning prayer? It is quite improper for us to be asking these questions. He says he is Jewish and that is enough for us. Everything else is none of our business.

Whether his religious identification is relevant to the article is another question. But there is no arguing that he has on numerous occasions said or written that he is Jewish. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

He has also said that he is not particularly religious. And being Jewish is not like being christian in that it can mean several different things. My problem here is not really with calling him Jewish in the infobox, I think there probably are sufficient selfidentification for that. My problem is with Bus Stops argumentation which runs directly counter to policy in spite of him being informed about that policy about a thousand times in similar discussions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how being Jewish is not like being Christian, especially in this context. There are plenty of Congresspersons who claim to be this religion or that, and have never seen the inside of a house of worship. In America, it is politically expedient for a politician to have a religion, which is why virtually all Congresspersons claim one.

But, if you agree with the inclusion in the infobox, and you agree with the presentation of the matter in the article, I fail to see what the argument is about. So this might be a good time to end it. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Because you can be a Jewish Christian or a Jewish Buddhist. Being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. That is why saying "I am proud to be Jewish" is not necessarily a statement about one's religion. My argument is about Bus Stop needing to stop misrepresenting policy in arguments about Jewish identity. This entire thread was started by his failing to follow policy when he remoed a citation needed tag without supplying a valid source. Then it went on because he argued against policy's explicit requirement for self identification saying that "we follow the sources", which he knows extremely well is contrary to policy on this issue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid, Ravpapa, that I must take exception with this statement that there is no difference between being Jewish and being Christian. Being Jewish is passed down inexorably through the matrilineal bloodline. One born to a Jewish mother (or converted to Judaism) is in the rabbinical view a Jew forever. Even if you had the least Jewish upbringing imaginable and didn't know the first thing about the religion, you wouldn't have to undergo any sort of conversion process if you rocked up to the synagogue one day with proof that your mother was Jewish. To them you'd be just as much a Jew as their longest-standing members—even if you'd been brought up in a completely different religion. By contrast, if you'd had the most Jewish upbringing you could imagine, believed in Judaism like a Zealot and observed every single detail of Jewish law, you'd still have to undergo a lengthy conversion process and ritual circumcision if you weren't born to a Jewish mother.

There is no equivalent to this in any form of Christianity that I'm aware of. It is true that a lot of people who describe themselves as Christian (or as part of a particular denomination) do so largely because that's what their parents were. But one must make at least some kind of self-identification to be called a Christian—whether that takes the form of being baptised and/or confirmed, attending church or even just saying one is a Christian/Catholic/Anglican/etc. By the same token, it is possible to stop being a Christian simply by disavowing the religion. I don't know of any church whose stance towards such people is that "they remain Christians because that's what their parents were". —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh no, there are 20 people with "jewish" religion on the Current members of the United States House of Representatives page!! What about the self-identification?! Ssscienccce (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely my point. Did anyone pull down the pants of those other Congresspersons to determine if they are Jewish or not? The man says his religion is Jewish. These pilpulim about whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnicity are completely beside the point and in very bad taste. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So "Religion: Jewish" or "Religion: Judaism", Ravpapa? —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

"Religion: Jewish" is the more common usage. "Religion: Judaism" is not wrong, but sounds tinny to my ear. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, in the end we agree. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The term with less religious implication is "Jewish". The term with greater religious implication is "Judaism". Do we want to emphasize greater degree of religious orientation or lesser degree of religious orientation? In the case of Bernie Sanders I think we should want to downplay religious orientation because he says for instance that he is not a particularly religious person. Bus stop (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no religion called "Jewish". "Religion: Jewish" should not be used as it is grammatically incorrect as testified by the frequent changing of this parameter from "Jewish" to "Judaism" every few days by some editor. All that edit drama could be avoided if we did the common sense thing and leave the parameter off the infobox in light of conflicting and indeterminate information. By the way, the other list is in grammatical error too. The field should not be "Religion" but "Religious affiliation" (as in "Anglican Religious affiliation"/"Baptist Religious affiliation"/"Jewish Religious affiliation" and so on). Jason Quinn (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The parameter would be better off gone, and in removing it, we could eliminate some of this drama. Dustin (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the grammatical correctness or incorrectness of the terminology in question would hinge upon usage. I think there is ample precedent for this particular usage. One example would be the subject of the biography himself. Bernie Sanders uses the exact locution that Jason Quinn and Dustin V. S. are objecting to. In his "press packet" we find: Religion: Jewish. If this is the terminology that the subject of this biography uses, why would we seek other terminology or consider omitting the religion parameter from the Infobox? Is Bernie Sanders somehow in error when he uses the terminology "Religion: Jewish"? One objection being raised is that the terminology is "grammatically incorrect". From where is Jason Quinn deriving that the terminology is "grammatically incorrect"? Aside from grammar, Wikipedia has a requirement for "self-identification". This is abundantly satisfied in the case of Bernie Sanders. I am curious as to why Jason Quinn and Dustin V. S. are wishing to eliminate "drama"? It is hardly unheard of for there to be editorial disagreement over inclusion/exclusion of certain pieces of information in an article. But our role is providing information, is it not? One of the places in which information is displayed in this article is in the Infobox. Why would either of you advocate for the omission of the parameter for religion from this article's Infobox? Bus stop (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You should read the whole thread before you write your comments. "Religion: Jewish" is not ungrammatical, any more than "Party: Democratic" or "Nationality: French". See the post above. Also, if you decide to remove the parameter, you must have a very good reason, since every other member of the US Congress except for four - all of whom have explicitly specified that they are not affiliated with any religious denomination - has a religion in the infobox (including 24 who identify themselves as "Jewish"). --Ravpapa (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither is allowed. See RfC.

Please note that, in the process of updating hundreds of pages, I recently removed "Religion, Secular Judaism" from this page. [9] According to the clear consensus at this Request for Comment, If there are citations to reliable sources that say Bernie Sanders is a member of one of the branches of the Jewish religion you may say so in the religion entry of the infobox (I have no opinion on "Religion: Jewish vs, "Religion: Judaism") but not if he self-identifies as any of the other, non-religion definitions of the term "Jewish". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, please provide a reliable source that says that a Jew must be affiliated with one of the "branches of the Jewish religion" in order to be considered a member of the religion known as "Judaism". Those branches you allude to are modern constructs, and membership or lack of membership in any of those branches is useless for determining whether or not a person is Jewish. Sanders explicitly identifies as "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet, and I consider it unseemly to impose a denominational test on his expressed religious identity.

In the 1990s, I was for two years president of a synagogue dating back to the 1950s that was unaffiliated with any "branch" of Judaism. We were no less Jewish even though entirely unaffiliated. Many of us used the term "Reconservadox", blending the names of the major branches of American Judaism, to indicate that overall Jewish religious identity is way above branch identity.

Since Sanders overtly self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish", who are we to say something different, or remove that from the infobox? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus hare is that Sanders belongs to a religion, I have no objection to that being in the infobox. The phrase I removed ("Secular Judaism") is not a religion, and is not allowed in the religion parameter of the infobox. Feel free to re-insert it naming an actual religion. BTW, if Sanders ever said "Religion: Secular Judaism", we would treat that exactly as we would treat a claim of "Religion: Atheist" or even "Religion: Hello Kitty"; by moving the controversial claim to the body of the article where it can be dealt with properly. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon Please stop it with the no religion. This is a biography of a Jew. He has self-identified. What do you think it means when he says Religion: Jewish? He could just as well have chosen to omit that from his press package but he opted not to. It is reliably sourced that he was Bar mitzvahed in his youth—not that it matters—but it certainly corroborates that he is a Jew. From where are you deriving that he has no religion? Objectivity is what we aim for. Concocting Wikipedia-specific interpretations of standard terminology degrades this encyclopedia. Deciding that a Jew has no religion simply makes Wikipedia a parochial source of Jewish-related information. We try to cover all information objectively. Bus stop (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You clearly don't "get it", which I will assume is because I was unclear.

• I don't care whether you call Bernie Sanders a Jew.
• I don't care what definition of "Jew" you use in this article. Go ahead and decide that by consensus, without involving me.
• If you want to decide what the definition of "Jew" is site-wide, go ahead and post an RfC along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons. I am not touching that one with a ten-foot-pole.
• I don't care what Bernie Sanders' religion (or lack thereof) is. Go ahead and decide that according to what the sources say.
• I don't care in the slightest what the content of this page is. I have zero interest in Bernie Sanders or any other politician.
• "Religion: Secular Judaism" (Or "Religion: ^{(anything else that isn't a religion)}") is strictly forbidden in the infobox of this and all other Wikipedia pages per the overwhelming consensus at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. If you don't like it, post an RfC and see if the community agrees with you.

From this point on, I will not respond to anything other than the specific question of how to apply the above RfC to this article. Clearly many here are deeply passionate about Bernie Sanders and about who is and who is not a Jew. I have no interest in either. I am simply implementing an RfC on multiple articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon do you see this source? The subject of this biography "self-identifies" as being Jewish. Furthermore other sources confirm that he is Jewish. And no source suggests that he may not be Jewish. Yet you are arguing that the subject of this biography has "no religion". Can you please explain to me how you conclude that the subject of this biography has "no religion"? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I won't "explain" anything that you made up out of whole cloth.[10] You fabricated it, so you can explain it. I never came to that conclusion and I never made that claim. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Nor does "many here" necessarily include you. Your behavior is becoming disruptive. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, then let me ask this as a question. Perhaps I jumped to conclusions. If so, I apologize. Here is the question: Do you conclude, based on sources, that the subject of this biography has "no religion"? We are talking about someone who was bar mitzvahed, worked on a kibbutz in Israel, had Jewish parents and relatives who died in the Holocaust and a US Senate Press Package which reads: "Religion: Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether the subject of this biography has "no religion", and I have not looked at and do not intend to look at any sources regarding a subject that I am purposely avoiding expressing an opinion on. I really don't care one way or the other. All I want to do is to continue implementing the results of the RfC on hundreds of pages without this one page becoming a time sink. IF Bernie Sanders has a religion (religions have names like "Judaism", Jewish", etc.) the Rfc does not apply. IF Bernie Sanders has no religion (non-religions have names like "Secular Judaism", "Atheistic Jew" "Jewish Agnostic", etc.), then the religion parameter in the infobox must be omitted and the information can optionally be placed in the body of the article. Again, I don't know or care which "IF" is correct. That's for you to decide. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All you need do to prevent this article becoming a "time sink" is click on this source. Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon—I'm sorry if I misunderstood you or misconstrued what you were saying or spoke coarsely to or about you. Maybe I was jumping to conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

...and now User:Knowledgebattle has changed it back to "Nonreligious Judaism",[11] which This goes against the clear WP:CONSENSUS at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. Also see WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Bus stop has restored it to " Jewish"[12], which does not go against the clear consensus at the RfC. As I said before, IF Bernie Sanders has a religion (religions have names like "Judaism", "Jewish", "Jew", etc.), the RfC does not apply. IF Bernie Sanders has no religion (non-religions have names like "Secular Judaism", "Nonreligious Judaism", "Atheistic Jew", "Jewish Agnostic", etc.), then the religion parameter in the infobox must be omitted and the information can optionally be placed in the body of the article. I have no opinion on which "if" is correct; that is up to those of you who are working on this article to decide. This needs to be discussed here and the edit warring on the article page needs to stop now before more editors get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

"Religion: Jewish" is the exact wording the subject uses in the biographical press release his campaign distributes. If we use that and cite the source, we avoid making our own interpretations. Jonathunder (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. ^^ The only person I see on this talk page (User:Jonathunder) who seems to have said something intelligent. Yes, I changed it to Nonreligious Judaism, because he's said that he's Jewish, but not particularly religious. Some of you are right, "Nonreligious Judaism" isn't particularly a religion. And guess what? He's said that he's "not particularly religious". Wow! Imagine that! Dur. However, Jonathunder (among all of the discussion here) has actually said something intelligent and worthwhile. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 12:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

He isn't Jewish. He was raised Jewish, he is an atheist. --Annonymous (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.166.226 (talk)

Front-runner for Time Person of the Year

Should it be acknowledged that Bernie maintains a strong lead as the front-runner for TIME's Person of the Year according to recent polls? Voting closes on December 4 at 11:59pm and he's at a 10.5% (1st place) compared to Malala Yousafzai's 5.6% (2nd place). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure! Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer Thanks for the feedback! Where would this info be added? Header? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding health update

Today Senator Sanders underwent or is currently undergoing an "elective hernia procedure" in Washington, D.C.. Should we add this to the article as an update on his personal life? Sources -> NBC News, CNN News, and ABC News. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it carries enough weight. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A big issue to me with an older candidate like this is indeed health and longevity. I would like to see added some data about how old his parents lived to be -- or maybe they're still alive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Other political affiliations: Liberty Union (1971-1979)"

According to Bernie Sanders's book Outsider in the White House, (the "White" edition perhaps also needing to replace Outsider in the House in or be added to the "Further reading" section,) page 25, It was "After [the gubernatorial campaign of 1976]" that he "decided to leave the Liberty Union Party". This can also be used as a citation. Tolathar Strongbow (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolathar Strongbow (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hat note

I don't think we need a hat note linking to Bernie Saunders, so I removed it. It's unlikely someone would arrive here looking for the hockey player. The names have distinct pronunciations, and Saunders is far less notable. —Guanaco 10:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

the pronunciations are similar and I think the two could easily be confused. Joeykai (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can see someone searching for Bernie Saunders when they want the politician, with this interview in mind. The other direction seems fairly implausible, both phonetically and considering their relative notability. —Guanaco 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a candidate for president

It is not correct to state that Sanders "is a candidate for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.". He is hoping to be selected as a candidate by the Democrats. That is not at all the same.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No, everyone running for president is a candidate for president. No one is a nominee yet, but that's different.Wukai (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that at least at this point in the process, when people read "the 2016 U.S. presidential election", they understand that it means the entire process, i.e. the primaries and caucuses, super-delegate selection (if they still do that), conventions, and general election. Sanders is a candidate in the "presidential election." If he drops out during the primaries, he will cease being a candidate. If he makes it to the convention but loses there, he will cease being a candidate. But for right now he is a candidate, and of course the same is true for Clinton, O'Malley, Trump and however-many others are still in the running on the Republican side. Neutron (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is correct to say that he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. But all these articles should be consistent with one another, so if any changes are recommended they should be made to guidelines that all articles must follow. TFD (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Currently he is being nominated for the presidential candidacy. As far as I'm concerned, Sanders along with the other running democrats are currently considered candidates either for the nominations or presidency through nomination. (N0n3up (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

This is absurd, we've long called people vying for the party nominations as candidates for president. I cannot understand this objection at all.

main picture

can a 2007 date be appended in the text right below the picture. the picture is quite old and people should know they are looking at an old picture of the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.135.77 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo should instead be amended to one that's available in the free use kit on his website? https://berniesanders.com/media-kit/ There's three here that are much better and have free use. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox photograph is also in the public domain. I would be a bit wary of using photos from his free use kit instead of his official senate portrait because the source, berniesanders.com, is a base for his political campaign. To me, that seems less neutral than his official senate portrait. Airplaneman ✈ 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to use a more recent photo regardless. Is there another public domain image from within the past couple years? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that a more recent photograph would be better for his main article. But besides getting one from his press kit (which I believe is a good idea), the Bernie Sanders sidebar recently changed to a more modern photo. What if we just swapped the two? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just have the same picture for the sidebar and the main pic. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but at that point, I think you are getting a bit picky (or assuming that others would be that way). It's a picture. How is the official portrait "more neutral" in a literal sense? If you were talking about actual information, sure, but it's just an image. Dustin (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it definitely is nitpicky. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose I am picky. I just think that the photo doesn't really match what he looks like and a more recent photo would do better. I don't see any issue about neutrality, though. I just think a more recent photo would accurately portray what Bernie Sanders looks like. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Main problem would be using the same pic twice in the article...i like the option for the image used in the sidebar but its quite grainy (tried fixing it though), there is a really high quality image from September this year but people don't like it because Bernie is "looking serious" in that pic, they want a image of him smiling like the others candidates..--Stemoc 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the photo on his Twitter profile now? That's not on the BernieSanders.com webpage, and is part of that free-use kit anyway. Thoughts? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Its still not free, "free-use" mediakit are not always free, thy are usually under the non-commercial licence which we cannot use, and twitter images are LQ so we cannot find the exif of the image used and find out if it has been taken by a government official or not...so no....we can't use those.--Stemoc 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I just took a couple of pictures at a rally. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237598081&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater and https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237638082&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater. If folks think either of these is worth using, I'm happy to donate. Ma^t_chups 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Socialist in infobox?

I was surprised to see no mention of "socialist" in the infobox. I realize that's not the whole picture and never has been, but it is certainly part of the picture, major enough for the infobox IMO. [13] CometEncke (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Socialist means Obama to some (lol!) and more communist than today's People's Republic of China to others. The word is chic to some (whatever they think it means) and the Antichrist to others. It's better to use a less easily misunderstood term. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally put political ideologies in the infobox. For example. you will notice that Ronald Reagan's article doesn't have 'conservative' mentioned in the infobox nor does FDR's have 'progressive' in the info box. There are a few reasons for this. One, There are often more than one political ideology that can be ascribed to someone. Two, it's redundant as it is generally covered in the political positions section and categories. Three, there is often dispute over what actually counts as a socialist, liberal, conservative, etc. It's different for political parties since that's more or less official (e.g. Democrat, Green, Republican, independent). Alexander Levian (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

He clearly packages himself as a socialist, and has been described as one by both supporters and opponents. It seems prudent to include that basic fact in the infobox (while allowing readers looking for more context to read the political positions section. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what he calls himself. We don't put political ideologies in the infoboxes of other politicians. So why should we for this one? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, listing a politician's party affiliation is equivalent to listing their political views. Listing the Democratic Party and Independent doesn't really do Sanders' political view justice given his rather iconoclast positions/history. But, it appears that my position doesn't have much support and it's not an issue I'm going to push. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is neither desirable nor practical to list the ideologies of everyone in the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, democratic socialist and socialist are two fairly different concepts to begin with, and what Sanders actually means (the way Wikipedia has come down on those terms not withstanding), as far as I can tell, is that he supports social democracy, e.g. existing programs such as social security, medicare and even, perhaps, their expansion, etc. I generally agree with Levian. Any of these terms are simply too loaded to be left hanging without any context in an infobox. (You could twist my arm to include social democrat in the side bar if this wasn't a WP:BLP concern, less because he's embraced the term and more because of the endless edit wars that might result; we'll have yahoos arguing that he also embraces nationalism, so why doesn't that make him a national socialist, etc. etc.) -- Kendrick7^talk 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not put "socialist" in the infoboxes of socialist politicians, even when, unlike Sanders, they belong to socialist parties. Kendrick7 has a point too, the Wikipedia article socialism is not about socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders or modern Socialists mean. TFD (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundant autograph

The signature of Bernie Sanders is displayed twice in this article, on the right hand side, one below the other. Is this necessary? It seems rather redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ1817 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That happens because there are two sidebars; the officeholder infobox, and the Bernie Sanders sidebar. They also both have pictures of him. If you want to discuss removing the signature from the second sidebar, the place to do so would be at Template Talk:Bernie Sanders sidebar. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Brooklyn College

Sanders is not an "alumnus" of Brooklyn College, since he transferred and graduated from another school. This keeps being re-added, but should not be, because it's inaccurate. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of alumnus includes former students who may not have graduated.[14] I do not know if non-graduates are eligible to join the College's alumni association. Have you looked it up? TFD (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethics questions

Questions have been raised in the Rutland Herald: [15], Vanity Fair:[16] and probably elsewhere about the ethics/propriety (not legality, it was legal) of hiring and paying a salary to his step-daughter and wife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The one article is over ten years old and the other one appears to be a hit piece (the tone is set with the first paragraph) based on an "investigation" by the "right-leaning" The Washington Free Beacon (hardly a reliable source). If this story grows legs then maybe it will be worth mentioning. As for now I'd consider this a non-issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet significance. I notice that the issue is not even mentioned in the Tom DeLay article. His payment of relatives is what started the enquiry. TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Childhood, youth

Lots of material about Bernie's childhood, youth, earliest political influences available in media interviews with Larry Sanders (Green Party). Flag User talk:Zigzig20s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)