Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Nordic model

I'd like to discuss User:Snooganssnoogans' concerns over my mention of the Nordic model in the intro. While I understand that Bernie himself hasn't used the words "Nordic model," what is a "Scandinavian-style welfare state" if not a welfare state in the style of the Nordic model? Specifically, I'd like readers of the article on Sanders be able to click through to the Nordic model article in order to understand what sorts of welfare state provisions are commonplace in the countries that Sanders frequently cites in his policy agenda. I understand that Sanders may disagree with Swedish or Norwegian social democrats on some issues, but I still believe that it is important for somebody trying to understand Sanders to be pointed to the Nordic model article to assess his rhetoric against the reality in those countries. What does everyone think? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Free trade and ease of business are essential elements of the Nordic model. The Nordic model is grand bargain achieved through consensus democracy and/or social corporatism between labor, business and the government to keep the economy open and make it easy for businesses to operate but to erect a strong welfare state to protect workers from the localized harms that may come from free trade and market freedom. Unless RS say that Bernie wants that or explicitly say the Nordic model, we should go with what RS actually say, which is that Bernie wants the Scandinavian welfare state. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No argument on that. So that readers can do further reading, how about we link "Scandinavian-style welfare state" here? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine wtth me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Sanders has ever advocated the Nordic model, he merely said that the U.S. could learn from Scandinavian countries, but he also said it could learn from other countries, such as Canada on single payer health insurance. Sanders has never really explained what he means by democratic socialism and his three main policies on health care, the minimum wage and college tuition, would not seem radical in any other developed country. But the U.S. already subsidizes health care and education and has minimum wage laws; Sanders policies are just an enhancement of them and some are being adopted by moderate Democrats. TFD (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone who has followed Sanders' career closely for many years, he has always cited the Nordic countries as being a sort of "gold standard" of what we should accomplish in the United States. It's true that he sometimes mentions Canada and other countries, but Scandinavia in particular has always featured prominently in his rhetoric. I think that the current wording, sourcing, and wikilink reflect all of that appropriately. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I agree with those that say we should mention his support for the Nordic model, or if nothing else, mention how he regularly advocates for making the US more like the Nordic or Scandinavian countries. Sanders has been very clear about his support for Northern European social democracy. If we can't find sufficient sources to say he advocates for exactly the Nordic model (though I'd say he does advocate for it) we still can and should mention how he regularly cites Nordic countries as the model countries that the US should learn from.
Let us consider the lead of the article Nordic model:

The Nordic model (also called Nordic capitalism or Nordic social democracy) refers to the economic and social policiescommon to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism. The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.

I'd say this is precisely what Sanders is an outspoken supporter of, so it would be very accurate to say he supports the Nordic model. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think "Scandinavian-style welfare state" is a bit clunky, and doesn't encompass all of what Sanders admires about the Nordic countries. Davey2116 (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• I personally agreed to the wording as a compromise to keep Nordic model linked in the lead. Snoogans does make a good point about the Nordic countries’ approach to trade policy and whether it might be at odds with Sanders’ position. But, we can all certainly agree that Sanders admires their welfare state model and cites it frequently. Hence the current wording. I wonder if we can agree on a way to reword it that includes Sanders’ oft-stated admiration for the environmental policies of these countries as well. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanders said, “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.” Certainly he thinks the U.S. should adopt some of their policies such as universal health care. But no where does he say that the U.S. should adopt their model. Mike Huckabee said the U.S. should lower corporate taxes and introduce VAT, which is part of the Nordic model, but Sanders has never advocated that. Nor has he advocated charter schools, another feature. Can anyone find any source that explains specifically how Sanders would implement the Nordic model in the U.S.? Has Sanders ever referred to the model? TFD (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The terms "VAT" and "charter" are nowhere to be found in the article Nordic model. In what way are they part of the model? It appears that linking to that article would certainly give the readers an accurate understanding of his policy positions. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sanders vs. DPRK and ideology

I think this Newsweek article may be useful for some content here, regarding Sanders foreign policy views and ideology. Basically Sanders is whining that the US President is having dialogue with the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (a socialist state) and has cried instead that he would prefer better relations with bourgeois liberal Trudeau's British Imperial Dominion of Canada. Are we allowed to stop pretending that Sanders is a socialist in this article now? Can we admit that he is just a liberal?

Also Sanders has a very dubious record on Israel and anti-imperialism more generally for a so-called socialist, he keeps voting in favour of sending billions of U.S. tax dollars in military aid to the State of Israel, which is then used against the oppressed Palestinian people. He is against the BDS movement as well. Lets mention this in his Wikipedia article too. This guy is not in any way a US equivalent to Jeremy Corbyn, who is a consistent anti-imperialist. Claíomh Solais (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these thought-provoking remarks, Claíomh Solais. Of course, "we" shouldn't enter into what is written here, since we should be reflecting reliable sources, some of which you bring forward to discuss and apply consensually. I can mention that the article's lead currently cites observers as describing Sanders as being a social democrat—one who supports "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy", as opposed to a socialist—one who supports "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production". Regarding Sanders' foreign policy stance, opposing despots and speaking out against oppression of minorities is consistent with being a social democrat. In his votes to provide military aid to Israel, any senator must weigh their consideration of Israel's defense against state actors, such as Iran, against its behavior in quelling physical protest from the Palestinians. We editors can only report the analysis of others on that subject, not interject our own opinions. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what HopsonRoad stated above, the DPRK's status as socialist is not a settled matter at all, especially among socialists and those to their left, Claíomh Solais. That is the case for all historic "socialist states", as well, and indeed of many 20th-century figures associated with the radical left. The DPRK being socialist is the general opinion of those who are decidedly not socialist or otherwise hostile to socialism and anything to its left, and the overwhelming majority of people are the latter. Consequently, that is considered the majority view in politics generally despite being arguably the minority view within the radical left in particular, especially outside of the decaying branch that derives from Lenin. It is still a very controversial claim within the left.

Regardless, Wikipedia is not a forum, so such discussions are better had off-wiki. As you probably well know given your over six years of editing the English Wikipedia, article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in our capacities as encyclopedia editors. Feel free to integrate those sources into the article according to policy along with whatever else you find that you believe is missing, such as Sanders' position on the BDS movement; if you don't, someone else probably will. Thanks for sharing those finds. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This article does not say that Sanders is a socialist but that he describes himself as one. (He actually uses the term "democratic socialist.") Socialists have long condemned other socialists to their right as liberals and socialists to their left as extremists. Furthermore, there has been a formal division between Communists and Socialists since the Russian Revolution. Incidentally, Sanders actually supports Trump's dialogue with Kim as "a positive step in de-escalating tensions between our countries, addressing the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and moving toward a more peaceful future."[1] Not sure that insulting Trudeau is going to do any harm to British imperialism. Anyway, Castro was quite friendly with Trudeau's father and attended his funeral. Does that make him a liberal too? TFD (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The DPRK is a Juche absolutist monarchy. Sanders is a standard progressive that uses the term democratic socialism as a synonym for social democracy. I have no idea what this proposal is trying to say, but let's not even humor the suggestion that they're comparable or basically the same thing "because socialism" or something. If this editor is commenting that they wouldn't refer to Sanders as a socialist, that's fine, but we don't use Wikipedia's voice to call him one anywhere in the article, and I agree that we shouldn't. If the editor is suggesting that the reason why he's not a socialist is that he doesn't have policies similar to North Korea, first let me say this is not a forum, but second I find that rationale to be highly problematic because the constitution of North Korea was quietly amended in 2009 removing any and all instances of "communism" or "marxism-leninism" and declared "Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism" - a hereditary military dictatorship. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Social democracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the bolded text be in the lede?:

• A self-described democratic socialist and a New Deal-era American progressive, Sanders is pro-labor and emphasizes reversing economic inequality. Some political observers consider his views more in line with social democracy.

References

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Of course not. If we're going to categorize the political philosophies of politicians, we should use reliable news reporting (i.e. WaPo describing Sanders as a "Social Democrat") and/or recognized experts (i.e. political scientists describing Sanders as a "Social Democrat"). In particular if we're talking about the lede! Two of the sources are op-eds by journalists, and the other two are by scholars who are not recognized experts on this topic (Noam Chomsky and Marian Tupy). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The two sentences illustrate Sanders' characterization of his own philosophy and the characterization of other observers, as reported in reliable sources. All the commentators cited are intelligent, well-informed people. "Recognized experts" is an unnecessarily high bar. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support as we've discussed at length above. The proposal has already changed the original "many scholars" to "some political observers". What more is necessary? This characterization has occurred in RS, so I believe it should be allowed in the lede. Moreover, as I remarked above, I object to the notion that Noam Chomsky is not a recognized expert. After all, his Wikipedia bio lists him as (among other things) a historian and a political activist. Davey2116 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The main reason that Sanders is a relevant political figure is that he has views outside the traditional American mainstream that have gained a great deal of popularity. Therefore, the key thing that many readers of this article seek is a further explanation of his views and philosophy. As Davey says, Chomsky is clearly a recognized expert. In addition to the New Republic and the Atlantic - more left leading respected sources - there are pieces more center-right publications like The Economist (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/02/01/how-much-of-a-socialist-is-sanders) and Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/05/17/bernies-democratic-socialism-isnt-socialism-its-social-democracy/amp/) that make the argument that Sanders is more of a social democrat. I note that the lead does NOT conclude that he is or isn’t a democratic socialist. It simply includes Sanders’ own characterization and presents it in tandem with thwith characterization of other views, leaving it to the reader to determine their own conclusions, but making sure those conclusions will be informed. I’d also be all for referencing Sanders’ own speech on democratic socialism and this piece from Time (http://time.com/4121126/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/) which explains it more briefly. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:WEASEL specifically prohibits the use of phrasing such as "some people say, many scholars state'" Furthermore, for most writers, the terms democratic socialist and social democrat are interchangeable. For some socialists the term social democrat is used as a pejorative for other socialists they deem not to be sufficiently doctrinaire. The wording is confusing too since it could imply that Sanders was more social democratic than he was a New Deal progressive or pro-labor or opposed to economic inequality. TFD (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is a fair characterisation, especially as this article should be written with everyone in mind, not just Americans who generally have a different view of what "socialism" is. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support keeping bolded text - I can think of no reason why this text is problematic. Valid reasons to delete it would be if it's poorly sourced, misleading, inaccurate, undue, violates manual of style concerns, or is unbalanced. It is sourced, it is straightforward, it is accurate based on objective definitions which the reader can learn more about in detail on their respective Wikipedia articles, it's relevant, it's unbiased, and I see no MoS problems. It is true that Bernie Sanders describes himself as a democratic socialist. It is also true that Bernie Sanders advocates for social democracy and we have a handful of reliable sources from those that describe him as a social democrat for that reason. I don't find the wording used to be problematic because it does not attempt to draw any conclusions for the reader about whether Sanders is in fact a socialist or if Sanders is actually not a socialist, it simply lets the reader know that Sanders refers to himself as one but it has been noted that his policies led others to describe him differently. Per that reason, I disagree with those that say this is weasel wording. I also disagree with the rationale from TFD which states that DemSoc and SocDem have been used interchangeably by "most writers" which is a sweeping and inaccurate claim without a source. We have articles covering democratic socialism and social democracy, and this is an area where semantics clearly matter as evidenced by the discussion we're having; we shouldn't use these terms loosely in an encyclopedic article if we're trying to achieve an accurate and stable version. Though I will agree to an extent that US media has started a trend of using "democratic socialist" when referring to social democracy, whether with Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez, what hasn't changed is that the encyclopedic articles on democratic socialism use the term to describe a system of achieving a post-capitalist society through democratic means. What Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez advocate for includes welfare-state reforms within the framework of a capitalist society to reduce social inequality and increase social mobility while using the state's resources to counter poverty and further invest in the public sector, particularly looking to Nordic countries as an example. This is an ideology that we have an article for: social democracy. I will concede that in a casual context, or if we were writing an editorial article in US press, it would be perfectly fine to use the two terms interchangeably. We cannot do that here; which article we link the reader to matters. For this (admittedly lengthy and nearly WP:NOTFORUM) reply, I disagree with the rationale "Furthermore, for most writers, the terms democratic socialist and social democrat are interchangeable." I maintain that I disagree that it is WP:WEASEL per the reasons I've previously explained, and I reiterate my thesis that this content is reliably sourced, due in weight, balanced in perspective, makes no attempt to draw conclusions for the reader, and provides beneficial context for the reader by noting that Sanders self-describes as a democratic socialist and it has been noted that his platform was described by scholars as being in line with the ideology of social democracy. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 09:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - clear from the sources given that there's disagreement over whether his position is that of a democratic socialist or a social democrat, and in such a case it is important to qualify the subject's own self-characterization. (I, a Canadian libertarian socialist, would absolutely not group Sanders under either of these descriptors, fwiw.) It's possible that the authors are just using the terms interchangeably, but these are quality sources so I have no good reason to suspect they haven't done their homework. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Reword per attribution requirements. "Some scholars" as has been mentioned, is WEASEL. Edaham (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I objected to the bolded sentence being removed not just from the lede, but from the article entirely. Ideally, the question of whether observers view Sanders as a social democrat should be developed more fully in the body of the article and still mentioned in the lede. This is all we have, for now. HopsonRoad (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• The sources brought up by HappyWanderer15 are op-eds by non-experts. Why is it so hard to substantiate a major presidential contender's political philosophy with RS reporting or actual expert assessments? I'd also like to note that HopsonRoad pinged a bunch of frequent editors on this talk page in a manner that I'd consider sketchy and which raises concerns over canvassing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Snooganssnoogans, I draw your attention to bullet no. 5 at WP:APPNOTE and I applaud your use of bullet no. 1 at the same page. My message in each case was, "You might be interested in providing your insight at: Talk:Bernie Sanders#RfC: Social democracy.", which I believe to be appropriately neutral. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans: since the political ideology of an individual is not easily defined, it is my belief that the best reliable sources we can find will not present us with a final answer and will involve some level of argumentation in favor of the author’s point of view. Per WP:NPOV, my goal has been to present the major sides of the debate over how Sanders’ ideology can be characterized. I have done my best to cite recognized experts, and op-eds from respected sources that represent a range of potential biases, as I explain above. Of course, if you have any other sources to suggest, that would be wonderful. Please assume good faith: I share your goal of making this article a good one that follows all relevant policies. I believe that is the case for all others who have commented as well. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• According to Donald F. Busky in "Democratic " in "Defining Democratic Socialism" in Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), pp. 8, "Social democracy is a somethwat controversial term among democratic socialists. Many democratic socialists use social democracy as a synonym for democratic socialism, while others, particularly revolutionary democratic socialists, do not, the latter seeing social democracy as something less than socialism-a milder, evolutionary ideology that seeks merely to reform capitalism."[2] Furthermore, he writes, the term social democrat is frequently used as an epithet. I don't think this is the article to explore the semantics of socialism, but if we do, we sould have to clearly explain it, and source it to articles about Sanders' ideology. TFD (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• TFD, WP:WEASEL doesn't "specifically prohibit" the use of phrasing such as "some people say, many scholars state'", it calls them "words to watch" because they often come with unattributed statements. In this case there are four references with more waiting in the wings. I concur that the text in the main body should identify whether the term "democratic socialism" applies and, if so, it should be reflected in the lead, perhaps with "political observers of diverse backgrounds". HopsonRoad (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Four sources that are only reliable for the opinions of their authors may or may not be representative of a significant opinion. The wording implies that it is. Noam Chomsky's political analysis for example generally represents a minority view. Bear in mind that the purpose of text in articles is to convey information. In order for that to happen, you would need to explain what the sources mean by democratic socialism and social democracy and how accepted their distinction is. Better still, explain what they mean without using the terms democratic socialism and social democracy. TFD (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I believe that the terms are relevant and important to include because a)Sanders ascribes the label “democratic socialist” to himself, and then media throws it around quite easily and b)there is considerable debate about what the term means, both in the way that Sanders uses it and in general. Philosophers and political scientists have been debating the meaning of the terms “democratic socialism” and “social democracy” for as long as those terms have been used. It’s a stretch to say that simply mentioning and linking the terms with sourcing amounts to giving undue weight to those that use one term or another as an epithet, or those who consider it to be identical with another term. The fact that said range of interpretation exists underscores the purpose and importance of linking those articles. “Democratic socialism” and “social democracy” have many meanings, and it takes an understanding of the range of those meanings to interpret Sanders’ use of the term. His use of the term has long been central to his message. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • You don't have any sources for what you want to say, except a handful of columnists and commentators. And unless your sources are specifically about Sanders, they cannot be used in this article. I question though your statement that there is a debate about what these terms mean. As Busky said in "Defining Democratic Socialism," different people use the terms differently, just like any other political descriptions. The British Labour Party's definition is probably closest to what Sanders means, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect'." But it's anyone's guess. TFD (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

See "Political positions of Bernie Sanders"

Note that the section on "Commentary of others" in Political positions of Bernie Sanders covers much of what is being discussed here. Perhaps the lede here should link to and summarize what is described in that section. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In theory this wouldn't be a bad approach, but I believe that the current sources in the lede and the sources provided above provide a much more balanced assessment than the political positions article presently does. In my view, it gives undue weight to the view that he's a social democrat because he's not socialist enough. That's certainly a view that should be discussed, but maybe not for three paragraphs with very little nuance and no counterpoints presented. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Potential avenues of action

I'm noticing that this discussion is meandering a bit, so just to try to get things back on track, what should we specifically do about the issue presented. Should we do nothing? Add more sources - perhaps some of the ones presented above? Come up with a different wording? Link to the political positions section? Something else?

My view at the moment tends towards leaving it as it is and adding a few more sources. I also think it would be appropriate to update the political positions section on the matter to make it more balanced. At that point, perhaps I'd support simplifying the lede's explanation and linking there. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur with your assessment of the "Political positions of Bernie Sanders" article, HappyWanderer15. My suggestion is three-fold:

1. Take the references provided here in the lede and also in this discussion and provide better balance to the "Commentary of others" subsection of the "Political positions of Bernie Sanders" article.
2. Summarize that work here in a new sub-section under the "Political positions" section here, also called "Commentary of others".
3. Provide a one-sentence mention of that summary in the lede of this article.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. More sources would never hurt, but the text should not be removed from the lede. Syncing with the "Commentary of others" section is also definitely a good idea. Davey2116 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Step one

I have expanded Political positions of Bernie Sanders#Commentary of others. Please make any corrections, additions, deletions there, so it's possible to proceed to Step 2—summarizing that content in this article. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the Jeremy Corbyn article's lead is instructive for us:

"Ideologically, Corbyn identifies as a democratic socialist.[5] He advocates reversing austerity cuts to public services and welfare funding made since 2010, and proposes renationalisation of public utilities and the railways. An anti-war and anti-nuclear campaigner since his youth, he broadly supports a foreign policy of military non-interventionism and unilateral nuclear disarmament."

Short and sweet, and yet, states relevant facts that define his ideology in terms of his political positions and not based on anybody else's commentary. Also no commentary on the "means of production:" simply a summary of some of his key policy positions across the relevant spectrum of issues. Thoughts? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. I think that discussions about left-wing taxonomy are best left to more specialized articles. Wnat is important is conveying what Corbyn or Sanders or Tony Blair for that matter mean when they describe themselves as democratic socialists. TFD (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Steps two and three

I consider steps two and three, mentioned above, to be complete and thank Wukai and HappyWanderer15 for their further improvements. I also thank Snooganssnoogans for initiating this discussion, since clearly improvement to this article and its companion one were in order. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banking reform section

The text of the first paragraph appears word for word in a subsequent paragraph. Solution: Delete first paragraph. Kgrad (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits as of yesterday

I would like to see what the opinion of other editors on this page are in regards to the following edits yesterday ([3]), by Dejahthoris. They were presented as "corrections", but I've looked at the cited reference, and all the material seems to be factually accurate according to them. The edit seems to me to remove quite a bit of context and nuance, for no discernible reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate Change & Jobs

The article states in the commentary on trump section that Bernie criticised Trump for putting jobs ahead of action on climate change. I think this is an inherently biased perspective and creates a straw-man choice between jobs and environmentalism. The article can just state that Bernie criticised trump for not acting on climate change, which is what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.13.42 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The source is a headline in the Washington Times. Headlines are not reliable sources and this does not reflect what Sanders actually said. He said that sustainable energy creates more jobs than the fossil fuel industry. (Wolf Blitzer, 30 March 2017, from 9'15")[4] I will remove it. TFD (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair points from both of you. However, the solution isn't removal, but correct characterization of what was reported in the body of the reference. I believe that I have done so. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

AlterNet

AlterNet is not a reliable source. If this content is genuinely significant, it will be reported in a reliable mainstream source. If it is not in any reliable mainstream source then it's WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I will take this to the reliable sources noticboard when time permits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

EDIT I see it is already being discussed there. But the reliability of Alternet aside, the content is also mentioned in a Politico article from 2016. The interview itself appears to be genuinely significant and certainly WP:DUE material for this article. I suggest a proper citation would be this one, a link to C-span's website which contains a video of the full interview (the relevant portion begins at 33:24 minutes in). If there are no objections, I will add this as a citation. Does this resolve the issue?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Le sigh. Politico isn't much better. Is it really not mentioned in unambiguously good sources? Guy (Help!) 00:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Politico may not be gold standard, but it has an editorial staff. Even Twitter is allowed, if the material is a direct quote about the person speaking. See WP:ABOUTSELF. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It very well may be. I could have kept looking but found the Politico article and especially the C-SPAN video clip to be more than sufficient, especially given that Politico articles and C-SPAN video clips are already used as citations in this very article, and multiple times in fact! Just because it wasn't discussed in some "newspaper of record" like The New York Times or The Washington Post doesn't mean it's not worthy of inclusion. I have at least one other editor on board so I think both the Politico article and the C-SPAN video clip should be used as citations before the material which preceded the AlterNet citation is removed as WP:OR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I have added the C-SPAN video clip as a citation to replace the controversial AlterNet article. I have decided not to add the Politico article at this time based on the discussion above. I hope this resolves the issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

As a source, C-SPAN is better, but I still have issues with primary sourcing this stuff - it leads to endless cruft. It's a pet peeve. The point of reliable, independent, secondary sources is that nothing gets included unless it is considered significant by someone whose job is making those judgments - we are not supposed to be arbiters of significance, teasing content from primary sources. I'm not having a go at you, I'm honestly not, this is a plague on all Wikipedia politics articles. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Politico article could always be added as a secondary source. It might not be the best, but it is generally considered reliable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Will Sanders run again ?

Are there any speculations on if Sanders will run again ? He seems less hostile to Russia when compared to other Liberals / Democratic Party well-known personalities. Personally I don't think the US has anything to fear from Russia. Neither should Europe. I'm far more scared of a nuclear holocaust with a Democratic Party anti-Russian hawk as President (than Donald to continue...). The article could perhaps reflect his viewpoints on Europe (including Russia) a bit better. Does he believe that Russia needs time in order to be equally "perfect" as "the West" ? If he won't make a second attempt, has he any younger "pupil" inside the Democratic Party ? Male/female and disregarded of skin colour etc ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Boeing720, WP isn't a place to report speculation about the future decisions of a political figure. News analysis in a reliable source is fine. If you can find an analysis about Sanders' stand on Russia, that's fine, too. An analysis of whom the Democratic Party might run for the next presidential election belongs in a different article, perhaps United States elections, 2020. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi HopsonRoad ! Thanks for your input! Can't help asking - isn't there a certain difference between own speculations - and to wonder if there are speculations going on ? Sometimes also speculations are of some significance. But I see your point. It's just that where I live most political news from the US nowadays are kind of limited to what the President tweets. Even the mid-term elections received less attention. But I happened to watch Sanders say something very briefly on some channel. Which brought me here. Won't do it again. Cheers ! Boeing720 (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

And thanks for the link, will study it further. Boeing720 (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Flying on a private jet contradicts Sanders's claim of being against global warming and income inequality

Actions speak louder than words.

Sanders says he is against global warming and income inequality.

But his use of a private jet says otherwise.

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/04/bernie-sanders-private-jet-climate-change/

Lpouer4832xs (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You can cherrypick links, so can I.[5] As if him chartering a private jet because he needs to get around the country somehow nullifies his arguments on global warming and income inequality? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No one "needs" a private jet. There are other methods of transportation with much lower carbon footprints. I think it's notable whenever any politician who claims to be against global warming uses a private jet, which has, by far, the highest carbon footprint of any method of civilian transportation.

Your source says he flew coach on other occasions, but that is irrelevant to the fact that he used a private jet, because it does not change the fact that he used a private jet.

Given that Sanders has repeatedly spoken out against both global warming and income inequality, it is quite notable that he used a private jet, and it should be included in the article.

Lpouer4832xs (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah and nobody "needs" a computer, a television, a phone, a radio, a car. Nobody "needs" to ever leave their hometown. However, it's necessary to perform his job, and yes, fight for improving these things. This is not really notable.. but hey, if you really think it is, I suggest you look up carbon offsets. Yep, he's purchased them. No, it's not a contradiction, you can be aware of the impact of your actions, and be conflicted about the need to take them vs. the impact it would have if you didn't. Centerone (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Until reliable sources pick up on their argument, it does not belong in the article. If they did, then they would also explain why it is disingenuous. TFD (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Lpouer4832xs: See also Tu quoque. Although it's also worth keeping in mind the context as well; he was campaigning in 9 battleground states in 9 days in the days leading up to the midterm elections, so perhaps conventional travel could not meet the demands of this schedule. And I don't think that the use of a private jet necessarily contradicts his stance against global warming and income inequality, if you believe that the ends justify the means. If you think from his point of view, Sanders was investing a lot of effort on campaigning probably because he wanted to increase the likelihood of getting more Democrats into Congress, which would increase the likelihood of successfully passing more legislation that would have a much larger impact on countering global warming and income inequality; a potential impact much larger than some private jet usage. That's not necessarily contradictory.

For inclusion in the article, admittedly, an cursory internet search shows that a lot of newspapers have written about this ([6] [7] [8]), so that might be sufficient grounds for inclusion (I'm still new at Wikipedia though, so I'm not sure). There's precedence for this kind of thing in articles like Al Gore#Criticism against Gore. If this gets included though, it should also be mentioned what the jet travel was used for, and the fact that the Sanders campaign supposedly bought carbon offsets to balance out the emissions from the travel. All the news articles linked here so far mention all this as well. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles in the echo chamber do not establish significance for inclusion. It's only when they bounce out into mainstream media. Fringe views published in unreliable sources should be ignored. If readers want to know their views there are lots of websites available. TFD (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not for WP editors to discuss personal opinions about the subjects of articles in Talk pages, we should limit our discussions to reported opinions that may be offered through reliable sources for potential inclusion in the article. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not my opinion I am discussing but whether the opinion expressed in the Daily Caller has received significant attention in reliable sources for inclusion. The reference to echo chamber is the tendency for stories that appear in publications like the Daily Caller to be copied into similar outlets. Occasionally they bounce into mainstream news. A good example is Obama's place of birth. At some point it became mainstream news, experts commented on it and we could provide a fair assessment. So rather than saying that so and so said Obama was born in Kenya, we could say that so and so promoted the false conspiracy theory that he was born there. TFD (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

|}

Sexual harassment

I'm not OP, and I'm not up to date on what this is all about, but a quick internet search yields some recent articles that are talking about this: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] -- Ununseti (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• As of right now, there is no indication Sanders was involved in the incidents or even knew about them. Maybe we could include it in the campaign article, but even that could be premature at this point per WP:NOTNEWS. Calidum 22:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Calidum, precisely. This can go on Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. Sanders is not directly implicated in anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Section revision and merge proposed

Grammarxxx proposed that Bernie Sanders#Political positions be merged with Political positions of Bernie Sanders in a discussion at Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders#Proposed merge with Bernie Sanders#Political positions. Very little discussion has occurred there. Before I remove the banner on the section in question owing to lack of interest, perhaps some editors here would like to add to the discussion there. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended Protection

Recommended as it is a target for vandalism and edit wars. GeekInParadise (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

GeekInParadise, already requested at WP:RFPP#Bernie Sanders but not done as things had quieted down for a bit. Leviv ich 18:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is He a Democrat Again/ 2020?

The subject of this article announces for President on the Democratic ticket this morning. Is he still an Independent? -- Sleyece (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, until reliable sources say otherwise. TFD (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

His Senate office still refers to him as an independent, and I haven't seen any reliable sources that indicate that he's now a Democrat.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think his infobox should say that he's an Independent under "Political Party" then under Other political affiliations it should read something like "Democratic (2016, 2020 Presidential Campaigns)" or "Democratic Caucus" with 2016 and 2020 being links to the wikipedia page for each campaigns. Especially given that given his history, he's likely to stay as an independent if he loses the primary. GeekInParadise (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with TFD: he's an independent until reliable sources say otherwise. Leviv ich 19:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Well considering that the news station where he announced his campaign, is saying he's running as a democrat, I still think my solution is the best. He's running as a Democrat for President.

GeekInParadise (talk) Also AP: https://twitter.com/AP/status/1097824322222284800

He is emphatically an independent (lower-case i—there is no Independent Party in the US) in the Senate, having taken active measures to eliminate Democratic challengers in the senate primary election and then run as an independent in the general election, as has been his pattern in past congressional elections. He would become the Democratic candidate for president only if the party chose him. Right now, he's a candidate for that party's nomination. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but he's running for office as a Democrat. At a bare minimum it should be mentioned in "Other Political Affiliations". Other people who run for office and change parties to run reflect so in their infoboxes as well GeekInParadise (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with GeekInParadise that his affiliation with the Democratic Party should be reflected with a "campaign-only purpose". I don't know if he's going to leave the Democratic Party if he's being elected. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that he is running to become the Democratic candidate. Unless he is selected, it's only a job application and his status in the Senate as an independent remains unchanged until the next election, when he would have to again choose his party (non)affiliation, were he to run. There is no evidence that he has sent funds supporting the Democratic Party or an application to become a member of the party. It is correct to say that he is "affiliated" with the Democratic Party, since that is how he filled out his "Statement of Candidacy (FEC FORM 2)". The Democratic Party has no power to prevent anyone, including someone of another party, from claiming such alignment on Form 2—the party can choose not to endorse or select the candidate at its convention. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Per the discussion, above, I have entered him as: Other political affiliations: Democrat (2015, 2019: Statement Of Candidacy for president) Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Hi, in reference to your reverting the entry, above, I concur that this year and 2106 are the same situation. I encourage you to engage in the discussion, above. The entry that you reverted was party affiliation, not membership. In both cases, Sanders' FEC Form 2, announced affiliation in 2015 and 2019. This is distinct from membership. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

HopsonRoad, he's been "affiliated" with the Democrats for the entirety of his tenure in the U.S. Congress as he has caucused with them, but he's still an independent. We shouldn't list him as a Democrat there because he's not a Democrat, he's an independent running for the Democratic nomination. If he actually has to register as a Democrat upon winning the nomination (I'm not sure if he'd have to), that'd be a different story. – 

Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Muboshgu, I understand and concur with the sense of "affiliated" that you refer to in his arrangement to caucus with the Democrats in the senate and also with your analysis that he's an independent running for the Democratic nomination. These facts demonstrate that he's not a member of the Democratic party. The affiliation that I maintain supports inclusion, as I entered it, is in his twice having declared an affiliation on his "Statement of Candidacy (FEC FORM 2)" once in 2015 and again in 2019. His declaration on those forms read under item 4. Party Affiliation: "DEMOCRATIC PARTY." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bernie is officially a democrat?

This subsection has been merged. Leviv ich 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

https://classic.fec.gov/fecviewer/CommitteeDetailFilings.do?tabIndex=3&candidateCommitteeId=P60007168 according to legally binding FEC filings his new party refistration is a democrat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua0228 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Done -- Sleyece (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source. We should wait for secondary sources. Leviv ich 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources describe him as still an independent. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

PlanetDeadwing I did not mean to hit the revert button that didn't give me a chance to add an edit summary. He's still an independent. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The form cited says, "Party affiliation", not membership. Its main purpose is to designate a campaign committee, which will be responsible for obeying campaign financing laws. It is not a declaration of party membership. A political party cannot veto an individual's citing affiliation with that party on this form. There is no evidence Sanders has sent a penny to be a member of the party or applied to become a member, nor does he have any say in its policies. If and when he is placed on the Democratic ticket for the presidential election, is when it becomes time to put D next to his name. He is, in effect, applying for the job to be Democratic candidate. The party doesn't accept/appoint the candidate, until the convention. HopsonRoad (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Source analysis

Sources that still call him "independent"

Burlington Free Press Feb 19 The independent senator from Vermont announced Tuesday morning he will once again seek the Democratic nomination...

Burlington Free Press Feb 20 Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt...

Fox News Feb 21 Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt...

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) plans to sign a pledge saying he will run as a Democrat in his bid for the presidency in 2020 and to govern as a Democrat if elected, campaign adviser Jeff Weaver told CNN...Sanders, an independent from Vermont...
— The Hill Feb 19

Why Democrats let Sanders, an independent, drop by when he needs their services while they do all the hard work has long been a mystery. While seeking re-election to the Senate last year, Sanders briefly joined the party to run for the nomination as a Democrat. (That way, he could keep a real Democrat off the November ballot.) Once he won, he refused the nomination, allegedly to preserve his independence. Independence from what, a differing opinion?
— RCP Feb 21

Sources that do not call him "independent"

The Atlantic Feb 20

The Economist Feb 21

CNN Feb 21

AZ Central Feb 21

Sources that call him "Democrat"

(...crickets?...)

Three thoughts:

1. He is still a US Senator, and "officially" an independent and not a Democrat per Congress
2. Still a US voter, and presumably unenrolled in any party as a voter (although who knows)
3. Last time around, he changed his affiliation to Democrat, then changed it back (see the quote from RCP above). Not sure what specific actions he took to change his affiliation (register to vote as a Democrat?), but I assume if he were to do that again, it would be reported.

My bottom line is that the sources are still in flux, WP:NOTNEWS, and it's probably best to just wait a bit and see how this shakes out. My prediction is that eventually he will be universally referred-to as "Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders", but it doesn't seem that has happened yet. I'm guided by WP:NOTLEAD: ...we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. Please update the list above with any other sources we should consider. Thanks. Leviv ich 16:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Question

@The Four Deuces, Levivich, Ich, GeekInParadise, Muboshgu, Wei4Green, and Sleyece: Upon review of the discussion, immediately above, do you concur that Sanders having twice entered "Democratic Party" under "Party Affiliation" in FEC Form 2, once in 2015 and once in 2019, justifies the following inbox entry?

Other political affiliations: Democrat (2015, 2019: Statement Of Candidacy for president)

HopsonRoad (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Concur/non-concur

• Concur HopsonRoad (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Do not concur No original research says that we must not form our own conclusions but instead rely on conclusions made in reliable sources. John F. Kennedy sought and obtained the nomination of the Liberal Party of New York for the presidency, but was generally described as a Democrat. Generally reliable sources described Sanders as an independent. TFD (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, TFD. This is not OR, since it is the entry by the candidate himself, not an inference. Per WP:PRIMARY, the direct entry does not constitute analysis. Also, of course JFK was a Democrat. The Liberal party nomination would be an affiliation. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It's OR because the source is not a reliable source for facts any more than Elizabeth Warren's saying on a form that she was an "American Indian" means that she actually is one. You need a secondary source that concludes that Sanders is affiliated with the Democratic Party as normally understood. He certainly has never been elected to office as a Democrat, although he has served as a mayor, congressman and senator, and has never joined the party or registered as a Democrat AFAIK. TFD (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Concur that "Democrat" belongs in the infobox as Other political affiliations, not because of the FEC form (Statement of Candidacy), but because of the RSes that report he is running for the Democratic nomination (which is certainly an "affiliation", although it's not party membership). Independent should stay as the primary party affiliation. This is per the sources I just posted above, and it certainly could (and I think will) change if the sources change their reporting over time. Leviv ich 16:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

References

References

Should "Social Democrat" or "Democratic Socialist" be in the lead?

This seems like a classic case of linguistic miscommunication to me. Sanders is pretty clearly an advocate of social democracy, because he's definitely not ademocratic socialist who wants to end America's market economy. The average person would reading this article would come away with a significant misimpression. The current lead needs revised. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

It says that he is a "self-described democratic socialist." He is not a self-described social democrat and there is no comment on what his ideology is. Social democrat and democratic socialist are interchangeable terms anyway, although the first typically is used in non-English speaking countries. TFD (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I don't think they're interchangeable, even if Sanders uses them interchangeably (otherwise we wouldn't have two separate articles for them). I think it would be appropriate to describe Sanders as a "self-described democratic socialist, whose political positions more closely match the ideology of social democracy", although that would have to be changed and shortened to fit it into the current lead section. Political positions of Bernie Sanders notes that several commentators and publications have discussed this difference, although its lead section also only mentions "democratic socialist". Jc86035 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

See Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey by Donald F. Busky,p. 8: "Social democracy is a somewhat controversial term among democratic socialists. Many democratic socialists use social democracy as a synonym for democratic socialism, while others, particularly revolutionary democratic socialists do not, the latter seeing social democracy as something less than socialism."[20] Webster's defines democatic socialism as meaning social democracy.[21] There are indeed people such as yourself who draw a distinction between the two terms, but there is no consistency in how they do so. In America, the Social Democratic Party of America transformed into the Socialist Party of America, whose main successor organization is the Democratic Socialists of America. The Labour Party in the UK defines itself as a democratic socialist party. I find it ironic that after defining the Democrats as socialist, the American Right now argues that Sanders is not a real socialist. TFD (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I mainly meant to say "I don't think the links are interchangeable" – Wikipedia provides a distinction between the two terms, so for practical purposes any paragraph linking to either or both articles would have to treat the two terms as not being interchangeable. I don't personally care much for whether the terms should be interchangeable, and it wouldn't matter if I did. Jc86035 (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Per General points on linking style: "Be conservative when linking within quotations; link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." I think in this case we should not use internal links since they are direct quotes even if not in quotation marks. I don't know also whether when Sanders says he is a democratic socialist he is necessarily using the Wikipedia definition of Social Democracy. TFD (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Democratic Party rule

NH TV station, WMUR, reported:

According to the DNC, a candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, must under a rule, "be a bona fide Democrat whose record of public service, accomplishment, public writings, and/or public statements affirmatively demonstrates that the candidate is faithful to the interests, welfare, and success of the Democratic Party of the United States who subscribes to the substance, intent, and principles of the Charter and the Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States, and who will participate in the Convention in good faith."

Under a separate new rule, the candidate must also publicly affirm that he or she is a Democrat, the DNC said. As part of that requirement, they must affirm in writing to the chair of the DNC that they "are a member of the Democratic Party; will accept the Democratic nomination; and will run and serve as a member of the Democratic Party."

Sanders has indicated that he will meet this requirement. When he does, this may alter how his party affiliation has been handled in this article, until now.

HopsonRoad (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

[22] [23] [24] for more on the rule change. Leviv ich 22:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

See synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." When news media or other reliable sources routinely refer to him as a Democrat, then we can change the article. Incidentally, it is not possible to become a member of the Democratic Party in Vermont. TFD (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Re this revert: when 'twas it done, and what 'twis your source? Leviv ich 05:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)