Talk:Political positions of Bernie Sanders

FeelTheBern.org - a collection of Bernie's stances organized rather well

Would we want to update this page with information from that site? Or, at the very least, put a link to it somewhere? The website is not by the campaign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 14:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Cato

I'm removing the Cato Inst. from the rating box because the figures come from their website and the wording "Trade barriers", for example, means issues that Cato sees as negative, for instance a no vote for NAFTA. Sanders has opposed NAFTA for years and I note that of late many others are beginning to see it as a failure as well. Gandydancer (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with its removal.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Political and economic philosophy section

A very extensive Political and economic philosophy section has been added. I tried to cut it back to a NYT source with "expert's" views (rather than prof xxx from xxx university) and was reverted. I do not believe that this article is the correct place to argue Sander's ideas about his political philosophy at such great lengths. If at all. Feedback please. Gandydancer (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor is apparently not inclined to discuss my concerns. I will look at the addition a little at a time. I take issue with the following addition:

However, academic commentators have pointed out that the identification of Bernie Sanders' political platform and ideology with "democratic socialism" is inaccurate. Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states that Bernie Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950's that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that Bernie Sanders does not advocate public ownership of the means of production, nor does he seek to abolish the profit system - both of which are defining characteristics of socialism.

This commentator is not notable enough to suggest that Sanders is incorrect in the way that he describes his political position, and in fact Sanders is hardly mentioned in this very brief piece. This is, after all, a part of Sander's bio and we must be cautious regarding what we include. Gandydancer (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Opinion piece info removed

I have removed an opinion piece (Cory Massimino, a campus coordinator for Students For Liberty, which receives funding from the Koch Brothers) which is not suitable for this article, an extension of Sander's bio page. Apparently several blogs also picked up on some stuff he said on Vox and twisted it. See: How the Latest Smear Campaign Against Bernie Sanders Collapsed Before It Started [1] Gandydancer (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Information from a Vox interview has again been returned to the article without discussion. It is from an opinion piece written by Daniel Bier, a blogger, written in News Week entitled: BERNIE SANDERS ON IMMIGRANTS: SILLY, TRIBAL AND ECONOMICALLY ILLITERATE.

I could see including an opinion by a nationally-known expert, but to include the opinion of bloggers in our political positions articles is obviously a poor idea for this article and our other political positions articles as well. I asked the editor to bring this to talk but it was merely returned to the article. This article is an extension of Sander's bio and I'm again removing the edit while it is discussed here. Gandydancer (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New issue statement on fiscal balance

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/ was released this week. I am a supporter so I would prefer someone else summarize it please. EllenCT (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Interest Group ratings

I don't really feel Wikipedia is the appropriate place to list the ratings of politicians by private groups. Point a) There is no possibility we could or should list politicians ratings by every rating group, b) The primary reference for ratings links to a website which specifically DOES list every politicians ratings by private groups, c) It does not follow manual of style. I'm in favor of removing it, any objections? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 07:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to removing the table of endorsements. a) The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, b) we are supposed to be WP:COMPREHENSIVE, c) to which MOS section do you refer? EllenCT (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. These are prominent groups and their opinions are often cited in the media. Even if we cannot be sure the list is exhaustive, there is no reason to think if it were it would change the general impression it currently presents. Sanders' voting record is seen favorably by liberal, progressive and civil rights groups and negatively by conservative groups. TFD (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is useful information, as long as it is not loaded with groups that agree or loaded with those that don't. As it stands it looks loaded for high numbers (except the NRA), but checking the reference, there are some low numbers omitted (e.g. right to life groups, campaign for working families, etc.) PAR (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I worked on that section and if my memory is correct I did not include, for example, Campaign for Working Families because The Campaign for Working Families (CWF) is a political action committee founded by Religious Right activist Gary Bauer to support like-minded candidates. Like the Club for Growth, CWF is known for supporting "pro-family" candidates over more mainstream Republican candidates in GOP primaries. In 1998, it was the fifth largest national PAC. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/campaign-working-families#sthash.pM4uTyrB.dpuf, as one example. Gandydancer (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but why was it excluded? I mean, I don't understand what causes one group to be included, another excluded. How does one decide? PAR (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I excluded it because it is not well known and because it is a PAC. Gandydancer (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if its the 5th largest PAC, I wouldn't say that was not well known. I'm not sure why PAC's should be excluded, they represent the opinions of the contributors. Also, why would National Right to Life Committee be excluded? I think the table is loaded to the high numbers, and it shouldn't be. People looking for info should be informed of organizations opposed to Sanders as well. I'm not trying to trash Sanders here, the fact that certain groups oppose him would probably be a badge of honor as far as he is concerned, but we need to avoid the appearance of POV. I think we should aim for an average rating of around 50% on the table instead of the 90% its running at now, and agree on some neutral criterion for entry. Otherwise, discard it. PAR (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it is good to get some input. Do you want to make a list of the ones you think we need to add? Gandydancer (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Just searching the reference on "2015" and "2016" looking for low numbers:

• National Right to Life Committee 0% (PAC)
• The John Birch Society 20%
• Numbers USA (immigration) 0%
• Conservative Review 44%
• Marijuana Policy Project 66%

The marijuana is greater than 50%, but should be included. I'd like to do the same sort of thing with other candidates as well. That vote smart is a cool site. PAR (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders as a woman?

There's little to no mention on his positions on feminism or women. One current article is how he became an honorary woman and that's relevant enough to this joke of an election cycle. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/18/politics/bernie-sanders-honorary-woman-gloria-steinem/ 198.151.200.253 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Minutemen?

@Snooganssnoogans: We have a different outlook on how to portray Sanders' support of an amendment that read, "Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.", which ultimately had the effect of supporting the Minuteman Project, as was suggested in Hillary Clinton says Bernie Sanders supported Minutemen, indefinite detention for the undocumented by Louis Jacobson. However, mentioning "Minutemen", ostensibly signifying several vigilante groups of the sort that Sanders strongly disavows in the same article, gives undue significance to that aspect of his vote. Other such groups include the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and Arizona Border Recon, so even the term, "Minutemen" is unclear. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest: "That same year, he supported an amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill that barred the US government from providing "a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona"—which include the Minuteman Project and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, among other groups." Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think think it's wise for Wikipedia editors to interpret bills or categorize vigilante groups on the US-MEX border. That's why we go by reliably sources, and these sources make clear that the bill was intentionally designed to protect the Minutemen. If there are other RS that conflict with that or that place Sanders' vote in a different context, they should be presented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Snooganssnoogans. I see that the second source portrays the intent that you described. I would suggest omitting the first reference, which emphasized Clinton's attack over the intent of the bill. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Community Protection Act

I question this addition:

In 2006, Sanders voted for the Community Protection Act, which allowed indefinite detention for undocumented immigrants with a criminal record.

As we know, most bills have a main motion with several or many lesser parts added to it. This is why during a campaign opponents can come out with outrageous accusations of voting/not voting for this or that. Every legislator is faced with the need to look the other way for some aspects of the bills that they vote on. Sanders released this following Clinton's accusations:

In a response released by the Sanders campaign during the debate, the campaign said that his support stemmed from a different part of the bill that dealt with gang members. "Bernie Sanders believes that gang members who committed serious crimes should be deported and voted for legislation that, while overly broad, would do just that," the statement said.

I think that it's a mistake to take a Senate vote as evidence of his policy on indefinite detention for undocumented immigrants with a criminal record. I believe that we should delete this addition. Gandydancer (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The text is accurate and consistent with the RS that's cited. If Sanders has disavowed his vote for the bill, you can add that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This bill was mostly not about holding undocumented immigrants, so no, one would not be finding this information. It is also not listed on his immigration positions. Do you have further RS or is it just this one bit from the presidential debates? Gandydancer (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I quoted from the article what the bill said to make the topic more neutral in its point of view. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to your quote which certainly is the most desirable when there is conflict. However I still question that it is included at all. I see that there has been a Court judgement on this matter and perhaps will draw out some discussion by the press. Gandydancer (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The previous language portrayed the vote in such a way that it appeared that Sanders supported indefinite detention for all undocumented immigrants with a criminal record, when the amendment was specifically about dangerous ones, thereby portraying Sanders' vote incorrectly. Furthermore there was a provision for periodic review, which was left unspoken. What has been included is part of the political record. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans' edit does not reflect the source. What he put in is what Hillary Clinton said as reported in the source. In fact the source corrects Clinton and is accurately reflected in HopsonRoad's edit. Snooganssnoogans also fails to mention that most Democrats supported the bill. (Clinton probably would have supported it too, but by that time had left the Senate.) It's not significant anyway. The primaries are over and Sanders backed Clinton in the election. Incidentally, a recent Supreme Court decision says that all immigrants, legal or not, including tourists, can be held indefinitely without bail, making the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center redundant. I suggest time could be better spent writing about that. TFD (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I asked this editor to supply further reference for this edit and s/he has refused to answer my request although s/he has found the time to post on numerous other articles. WP articles are built with the work of contributing editors, not the thoughts of a single editor. We generally expect to find more than one source since that show how much weight we need attach to a specific bit of information. Also, Talk page discussion must not be ignored as seems to be the case here. This issue was brought up in the heat of campaign rhetoric, it is re-posted by only one source, and it is not listed as a immigrant related opinion at Sander's website - I'm going to remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's been reported on by RS, we include it. The non-presence of an item on a candidate's website is an absurd way to consider whether to include it on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Standard for describing a "position"

In light of the above two discussions, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors about what rises to the level of describing a "position". Legislators often participate in procedural votes or in votes that contain a poison pill or nuisance amendment where a "yes" vote does not connote support for the pill or the nuisance. I suggest that the standard for describing a "position" be expressed in the lead by amending the second sentence as follows:

"He has taken articulated positions on many political issues, both through his public comments and based on including his Congressional voting record."

I'm aiming to clarify that an affirmative vote on a bill sometimes represents a tradeoff between a provision that the legislator favors more heavily than another provision that the legislator opposes, the latter provision not having earned the "support" of the legislator.

The standard for describing a "position" would then require a description of what Sanders (or his spokesperson or website) said, not just how he voted. What do others suggest? HopsonRoad (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans said it well, "Nearly everything I added has been reported on by reliable secondary sources and when they do, they link to her website or factsheets released by the campaign. Those are after all her stated positions (which I would have thought was relevant for wikipedia pages on "Political positions of X")." [19:01, 19 May 2016][2]

That seems like a good standard. The positions are reported as positions in reliable secondary sources and presented as such by the politician. Legislation involves compromise and legislators do vote for things they oppose in order to get things they support. To use these votes as a source is original research.

TFD (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, that brings me back. Note that I consider (and have considered for a long time) my views on Wikipedia policy, as stated there, to be incorrect. We should only include things that have been reported by secondary RS, never directly from the candidate or the campaign. At the time, I had only edited controversial US politics pages for a brief time and was almost entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. Up until that point, I almost exclusively edited academic research into Wikipedia pages. In fact, for some Snooganssnoogans history: CFredkin (who was later blocked for using sockpuppet accounts or some such) and his ludicrous removal of studies that I added to the NAFTA page are in some ways responsible for getting me to start editing pages related to US politics. I thought, "Wow, if this guy is indiscriminately removing academic research, what kind of harm is doing to those other pages he's editing (one of which happened to be the 'Pol Positions of H Clinton' article)". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

If someone votes for something and it's reported in RS, we include it. If the politician elaborates on the vote, and RS cover it, then we can add that too. It's very simple. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding here, TFD and Snooganssnoogans. I fear that I may framed the question inadequately by implying that an unfiltered primary source might be appropriate here. I concur that the RS policy emphasizing secondary sources is paramount here—it's thence that we should draw quotations. My concern, was whether reporting on a vote without including the legislator's explanation or justification for the vote sufficiently describes a "position" and not just a voting record. I have no problem reporting votes that are described in secondary sources, as long as an explanation is given. Here are some examples of votes described in the article without explanation given in the article:

• "On Common Core State Standards, Sanders used to support it, but his current public position on Common Core at the time of the campaign was unknown. However, he had voted against an amendment that would have harmed Common Core. However, he had spoken on a program related to Common Core: Race to the Top."
• "Sanders voted in favor of the 1994 Crime Bill, which played a role in increasing the American prison population and causing racial disparities in the criminal justice system."
• "In the House, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton that same year." (The article says in the next paragraph that he articulated a position on gay marriage in 2009—long after this vote.)
• "In 2006, Sanders voted for the Community Protection Act.... That same year, he voted for an amendment to a Homeland Security appropriations bill that prohibited the federal government from...." (No rationale is described, just the vote.)

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Re the statement, "It's very simple.", no it's not very simple at all. If it were so simple we would not have thousands upon thousands of talk page discussion and thousands of edits to political articles. Decisions on what to include in our articles takes editorial judgement since we don't/can't include every last word a politician said on a selected subject. Talk pages have gone on and on regarding the inclusion/exclusion of a single word or phrase. To just pronounce, "If someone votes for something and it's reported in RS, we include it. If the politician elaborates on the vote, and RS cover it, then we can add that too" as the final word is both simple minded and short sighted. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The advantage of reporting the politicians votes or bill signatures, and pronouncements on same, is that they are cold facts, attributable directly to the politican. Any interpretation of the "real meaning" of these facts by some other source is suspect unless there is a consensus on the reliability of that source. Yes, this is "simple" and may be "short sighted", but it's a rock-solid starting point. What particularly irks me is statments like "so and so has characterized this as such and such". period. If "so and so" has an argument backing up their statement, lets hear it, otherwise delete the statement. Othewise it's just the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, and has no place in the article.PAR (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

How would you describe a vote in favor of or against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act? Vote in favor and one is supporting expansion of the death penalty. Vote against and one is opposing the assault weapons ban. Congressmen try to get the best bill they can then vote for it if on balance they get more of what they want. TFD (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

TFD illustrates my concern very well. It's fine to report how the legislator voted here, but it's necessary to include the reported rationale for that vote, otherwise it's just part of the voting record but does not define a "position". HopsonRoad (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Another example would be the Florida legislation (related to the school shooting) which includes several good choices with the "bitter pill" being, to the minds of many, arming teachers and other school staff. Another example is the way Trump wants to include money for his wall on any legislation needed for the DREAMERS. And note that in the above section the information that I objected to about unlimited detention was considered acceptable just because it has a RS secondary mention, even though Sanders said it was not the part of the bill that he was primarily voting for. He may have been OK with it to some extent or it may have been a "bitter pill" - we really have no way of knowing as that was not discussed in a RS. Gandydancer (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, a politician's vote does not necessarily describe their position, I didn't mean to imply that, and no article should imply that. The politicians statements about that vote provide more insight, but still doesn't give full insight. Any third party attempting to analyze their position still doesn't generally give full insight, since these third parties usually have an agenda and often cloud the issue more than clarify it. If a consensus can be reached on the reliability of a third party, then fine. If not, then competing analyses should be listed, without weasle-words like "according to so-and-so, such and such is *supposedly* true".

In response to The Four Deuces, I would describe it much as you have - a conundrum. How would you describe it? PAR (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this response, PAR. I feel strongly that a politician's position should reflect their thinking, not the analysis or opposing opinions of others, which, although important for framing the debate on a topic, do not characterize the politician's position. So, for me a politician's position in an article of the form, "Political positions of X" should be WP:Reliable reports of what the politician or his/her delegated surrogates have evinced on a given topic. The topic may include an explanation of a vote or some other topic in the realm of political discussion. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopson, how would your suggestion affect my concerns re the above section about the inclusion of Sanders' feelings on indefinite jailing of some immigrants? Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gandydancer: mentioning his vote without reporting his rationale would be contrary to what I am advocating here. Inclusion of the politician's reported rationale is central to describing a position. Absent the reported rationale, all one has is a vote, not a position. A vote without a rationale does not belong in this article. Positions should be based primarily on reliably reported statements from politicians, either directly or through their spokespeople. I hope that this is responsive to your question. HopsonRoad (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

IMO our conversation shows that some sort of fix is needed. I support your suggestion. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree as well - Inclusion of the politician's reported rationale is central to describing a position. Again - third party "interpretations" of the politicians vote and rationale should be viewed with suspicion, and should not be presented as "fact", unless there is an overwhelming consensus, otherwise it should be treated as just one of possibly many competing "interpretations". PAR (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove criticism made by non-notable assistant professor

I have removed this wording:

Academic commentators have pointed out that the identification of Sanders' political platform and ideology with "democratic socialism" is inaccurate. Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states that Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950s that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that he does not advocate public ownership of the means of production, nor does he seek to abolish the profit system - both of which are defining characteristics of socialism.

I don't think that the ideas of an assistant professor that is not notable enough to have a WP page who has written an article for The American Conservative is a reasonable reason to include in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to include attributed statements by experts about the effects that a politicians' policies will have and on the ways in which the political philosophies of politicians can be categorized and compared. If anything, Wikipedia should have more content like that. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, Gandydancer, that criticism by Goldman is similar to one I typically encounter from those to the far left of Bernie Sanders, who contend that Bernie Sanders (or at least his campaign platform) is definitionally not socialist. If I were to change anything about that text, I would clarify that the last sentence's description of socialism is Goldman's own opinion, since there is no single definition of socialism and numerous definitions directly contradict such a description, as indicated by the socialism article. For example, some radical leftist positions reject "public ownership of the means of production" as state capitalism and assert stateless social ownership (which is distinguished from public ownership) instead as a requirement for socialist productive relations. Actually, I have already submitted that edit. If it is reverted, I hope whoever reverts it explains here.

Beyond that, Goldman's statements are consistent and compatible with the other claims in that section—not that this would necessarily matter, but it does indicate that Goldman is not coming from some fringe perspective within this article or section. Just because Goldman does not have his own Wikipedia article, which is honestly common and unremarkable when citing claims and analyses in Wikipedia articles, that does not mean he (or his comments) is not notable. Regardless, notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles and I would consider the content in question to be duly weighted. As for The American Conservative, this seems to be a reliable source even though it obviously has a clear political agenda. You might not like that agenda, but absent any policy violation, I am not sure what justification there could be for omitting material sourced from it in this article. We could of course just ignore all rules, but that would require a compelling case for doing so. I do not see what compelling case could be made in this instance. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur that such content is appropriate. However, it should probably be in a separate “Commentary of others” section for each major topic, where feasible. This article is about Sanders’ positions not those of others. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Nøkkenbuer, to mention "ignore all rules" seems pretty far-fetched at this point. My only complaint was the fact that IMO this non-notable asst. prof. is not qualified to offer an opinion for this BLP. I did not say anything negative about the source. However it seems that three editors don't agree with me so it is clear that it will stay even though I feel that his article is not especially scholarly and that he is not, well let's just say that I don't find it surprising that he does not have a WP article. Gandydancer (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry if my previous comments seemed to connote passive-aggressive criticism, Gandydancer. That was not my intent at all and only after your reply did I notice how it could be taken that way. I brought up WP:IAR strictly to pre-emptively cover that contention, but I suppose it was premature. You indeed did not state anything negative about this source; I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I did check your user page before replying and noticed the perspectives presented there, however, which I inferred as suggesting that you might take issue with the source's political agenda. Moreover, I anticipated that might be a point of contention later on in this discussion, assuming it was continued—not necessarily from you, but just generally given the source's POV and the topic of this article. I am not enthused about the source myself, so I could sympathize with why someone might dispute it. In that sense, I suppose I was replying to the audience, too, and not just you on those points.

Regardless, I hope you understand that my reply was obliviously impersonal. If you would like to discuss the exclusion of this particular paragraph and source further, I have no problem with doing so. For example, if you would be willing to elaborate on your rationale for exclusion, perhaps I can better understand your concerns. Otherwise, if you would rather not bother, then we can always return to it another time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 05:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, WP uses consensus to settle disagreements. In this case I have been very clear in my objection and you have been very clear as well. I like it when this place works like it's supposed to work and I like to try to enjoy my experience here as much as possible so I abide by the rules of consensus. Three people disagree with me and there is no reason to go on and on in disagreement. When using the consensus model it is called stepping aside, meaning you give in to a group decision even though you don't agree with it. It has nothing to do with "rather not bother[ing]" so please don't drag this out any further. Gandydancer (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

For the issue of how social democracy and democratic socialism relate to each other, compare the discussion at Talk:Democratic socialism § This article is a joke. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What "democratic socialism" REALLY is, per Bernie himself

I was recently invited to comment here abut my own feelings about Bernie and his quite-worthwhile "revolution" set of issue choices for the Democratic Party "going forward" in time...from all that I've seen and heard, from both before March 1, 2016 (the date of the Massachusetts primary, when I DID vote for Bernie in the primary) right through to today, it's people exactly like Bernie Sanders...AND those who identify solidly with Bernie's views and issue choices, like Tulsi Gabbard, Nina Turner and even a very preferable choice for the next Democratic Governor of the Bay State, Bob Massie (who I hope to vote for later this year, in the MA Democratic primary early this autumn) who DO need to be elected in coming years, to rescue the USA from a so-far anemic recovery from the Great Recession...I've been unemployed ever since it "broke" in mid-September 2008, and have had considerable problems in getting back into the workforce ever since.

Bernie himself had a section at his campaign site, that's still viewable today, concerning what he described with the term "democratic socialism"...a LOT of it concerns the establishment of President Franklin Roosevelt's social programs, that today form a sizable part of what is known as the "social safety net" - this was expanded upon by President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society series of prgrams. These sorts of social programs have been under fire from American conservatives, ever since, from a time at least as early as Ronald Reagan's time in the White House, forward to today. There was likely even some attempts to "limit" those sorts of FDR/LBJ-initiated programs by some US Democratic Party politicians themselves, as early as President Jimmy Carter's time in office...this COULD take some serious looking, and the resultant time it would take to search for evidence of such interference could become more distracting than some of us might have to devote to the subject.

For "now", though, and to stick to "Bernie's views", for those reading my response here, getting a VERY good look at the linked page from Bernie's 2016 campaign site...the ONLY one that I know of, that's "never come down completely" from the November 2016 election, for any Democratic Party candidate that entered the Presidential race's primaries that year...is about the best "starting point" I can clearly think of, on learning about Bernie's opinions regarding the "democratic socialism" issue.

The PIPE (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bernie Sanders#Political positions

It seems unreasonable to me the section about Saners' political positions takes up 1/4 the page instead of just redirecting to a page specifically about his political positions - as is WP:MOS. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 20:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Non-concur Some sort of summary is appropriate at Bernie Sanders#Political positions. This article is a place for a complete discussion of his political positions. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There definitely will, and should, be a summary consisting of a paragraph or so about his positions in it's place. But not a multi-tiered analysis about a few key policies as it currently is. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that thought, Grammarxxx. Perhaps you could draft such a summary as you suggest in a sandbox, somewhere, and link to it here. I'm open to the idea with specific substitute text to look at. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Grammarxxx, I'm planning on removing the merge banner at Bernie Sanders#Political positions absent further discussion here. That doesn't mean that the section can't be improved by a proposed restructuring. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Liberty Union

An editor added Sander's support of nationalization when he was in the Liberty Union Party.[3] While I think it is important to explain Sanders' earlier positions when he was involved in radical politics, It's going to be confusing to put them beside each of his current positions. Compare with Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren (former Republicans), Trump and Reagan (former Democrats). I think it would be better to have a separate section about the positions he held before he achieved elected office. TFD (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

A position he held 40 years ago and we have somehow got through several years now of close observation of his policies without the need to discuss it...why on earth would we suddenly find it important enough to even mention? It should be removed IMO, or as you suggest moved, though that is far from my first choice. Gandydancer (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I concur with TFD that this material remain in the article, but not be mixed in with his current positions. The article cited covers a number of topics worthy of expansion. This Wikipedia article cannot be neutral without including the entire arc of Sanders' positions. Otherwise, it would appear to be a partisan information source. HopsonRoad (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've created a new section While with the Liberty Union Party. Please see whether this works. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, we covered past and current positions of politicians on the PolPos of Clinton and Trump articles, and did not create specific past/present headers (we just lumped it into each section, e.g. "immigration"). We should obviously not remove it, which was suggested. This was a politician in his thirties who was a leading member of a political party. This is not a teenager or child. Also, the Warren article covers her period as a Republican. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a valid question, Snooganssnoogans, and thanks for introducing this material. Not all articles of a kind are approached the same way. In looking at the PolPos articles for Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump, I see for Clinton an evolution of position, for Warren no mention of her positions as a Republican and for Trump (who was a Democrat) some degree of self-contradiction, but not a solid transition from one philosophy to a different one. It seems that Sanders made a transition from a democratic socialist to a social democrat when he left the Liberty Union Party, having had no electoral success there. I look forward to the insights of others. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Warren inclusion is appropriate and well done. Warren was registered as a Republican from 1991 to 1996. Warren voted as a Republican for many years, saying, "I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets" Over the years it has appeared in numerous articles on Warren and our section contains several of them. It is added under a subsection.

This new Sanders addition has but one source, it goes into a great deal of detail and is placed under a major heading. Since there is agreement on including the information at all I will agree that that is the way to go, however I'm against the degree of importance that it has been given. (BTW, I don't need to be reminded that he was not a teen or a child at the time.) Gandydancer (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Your tex

In these articles we should be guided by WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Similar articles, such as "What does Bernie Sanders believe? Where the candidate stands on 9 issues" make no mention of Sanders positions when he was with the Constitutional Unionist Party of the SDS.

What were Warren's views on gun control, abortion, same sex marriage, predatory lending, marijuana legalization, criminal sentencing, immigration, school bussing, Roman Catholics, nuclear disarmament, etc. in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? I am sure that they were different from today and sources could be found for them. But no one cares and all her article requires is that she was a Republican because she had faith in the market.

TFD (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I concur with your observations, in principle. The difference here is that Sanders' involvement in the Liberty Union Party marks the threshold of his political notability. His views prior to becoming the chief of that party and, likewise, Warren's early views are insufficiently notable. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Before he was elected Mayor of Burlington, Sanders would have failed notability, per "Politicians and judges". Being mentioned in an article does not establish notability, otherwise failed politicians would be notable. Warren on the other hand, per "Notability (academics)," would have been presumed notable when she was appointed to a named chair in 1990, although her reputation as an expert in bankruptcy law would have made her notable earlier. But there is no rule that what someone did before they were notable is less relevant than they did after. The criterion is whatever reliable sources consider significant. TFD (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

If her views on those issues were covered by RS then they meet notability and should be included. It's safe to say that I and many other readers would actually find the history of X's political positions very interesting for adults (of course, no one cares what views these people held when they were teenagers). I struggle to understand why this would be undue and do not believe that this is a standard that's applied anywhere else on politicians' wikipedia pages (you can argue it's undue on the main article but it absolutely belongs on a PolPos of X article). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

You should be aware that we were discussing notability, which is a Wikipedia policy that determines what articles can be created not what information can be added to articles. You are confusing it with WP:WEIGHT, which determines what information should be in articles. The fact that information has been reliably reported is not sufficient for inclusion, otherwise there would be no need for the policy. And it does not matter what readers find very interesting. While some readers may find negative information about all politicians not named Hillary Clinton or her supporters to be very interesting, and anything else not so much, the criterion is what mainstream sources find interesting.

TFD (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Sanders participation in the LUP is merely the threshold to his notability, I don't claim that it would have justified an article. This is evinced by The Burlington Free Press interviewing him multiple times, as reported by the CNN article. The LUP material therefore carries weight in this article. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Stance on NATO

Considering:

• the fact that Sanders's economical positions are not only close to FDR, but also to Cold-War Western-European social-democratic parties whose original Cold-War economical positions are now held by Western-European parties and movements often highly critical of NATO today (cf. the Jeremy Corbyn wing of Labour, German Left, Spanish Podemos, Greek Syriza/Popular Unity, French La France Insoumise, etc.),
• also considering the fact that both Trump and Bernie started out as "outsiders" to the political system which also adds to Trump's handling of foreign and NATO affairs,
• and having just heard a radio report on this year's Munich Security Conference motto of "West-lessness",

it may be relevant and substantial for the article to add Bernie's positions on NATO. --2003:EF:13CC:B697:6110:C5D1:75E2:9ABD (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Corporate welfare hypertext under "Antitrust, competition and corporate regulation" section

Keep "further" wlink Corporate welfare ("Corporate socialism" a redirect) under "Antitrust, competition and corporate regulation" section, per ES (rv here). Examples:

• Sanders: Trump wants socialism for corporations and rich people 06/11/2019 Politico
• Read: Bernie Sanders defines his vision for democratic socialism in the United States Jun 12, 2019 Vox.com
• It's Rich for Bernie Sanders to Call Trump a Socialist July 2, 2019 WSJ

X1\ (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Foreign policy section

Several days ago, I split the foreign policy section into a seperate article, Foreign policy of Bernie Sanders. I did this because I knew that Sanders's positions on international issues had been commented on by various international figures and domestic scholars. I chose to not write an edit summary due to following the precedent on the Political positions of Donald Trump article, which as you can see here does not have an edit summary. When Reywas92 reverted my edit, he in doing so removed most of the select responses to Sanders's policies by world figures. I now understand that my contributions to this website (which I am not saying can never be reverted) are not appreciated and will be directing my talents elsewhere. Informant16 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

no page for his foreign policy advisor?

I just heard a long interview on KPFA, Pacific Radio with Matt Duss, Bernie Sanders' long-time foreign policy advisor regarding the current Ukraine war with Russia about treaties, sanctions, our negotiations, NATO and so forth. He repeatedly called Sanders "my boss." He was speaking for Sanders. Many good sources have articles headlining him or his positions and so forth referring to him as Bernie Sanders' foreign policy advisor.

Yet I could not find a Wikipedia page on Duss.
--Doug Bashford 172.58.37.238 (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Socialism

Given what our page on social-democracy currently says, I think it’s about time academics in favor of Sanders being a socialist should be shown. It is widely known in European academic circles that "socialism" is misunderstood, and that this misunderstanding is used by the revolutionary far-left for its own interests, in the USA. There are enough sources for this. Jaurèsian socialist tradition, as well as the Fabian school, and other schools and traditions, of Italy, Spain and Germany, of both reformist and revolutionary parties, contradict the American image. As there are reliable sources for this, there must be reliable sources specifically on the Sanders situation, and the fact that the definitions of "Socialism", inspired by anti-communist tradition, that exclude Sanders from the movement and ideology, are marginal in Academia, and that therefore Sanders is socialist. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)