Talk:Bernie Sanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 counterpunch 2 Image distorted? 3 Recent events 4 Relations with the rest of the House 5 POV Veterns benefits 6 Reversion of Veterans Benefits 7 Flagrant Vandalism 8 POV dispute 9 Bkwillwm Vandalism 10 NPOV template 11 Commodity Supplemental Food Program Section 12 RfC Summary? 12.1 Thoughts 13 Weasel Words 13.1 RfC bonus response 13.2 Question to Wikipedians 13.3 Accidentially Removed Content 14 Controversy 15 Infobox problems 16 Socialists 17 Trivia 18 Revert 19 Stop Changing It!

[edit] counterpunch

is that quote from counterpunch truly necessary?

I agree the Counterpunch quote is superfluous. I myself actually subscribe to Counterpunch, and I might even agree with the quote. But the fact that someone, somewhere, criticized Sanders doesn't seem relevant to his bio... I'm sure we could find a thousand other critical comments from various sources.

That said, if someone developed a subsection along the lines of "Sanders' relationship with the American Left" or the like, that might be interesting. As the only self-described socialist in Congress, it's probably interesting to know the range of opinions socialists/leftists have about him, and how he interacts with that group. But a subsection would need more than one snippy comment. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] Image distorted?

It certainly looks like the photo of Sanders is stretched horizontally. I wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to download it, resize, and upload a new one. I'm not sure the exact distortion, but I could eyeball it to make it look more natural. Is that appropriate? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

[edit] Recent events

Maybe someone or me should write something about the proposed Sanders Amendment to the Patriot Act. - Dan

[edit] Relations with the rest of the House

Human cloning is not a "conservative" issue. Most of Congress supports a reproductive cloning ban. If Sanders supports a theraputic cloning ban, then he would be taking the conservative side. Same with the marriage penalty. It's not exactly a conservative issue.--Bkwillwm 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Veterns benefits

Regarding the recently removed and replaced section on benefits, its original research and POV to find one place where Sanders criticized Bush for cutting benefits in 2005 and then use a White House release from 2006 to say this is untrue. This implies Sanders lied, which is POV unless very well supported. Also, this is bad original research. Bush may have intended to cut benefits and 2005, but, by 2006, the situation changed. Also, the White House likes to use favorable numbers, so I White House press release isn't sufficient for proving Sanders wrong.--Bkwillwm 01:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of Veterans Benefits

The section on benfits has been restored as there is no POV here. The citation of Sanders' critque is from a signed Sanders written peice. The White House release citation is a Budget Report from the White House Office of Budget and Management. These are not "made-up". Wether Sanders told the truth or did not is up to the reader to determine, the entry makes no such claim. What is pure speculation on the editor's part is wether Bush did in fact attempt to cut benefits in 2005, or exactly what may or may not have changed by 2006. Please do not vandalize entries on speculation without proper citation. User:71.161.193.55

I offered a link already saying that his plan cuts benefits [1]. The way the facts are presented are also very POV. "Bernie says A, when in fact B" (implication: he's a liar) though all you have provided as proof is a Bush administration White House report. Pasboudin 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Link, actually provides the opposite, Pasboudin. The Article there, which is in regard to a common news item of it's time, that the Bush Administration was looking to cut Veteran's Benefits in time of war. However, the article itself says , "At a series of hearings on Capitol Hill last week, administration officials defended their veterans budget, saying it would increase spending by $880 million, or 2.2 percent, even as the federal deficit mounts.". The author of the article apparently is either saying Bush is wrong for cutting benefits, or he is wrong for allowing increases in deficits. Either way, your article itself demonstrates POV and is therefore not valid.

Bernie in fact does have a history of being controversially aggressive in his oppostion to certain policies and people whith whom he does not agree. This is well documented, and if you like, I'd be happy to add 20 examples on the article, instead of three. Or, if you prefer 200.

You're confusing cuts to individual types of benefits with cuts to the entire veterans budget. Sanders criticizes the loss of individual benefits and the requirement of enrollment fees. He also says "veterans programs are underfunded." No where does he say Bush intended to cut the entire veterans budget. The article Pasboudin posted lists several examples of cuts to individual benefits. Also, the 2.2% increase in the overall budget you mention would not have covered the 3.2% inflation in 2005[2], which would be an effective overall cut in the budget anyway. Please, feel free to list other examples of people criticizing Sanders for being overly agressive, but this example is bad. For future reference, an article that demonstrates POV can still be used. You White House source definitely has POV. Also, reverting something someone reasonably considers to be POV is not vandalism. You can't use this to avoid the three revert rule. Keep this in mind for your sake.--Bkwillwm 05:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

So then, if you feel additional information is nescessary, add it instead of erasing my, true, correct information. I see no POV which may be reasonably inferred, so therefore, it is vandalism. Once again, refrain from threats. If you beleive there is cause for complaint, make one. I'm sure administrators of Wiki will see things for what they are. User:71.161.193.55 --5 April 2006

Removed ", when in fact, Federal Government benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs increased from 2001 to 2006 by 57%.[3] ". This confuses the issue of benefits per disabled vet with the number of disabled vets as well as that of overall vet benefits and disability benefits. Government disability benefit payments have increased because of a greater number of disabled veterans as a result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Amadeust 16:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As it was, the statement might as well have said, "Bernie Sanders accused the administration of actively trying to cut the price of fruit, when in fact the price of apples increased from 2001 to 2006 by 57%", except that the specificity of apples was left out. One has little to do with the other. The statement assigns motive to a trend and leaving out the specificity behind the statistic makes the statement factually incorrect. The statement in its entirety is misinformation. Amadeust 21:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flagrant Vandalism

On April 6th, Pasboudin made a heavy edit to the article, erasing a number of factual examples of events in regard to Sanders' positions with the Bush Administration. Pasboudin explained with, "is this a wikipedia entry or richard tarrant's campaign site?" (see history). He gives no further explaination, and thus shows his intent is to inject POV in violation of wiki rules. The examples given are factual, have citations, and are not disputed by Pasboudin. He has erased these examples serveral times, showing further intent to vandalize the article.

The examples given are not only cited, most citations come directly from Sanders' own website, and use direct quotes from him as their basis. I cannt think of any more neutral examples of a person's beliefs and positions than their own words! My suggestion is that should Pasboudin disgaree with the examples cited, he add his own rather than erasing others' work. -- User 71.161.193.55

[edit] POV dispute

I removed sections I saw as POV, but tried to leave what I could in. Generally, the phrasing is a criticism of Sanders that does not belong here. For one this is a section on Sanders's relations with the Bush administration section, not a criticism section. Two, these sections generally imply that Sanders is a liar. This is not good practice. If Sanders has lied, please cite a source making this accusation. Digging up Sanders's comments and then citing information and saying it contradicts Sanders (which in this case is a hard argument to make) violates POV. Also, the this link does not mention an intention to migrate people from Commodity Supplemental Food Program.

Please do not accuse other users of vandalism over a POV dispute. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what vandalism is.--Bkwillwm 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply because comments or observations are critical of Sanders does not indicate POV. In fact, exactly the opposite is true, in that, only allowing comments which cast Sanders in a positive light does indicate POV. The editor I refer to, Pasboudin, states the reason for his edit is that the Sanders article resembles Rich Tarrant's campaign website. What I attempted to do in adding additional information regarding Sanders is to present multiple POV's so as to retain neutrality, a wikipedia goal. If information listed indicates Sanders is a liar, yet is accurate, then any reader may reach the conclusion that he is. That's up to the reader.

Take the latest addition regarding Commodity Food Program. Sanders did make the comments attributed to him. He does fail to mention the migration plan, which is cited in the reference. Therefore, remving it because it does not meet with your political approval is vandalism. Hence I call Vandalism when it occurs.---User 71.161.193.55

The reference you provided makes no mention of a Commodity Food Program. I searched the page for "commodity" and that word isn't even used. If Sanders failed to mention it, you should probably find a source that says its true. Anyway, this isn't the place to criticize politicians for failing to mention things. If they are criticized in other sources, it's worth reporting. But Wikipedia isn't the best place for original criticisms. Also, in general, Sanders seems to be speaking of cuts in individual benefits while you are saying that the overall program funding increased. This is VERY misleading. In fact, in the Sanders's HUD article he says "At a time when Congress increased funding for the administration of the Section 8 rental assistance program by 15%, it is unconscionable that HUD unilaterally decided to cut this program for Vermont Housing Authorities by 13 to 19 percent." Otherwise, he acknowledges that Section got a funding increase, but criticized the administration for cutting a specific program. You make it seem like the funding increase for Section 8 contradicts what Sanders said. This exteremely misleading and disingenious. Please do not spread misinformation on Wikipedia.--Bkwillwm 07:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The citation of reference is listed after the note of an increase in Food Stamp spending, and therefore the article does not need to mention the Commodity Food Program. The source does indicate an increase in that program, and therefore is a correct citation. I did not critize Sanders for not mentioning, he simply did not. Therefore, the statement remains correct and unbiased. You are correct in that Sanders use of mentioning cuts in specific spending while failing to note overall increases in general program spending is misleading, which is why it merits notation. I have no issue with the inclusion of additional quotes from Sanders in the article itself, please add them there instead of the talk page.

Your observation that Sanders notes a cut "Since" the Administration cut one specfic program is speculative, and is POV, please do not include it. You have no idea why Sanders chose to say it. I agree misinformation hould not be part of Wiki, that is why I attempt to show a balanced view. --User 71.161.193.55

You accuse me of being "speculative" about Sanders's reasoning for claiming cuts in the Section 8 program. However, my interpretation is based on reading his article in which he acknowledges that there has been an overall increase in the program but then refers to a specific Vermont program. I am not speculating, just following what the source you provided says. You, however, are speculating when you say "One may conclude Sanders intends to create the belief that Bush has little regard for the welfare of seniors and the poor." This statement follows Sanders's criticism of the Commodity Food Program and implies the purpose of this criticism. This is far worse speculation and it's POV.

Also, I clarified Sander's argument in the Section 8 press release stating that he never claims an overall decrease in Section 8 funding, and I give one of his stated reasons for criticizing the Bush Administration's management of HUD. Why did you feel that this should be removed? It only clarified what otherwise might come across as POV.--Bkwillwm 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Reference to concerns of Vermont Authorities in ths article is inappropriate, as the article is on Bernie Sanders, and the section itself is relations with Bush Adminstration, not with Vermont Officials. The Sanders' quote regarding the Section 8 program is that Bush is dismantling it, and does not speak about any specific program, therefore later comments by Sanders do not alter that. As stated before, by all means add additional information you regard as relevant, without vandalizing others' work. The note that Sanders is trying to frame Bush as uncaring is noted directly in the text of the article, and therefore is not speculative. What one concludes is up to them, and is not POV.

Actually Bkwillwm, you do not provide any stated reason, as the quote referenced, "cannot comprehend what goes on in the mind..." was added by me. I did not remove any quote from Sanders placed by anyone. Please refrain from additional vandalism. --User 71.161.193.55

The program Sanders talks about is a Vermont part of Section 8. He claims that they have gotten a funding cut while Section 8 has increased funding nationally. The article which is the source for your quote is entitled "SANDERS BLASTS BUSH’S HOUSING SECRETARY ON HOUSING CUTS IN VERMONT" This article obviously deals with the state cuts, and not including the information takes the quote out of context. As for the speculation that Sanders is trying to frame Bush as uncaring, what article do you mean? You do not cite an article but instead a video as the source of the quotation.

Regarding your accusations of vandalism, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, a policy which states "A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment—if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism." If you actually think I'm committing vandalism, please contact an administrator.--Bkwillwm22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Bkwilliam, it seems that you have contacted an administrator in recruiting your friend Heah to protect the article so you may edit it and I cannot. Therefore, I have requested comments from Wiki peers, and would request you restore the deleted information until concensus can be reached. Also, I request that we call a truce, and refrain from further edits here until that time. Agreed? Straightinfo 08:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not recruit Heah. I don't know him at all. I have not worked with him before. You broke the 3 revert rule. I posted a complaint, and he responded. I don't like having people blocked, but you continued edit warring. Heah decided it would be easiest just to protect the article rather than block you, which is fine. I think you just need to realize you have to address others' complaints; you cannot continously revert. The claims of POV in your text have been made by several people, not just me. Several other users have tried removing POV which you restored without trying to compromise. If you would like to propose a compromise text we can agree on, I will add it to the article. Otherwise, I will leave the article as is while there is page protection.--Bkwillwm 10:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was no violation of the three revert rule, as you well know, reversion of vandalism is does not count, explicitly. I have addressed your complaint, several times. I found your complaint to be without merit, as you seem to feel that POV rule says that no comment which contains both sides of a dispute, when it relates to George Bush, is acceptible. This is not a violation of the POV rule, it is POV. Since you have declined to the truce, I will move to the next step. Straightinfo 15:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at Wikipedia:Vandalism again. The 3 revert rule only excludes simple vandalism, and edits involving NPOV disputes are not simple vandalism. I am also perfectly fine with criticism of Sanders, but selective use of information that results in a onesided view is POV and inaccurate. Also, language like "Sanders fails to" is considered POV language, which should also be avoided. I think issues like this could be discussed and compromise reached if you wanted to discuss the text.--Bkwillwm 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying something is a NPOV dispute, does not make it so. If I had said "Bernie lies about Bush", that would be POV. If you had changed the items in question in a way that you felt more neutral, that would be a fair edit, perhaps. However, simply yanking half the paragraph in such a way that it removes both the overall context of the statement, and only presents Sanders point of view without that of his target, IS POV, and is [Vandalism]. You are not adding anything, you are simply removing it, and one the parts you don't like.

I appriciate your effort to actually edit, rather than remove, the Supplimental Food Program item, and I have further reivsed the language, taking into account your specific concern. Perhaps you could explain how adding the Bush perspective is automatically POV? Straightinfo 23:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

So, it pretty much looks like all criticism has been removed by Sander's supporters within Wikipedia. Haizum 04:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bkwillwm Vandalism

Great, now you're editing my talk here, too. Bottom line is, you love Sanders, and don't wish anything critical said about him. Too bad, start your own blog. All you've done so far is remove what I've added, claiming it is biased or makes Sanders look bad. I'm using direct quotes from Sanders, backing up each comment with a verifiable source, and giving both sides of the issue. If that makes Sanders look bad, tough. He is what he is, he is confrontational and controversial, and proud of both. What I see as vandalsim is repeatedly removing the same lines time after time, despite explainations that these lines are accurate and why. There is no personal attack, however you are rsponsible for what you do.

Criticism of Sanders, or any public official is fair game. However, what I've written is balanced, and sourced. The quote from Sanders regarding Food Stamp cuts does not reference Vermont. If you wish to add a Vermont quote to the appropriate section, do so, by all means. Wether Sanders is a liar or not remains up to the reader, I give facts, not conclusions. My suggestion that Sanders intends to cast Bush as uncaring is referenced BY A SANDERS' QUOTE which indicates this. I go by what Sanders says, not what may or may not be inferred.

---

User 71.161.193.55

The quote about Section 8 is from a press release in response to cuts to the Vermont Housing Authority. I have tried to put the quote in context, saying that it is, in part a response to this cut, AND also indictating that funding for Section 8 increased this year. Without a reference to the Vermont housing cut, it makes it seem like Sanders is criticizing Bush for cuts that haven't been made. This isn't the case and is selective use (and abuse) of the quotation and information. Also, you speculate, "One may conclude Sanders intends to create the belief that Bush has little regard for the welfare of seniors and the poor." However, nowhere in the quote does Sanders say he intends to create this belief. He only says that he cannot comprehend this situation. Also, your transcription of the quote was inaccurate. I provided another. As for the acccusations of vandalism, etc., article talk pages aren't intended for personal disputes.--Bkwillwm 00:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, once again, you insert your opinion (POV) into why Bernie spoke regarding the CSFP, saying it was because of Vermont cuts. You have no idea why he spoke, and there is no supporting reference. Also, the quote refers Sanders accusing Bush of trying to "dismantle the Section 8 rental assistance program one piece at a time", when that simply isn't factual and is misleading. If you beleive it is selective, add to it, don't erase it. Don't accuse me of "abuse of information", whatever that is.

Says you, the quote is inaccurate, I say it is not only accurate, it is precisly verbatim. You repeatedly revert what I added despite my request that you add to, and not erase or replace, what has been written. You continue to claim that my writing is POV, when it actually presents both sides of the issue, and each quote is fully referenced for accuracy. I call you a vandal, because that's what you are. Not only that, I deeply resent you reporting me to wiki for "refusing to this discuss seriously". For that reason, I will no longer explain myself to you, since it appears that is a waste of time. --user 71.161.193.55

Anon user, could you please sign with the IP address you are using and a timestamp via "--~~~~" without the quotes. It seems you are making up IP address and signing with them to create the appearance of multiple users disputing these edits. For the record the IP in the history is 64.223.121.83 (talk • contribs) --waffle iron 01:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

My IP rotates, it isn't on purpose. I use the name because it was the one we began with. --User 71.161.193.55 9:38 PM, April 11, 2006 (EST)

You used an entirely different IP from those two to sign on my talk page that doesn't match 65.199.22.160. You can see how that doesn't come off so well. I suggest you register an account. --waffle iron 01:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove other users comments on talk pages. This is regarded as vandalism under WP:VAND --waffle iron 02:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making personal attacks on you. I'm informing you of the wikipedia policies on vandalism. Please do not remove other people's comments on talk pages. --waffle iron 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV template

I've flagged this article for NPOV problems because the edit warring seriously reducing the quality and readibility of the article. I say the whole thing needs to be paired down and rewritten with coorperation and discussion on the talk page. --waffle iron 01:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What exactly has been reduced with the editing? I added information some time ago, Bkwillwm has removed it several times, I added it back, what is the issue? 64.223.121.83 01:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commodity Supplemental Food Program Section

In trying to reach compromise on this section, I posted a new verision of the text which I think should be satisfactory. I removed "Sanders fails to mention" since this is POV language, but I included the fact that the Bush administration attempts to migrate some of the CSFP users. I also removed "One may conclude Sanders intends to create the belief that Bush has little regard for the welfare of seniors and the poor." This is also POV, and no where in the quote cited by the anon IP does Sanders say he intends to create any belief. Also, I changed the text of the "cannot comprehend" quote, since the original transcribed verision is inaccurate (the source for the quote is an audio clip). At the very least, an accurate transcription should be used.--Bkwillwm 04:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Transcript is accurate and verbatim, comprimise not acceptible, no POV exists, see Bkwillwm Vandalism Straightinfo 06:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The transcript is incorrect, albeit not significantly. What's wrong with keeping the new verision of the quote? Also, what do you object to in the new verision of the section? Wikipedia is about compromise and consensus. Articles will be changed and insisting on one's personal verision of an article rarely works. Take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus.--Bkwillwm 07:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Summary?

I came here because someone put this on the RfC politics page "Talk:Bernie Sanders Dispute over information added on Sanders relationship with Bush Adminstration. 07:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)". Could the RfC be summaried concisely with a for and again arguments listed? Thx. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only give a quick summary right now, but this link demonstrates most of the differences between the two disputed verisions. User:Straightinfo, who only recently created an account and edited the page with dynamic IPs, has been restoring the older verision, which myself and others have found to not be NPOV.

Claimed non-NPOV in Straightinfo's verision:

• Takes the mention of Section 8 benefits out of context. Sanders's press release acknowledges overall increases in funding to the program, but he mainly criticizes the cuts to his state under the program. Leaving this out implies Sanders criticism is unfounded since Bush has increased funding to the program overall.
• The Veteran's benefits section contains another criticism by Sanders that Bush has cut benefits to soldiers (this has been cited in past verisions as true), but the supposedly POV verision says that Bush actually increased funding to the program, implying Sanders lied or was wrong. However, this confuses cuts to benefits (specific payments paid out to soldiers) with funding for the entire program.
• The section on food supplements also has the pattern of implied contradictions that missuse citations. It also includes POV language like "While it is correct to say that the program is eliminated by the proposed FY2007 budget, Sanders fails to mention the Administration's intention to migrate clients of CSF program to the Food Stamp Program." I have replaced this with other language and a more accurate transcription of the cited source (a Sanders video).

Straightinfo has not attempted to compromise on these NPOV policy complaints and has argued that his verision is fine. Straightinfo has solicited comments on this issue. He, and I, would like to know if my complaints of NPOV violations are justified and which verision (including other alternative verisions) of this section is desirable.--Bkwillwm 03:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Claimed POV in Bkwillwm's version:

• Sanders acutally claims that Bush is systematically tearing down section 8, check the referenced link. Sanders does speak about cuts in Vermont, but this section is about relations with Bush, not with Vermont Housing. In fact, Vermont Housing ultimately recieved no such cut. That Bkwillwm admits that Bush increased funding to Section 8 makes it awfully difficult that it may be POV to say so.
• I have seen no version which demonstrates that Bush has cut any benefits to any veteran, at least in an objective way, such as a budget document. I have seen concerns that this might be true, but nothing to indicate that it in fact is. Once again, I am making an attempt to be NPOV by presenting both sides. Bkwillwm does not feel presenting both sides is appropriate, which baffles me.
• In the section on food suppliments, Bkwillwm feels I "misuse" citations. I don't even understand what that means. Either the citation says what I say it says, or it doesn't. Including accurate citations cannot be a "misuse". I further don't understand what is POV about "It is correct to say.." when , well, it is correct. Bkwillwm does not take issue with the accuracy, only that it one may or may not make conclusions regarding Sanders after reading the information. Oh, and the "more accurate transcription" is that he added another line to the quote. The quote was accurate to begin with.

I'm not really sure what compromise I'm supposed to make when the reverts consist of just erasing comments with little explaination. Would just leaving a list of Sanders' complaints with no alternatate views be a compromise? That sounds like a recipe for NPOV to me. Curiously, Bkwillwm takes no issue with a balanced approach taken in the Relations with House section, which was not written by me. Straightinfo 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Many citations used by Straightinfo are wrong. They don't apply to the statements at hand and therefore, I have gone through and removed them. Simply citing something doesn't make it useful. The citation has to be in context and actually support the statement. None of the following citations apply. When I challenged Straightinfo about them, I only got reverted with a comment that he was fixing the "vandalism".

• The latter part of the statement, "In 2004, the Congressman accused President Bush of attempting to "dismantle the Section 8 rental assistance program one piece at a time" [6], despite approval of a budget for that program of $1.8 billion over what the administration had requested that year.[7]" is actually negated by the citation because it shows that the House-Senate Conference Committee approved a budget larger than that requested by the Bush administration. This would support Sanders' notion that the Bush administration was trying to underfund it! Therefore, the word despite makes the statement false. The citation supports Sanders position and not the Bush administration's. I have trimmed the statement back until it was a true statement again.
• The statement, "Further, in a piece written for TPM Cafe.com [8], Sanders accused the Bush Administration of "actively trying to cut veterans benefits", when in fact, Federal Government benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs increased from 2001 to 2006 by 57%.[9]" is plain false. The citation is taken completely out of context as it refers to the increase in veteran disability payments over that period and not overall veteran benefits of which disability benefits are only a part. Disability payment increases have been due to the increase in disabled veterans during this period due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and not due to the Bush administrations work in raising per veteran level of disability coverage. This entire statement has disappeared recently but I will include without the latter part and citation because it supports the "Relations with the Bush Administration" section.
• The statement, "However, it should be noted that the suggestion of Bush's involvment comes from indicted former Vice-Presidental aide, Scooter Libby,and there is no wide acceptance of this allegation as fact.[14]" is no longer current since Bush himself has recently stated that he declassified the document in question. Besides that, nowhere in citation 14 did it state that "there is no wide acceptance of this allegation as fact" which is why the citation is there in the first place. This is a citation that does not support its statement.
• I am not motivated enough to put in the time to research the Commodity Supplemental Food Program paragraph but given Straightinfo's prior edits, have doubt about his position on this.

The issues I raise are not POV issues to me. They are issues of factual accuracy. There is simply no support in the citations given and in one instance the citation actually supports the opposite of what was stated. Amadeust 01:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No challenge was issued to me or anyone else that I know of about the citations I listed for the Sanders Article. Simply, when I read the article, it was noted by [User:Amadeust|Amadeust] that the citations were "bad", and portions of the article just disappeared. Therefore, I felt the article had been vandalized, and restored the missing portions.

• As the citation in Section 8 comment does not in any way refer to the House-Senate commitee, what they did or did not do is not relevant to that section. Also, had they in fact, passed a larger budget than had been recommended, that fact would not change in any way wether Bush been tring to dismantle anything, and therefore the comment remains true and acurate in its' entirety as was posted prior to the erasure.
• Sanders did say Bush was actively trying to cut veteran's benefits, as Amaduest points out, but then claims the statement regarding increases in benefits is untrue. However, his explanation says that increases are related to payments made were made to Afghanistan and Iraq War veterans. If this is true, then we both agree that benefits Italic textwereItalic text increased, and therefore the statement erased is quite accurate.
• The statement about the disclosure and Libby's claim that Bush was involved say Sanders says Bush did so "to discredit an Iraq War critic". Since Bush did not indiciate that to be the case, and no court has made any determination as to why Bush may have declassified that information, it is not generally accepted that Sanders' statement is factual.

As I have stated above to BKwillwm several times, each statement in the Relations with Bush Administration are well cited and each citation relates directly to, and clearly demonstrates the accuracy of, the statement it supports, as anyone reading them will plainly see. The statements are there to indicate both sides of each controversy and maintain NPOV. It appears Amadeust is not an advocate of the Bush Administration, and does not enjoy seeing statements which may serve to support it, however, in order to maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia, it is essential that they be included. To Amadeust, I would suggest, that you contribute to, rather than eliminate, portions of an article with which you disagree, in that way, Wikipedia becomes a more useful source of information to all. Straightinfo 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Straightinfo, the main problem I see with your proposals is that they seem to be original research. If the Bush administration has objected to Sanders's characterizations, summarize and link to those. If a Republican columnist has criticized Sanders's characterizations, summarize and link to that. Otherwise, this isn't the place to get into a dispute over whether Sanders is right.

What I don't understand is why the section is in the article at all. It has stuff that has nothing to with Bush (like Greenspan). The lengthy speechifying isn't appropriate. I've consolidated it with the equally misnamed "relationship with house democrats" section. -- FRCP11 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

Sorry for the slow response.

In regards to "User:Straightinfo, who only recently created an account and edited the page with dynamic IPs, has been restoring the older verision, which myself and others have found to not be NPOV." -- I have a dynamic IP and I regularly do not sign in to Wikipedia thus I don't find this bad in and of itself, but opinions vary.

From this diff I was pointed at (this link) I can make the following comments:

1. This passage is original research: "While it is correct to say that the program is eliminated by the proposed FY2007 budget, Sanders fails to mention the Administration's intention to migrate clients of CSF program to the Food Stamp Program, with a budget increase from 3.4 Billion to 3.6 Billion from FY2006 to FY2007.[4] One may conclude Sanders intends to create the belief that Bush has little regard for the welfare of seniors and the poor." It would be best to find a quote in an outside source which makes this argument rather than making it yourself.

1. The portion of the sentence after "but" isn't supported by a citation in the following sentence: "The program is eliminated by the proposed FY2007 budget, but the administration says it will use the Food Stamp Program to cover cases similar to those under the CSFP." (emphasis added)

In regards to:

"The statement, "Further, in a piece written for TPM Cafe.com [8], Sanders accused the Bush Administration of "actively trying to cut veterans benefits", when in fact, Federal Government benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs increased from 2001 to 2006 by 57%.[9]" is plain false. The citation is taken completely out of context as it refers to the increase in veteran disability payments over that period and not overall veteran benefits of which disability benefits are only a part. Disability payment increases have been due to the increase in disabled veterans during this period due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and not due to the Bush administrations work in raising per veteran level of disability coverage. This entire statement has disappeared recently but I will include without the latter part and citation because it supports the "Relations with the Bush Administration" section."

I can see the problem with the sentence at issue -- the second part of the sentence is just plain disengenious as written. I would mention something like "NET benefits have increased by X but, because of the increasing pool of veterans, benefits per capital have decreased by X." If you mention both the reader gets to understand the full context.

In regards to:

"The statement about the disclosure and Libby's claim that Bush was involved say Sanders says Bush did so "to discredit an Iraq War critic". Since Bush did not indiciate that to be the case, and no court has made any determination as to why Bush may have declassified that information, it is not generally accepted that Sanders' statement is factual."

It would be best to say "critics A, B and C claim that Bush disclosed D to discredit E because E was a critic of the Iraq War" -- thus it is clear who is making the claims about Bush's disclosure. Also be sure that the people you mention are credible individuals (even better if they have Wikipedia entries you can link to so others can get background info to determine their reliability) who are making the claim in reputable sources -- i.e. New York Times, WSJ, WashPost, etc.

Please be aware that I pretty much have no prior background in this subject or an opinion. The trick to Wikipedia is to find high quality sources and string them together in an organized fashion with as little editorializing or distortion as possible. Hope that helps and remember that my opinion is not binding. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Some examples:

One may conclude Sanders intends to create the belief that Bush has little regard for the welfare of seniors and the poor. In fact, Sanders says so in that

Who is this "one"?

However, it should be noted that the suggestion of Bush's involvment comes from indicted former Vice-Presidental aide, Scooter Libby,and there is no wide acceptance of this allegation as fact.

Citing one source does not substantiate such a claim as to dictate what is wide acceptance and what isn't.

of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, immediately endorsed Sanders. Schumer's backing was critical, as it likely means that any Democrat running against Sanders cannot expect to receive any significant financial backing from the national Democratic party.

A fun assumption. Has anyone said anything to substantiate this claim?

Sanders is heavily favored to win, especially after Republican governor Jim Douglas, widely believed to be the only Republican who could possibly defeat him, decided against a Senate run. Lieutenant Governor Brian Dubie, who had previously planned to challenge Sanders, withdrew from the race October 26, 2005.

Another "wide" smudgy phrasing.
These are the major ones. There are a few lesser indefinite wordings that lend themselves weasel wording.
On a related POV note: what is this?

According to the leftist magazine In These Times,

That is awfully close to the usage of the word "liberal" as a slur. --sigmafactor 00:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In response:

• The "one" you refer to, should be interpreted to mean "anyone".
• There is no wide acceptance as to why information was released, either in a way which would make Sanders' statement correct or incorrect.
• That there will be no strongly supported Democratic Senate Candidate in Vermont has been reported time and again in Vermont newspapers, and no such candidate exists at this time. In fact, as Howard Dean, the National Chairman of the Democratic Party has endorsed Sanders, it is not only likely that there will be no widely supported candidate, it makes it almost impossible.
• It has been reported, again, many many times, that a Jim Douglas candidacy would be problematic for Sanders.
• In These Times Magazine refers to itself as a leftist magazine, and has no problem with this.

Straightinfo 15:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC bonus response

I tend to agree that the first 4 cited examples contain unnecessary editorializing -- I wouldn't be able to get away with this on the Middle East related articles I've been editing. To the individual who did this: The trick is the find reputable sources that make these arguments and then just string quotes from those sources together to make the case rather than trying to make the argument yourself.

It would be best to describe In These Times in the manner it is described in its lead sentence on its Wikipedia page -- this moves the fight over how to characterize ITT to its own page rather than blending it into this article. The technical term for negatively describing a source when introducing it is poisoning the well. --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 01:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question to Wikipedians

Bernie came to speak to a class of 30 or so of us students when I was in high school back in 1993/94. I don't have exact quotes from the discussion, but I got a sense of what he stood for. For example he was anti gun control, but was otherwise a "social liberal". Can I add a section about his views, partially using what I learned about him during his visit to my high school? Attila226 16:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source, you heresay isn't valid. Find quotes from him or newspaper articles or books that describe his positions. See WP:RS --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! What constitutes a reliable source? For example, I have often seen other news websites used as a source on Wikipedia, but who's to say if a website is reputable or not? Attila226 19:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:RS.  :-) --LuckyLittleGrasshopper 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accidentially Removed Content

I tried to edit the article, but I think I accidentally removed some content. Sorry.

[edit] Controversy

There is a section entitled "Controversy", that contains, a single statement, reporting a quote in which he cites a statistic. Not sure what the controversy is there if any. Possibly to some people that he reported the statistic is controversial, or there is a dispute as to whether his statement is true, but further explaination is required. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. There is nothing "Controversy" with the statement. It's just hard facts. The person that calls it controversy has some serious problem. The statement should rather be called "Insight". 00:27, 6 November —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2006 213.226.113.215 (talk • contribs).

The issue is fixed/gone now. John Broughton | Talk 13:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox problems

There is some problem about the infobox: it does not accommodate Representative and Senator careers at the same time. – Kaihsu 05:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because a person is not both a senator and a congressman at the same time. He is currently a Congressman and a Senator-elect. Don't worry about fitting everything into a form template. Just take it out of the template and put it in the article where it belongs. —Centrx→talk • 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Centrx, I have removed the protection; it seems a bit too heavy-handed when there are genuine edits but no vandalism. Could you please check your recent revert to a much earlier version, to see whether any new, valuable information added were omitted in the reversion process. Cheers. – Kaihsu 08:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Socialists

Is there a list of how many Socialists have been in the North American Congress, on this website? I'm certain that someone, somewhere, would have one available.

I know that there are several others; however, I don't recall the names. I'm certain that there have been very few that have served since the Second World War {which seems to be confirmed by whomever added this phrase: "...becoming the first independent member of the House since 1950."}. The number f/ the Senate must be far lower in percentage than in the lower house. In this message, when I refer to "Socialist", I refer to those who are:

Self declared Socialist; Formally registered as neither Democrat nor Republican. With this ascension {no Christianity need apply, whatsoever}, this list is more relevant than ever.

This does not help:

list_of_socialists_from_the_United_States_and_Canada.

Thank You. hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 11:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!, Worldlink, Directtv #375, has just said that he's the first {North American} Socialist senator. That's likely accurate; however, that leaves the lower house. hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you or someone else can find a source meeting WP:RS, then certainly the fact that he is the first socialst to be in the U.S. Senate is newsworthy.

There is no such thing as the North American Congress. North America includes Canada and Mexico; there is a U.S. Congress.

You should post this sort of question at the talk page of the list_of_socialists_from_the_United_States_and_Canada, or a talk page about the U.S. House of Representatives and/or the U.S. Congress. This is not the place to discuss socialist politicians in the United States, in general. John Broughton | Talk 21:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Hopiakuta was asking in particular relative to Bernie Sanders, as it would be another noteworthy fact about him, if he were to be the first socialist Senator, as you note above. I think he/she mentioned the Socialists list only to point out that it isn't that helpful in making that determination, since it doesn't list political office held. Edhubbard 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the intro says "He is one of very few self-described democratic socialists elected to federal office in the United States in recent times." Are there any other self-described democratic socialists to be elected to federal office in the U.S. in recent times? As for being the first socialist in the Senate, that's a fact. The (pre-election) Guardian article in the external links says so, as does this post-election Guardian article. The Boston Globe also mentions it. I'm adding this now. Schi 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

Joe Lieberman & Bern each grew-up in Polish Jewish American homes. Joe pulls Congress right; Bern pulls it left. They are each New Englander Independents.

Can we add these facts? Thank You. hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 16:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. If the two biographies don't mention their ethnic backgrounds, that certinaly should be added to each. But the other facts are NOT noteworthy - they are trivia/trivial, in the same way that it's trivial if two people were born on the same date. John Broughton | Talk 21:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I'm confused by this revert. I can't see what vandalism is meant to be reverted here, and I also am not sure which version it was reverted to, but it seems it was many versions back and thus lost many productive edits. I'm going to revert back to this version. Schi 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people confuse a content dispute with WP:VANDALISM. That may be what happened at that diff.

Atlant 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Changing It!

Please stop removing the infobox on Senator-elect Sanders. Every piece of information in it is a fact, it makes the page look more professional, and it is not misleading in any way. If you guys want to keep changing the picture, then whatever, but stopping removing the box. VitaleBaby 02:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should it be kept? He is currently a member of the House of Representatives, he is in the future to become a member of the Senate. Having a form template that says he is a Senator-elect but says nothing about his current position is misleading. These templates are not to be in place of providing accurate information. If you want the article to look more professional, do so, but that does not entail presenting false information in a uniform mass template. —Centrx→talk • 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsensical. The information about his current House term ("current" only in a strictly formal sense, as the House of Representatives will not reconvene again until 2007, by which time Sanders will be gone) is already included in the article lead. See also the infoboxes of Sherrod Brown and Ben Cardin. Every current member of Congress (and many former members) has an infobox. We don't remove them just because they're in transition. Andrew Levine 02:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

All the information is already included in the article lead. The infobox is totally unnecessary for anyone who reads the introduction. Someone who reads only the infobox, however, gets a false impression. It can be okay to have an infobox, but not a misleading one. If you want, add both the current information about him being Congressman, and the information about him being Senator-elect, but having only the information about the Senator-elect is wrong. —Centrx→talk • 02:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should read [5] before thinking there is consensus in favor of User:VitaleBaby's position. —Centrx→talk • 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's important to note both that Sanders is a current Representative and a Senator-elect, the way to proceed is to add that to the infobox instead of obliterating it completely. Infoboxes are there for the readers' convenience, even though the information is almost always duplicated in the article, and longstanding convention for American members of Congress (and Canadian and British MPs) is that they should use them. Andrew Levine 02:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't obliterate it completely. Two days ago, I changed it back to the old one, then it was changed back and, because of the nature of a current events article, it seemed likely that it was revised by random passers-by such that removing the alluring target of those changes would diminish the likelihood of inaccurate information being added to the article. Then it was reverted by someone with no edit summary or user page, such that it could have been an accident, random vandalism, or ignorance, and the user talk page of which now on further inspection has several admonitions for making the same sort of changes. Changing the infobox to include the Senator-elect information and still be accurate would require creating a whole new template. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper; it is not essential that the article reflect—badly—the latest developments. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that you "didn't obliterate it completely" seems to be at odds with this edit and this edit. Secondly, it is not necessary to create a new template, you can do this or do this to add the appropriate optional parameters. And thirdly, I'd say it's pretty essential that the infobox be up-to-date. Encyclopedias are not newspapers, but they are expected to be timely, especially since people often search Wikipedia to find quick info on names in the news. Andrew Levine 03:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See instead [6] and [7]. Are you suggesting that I make Infobox Congressman into an infobox for senators and Infobox Senator into an infobox for congressmen? The information in the article is timely, but the infobox implies he is not currently a congressman. What do you propose should be changed for the infobox to include the proper information? If one were to put "Senator-elect" under the "Member of the U.S. House of Representatives" and then also have the term expiry, would also be misleading. What is wrong with having the infobox be the primary, current position, and the election to senator be in the article? —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You could try tinkering with this until it comes out looking the way you prefer, with cells that only appear if the "term in senate" parameter is used, and then copy it onto the main Congressman template. However you get the information about him being both a Representative and a Senator-elect across, just don't remove the infobox completely and then deny having ever done it. That's my main problem here. I'm not sure of the relevance of the two oldids you just provided, but the fact is that in addition to those two edits you did remove the template from the article completely, twice, and that is what I do not agree with. Andrew Levine 04:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)