Jump to content

Talk:Bernie Sanders

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBernie Sanders was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Bernie Sanders and Marxism

[edit]

It strikes me that this article gives very little importance to Bernie Sanders' previous Marxist orientation. While I understand that in today's political climate "Marxist" is almost a swear word to many people, the fact remains that Karl Marx and his teachings have been a huge part of the working class movement for most of the last 177 years. I believe that Bernie Sanders did at one time consider himself a Marxist, but this article does not address this. Obviously he has evolved considerably since he was first the "socialist mayor of Burlington,"

In this article, however, there is just a tiny hint of any real Marxist associations by Sanders. It is stated in a single sentence that Sanders served as elector for the Socialist Workers Party in 1980. This is true, I can testify, because at the time I was a member of the SWP and went petitioning in Vermont (Bennington) to get the party on the ballot. Bernie Sanders' name was at the top of every petition and in fact helped us get a lot of signature. People would say, "Yeah, I know Bernie," and sign cheerfully.

Of course, I acknowledge that Sanders was not "close" to the SWP at this time. We never saw him in Albany, N.Y., where there was a very active branch of the party from maybe 1977 to some time in the 1980s.

I imagine the person who wrote the original article might favor Sanders as a "democratic socialist" and therefore fear or wish to dismiss any association of the Senator with the Marxist movement, the SWP, etc. However, I think in the interests of truth and honesty, it is only correct to include the celebrity Senator's former connection with Marxist thinking and actual Marxists. It was part of his evolution. 169.156.21.184 (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons, Wikipedia does not consider the personal opinions and analyses of anonymous editors to be reliable sources. You can start a blog if you want to soapbox. Yue🌙 01:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sanders was never a member of the SWP and said he agreed to be their elector because he thought they should be on the ballot.
Do you have any evidence that Sanders was a Marxist?
Saying someone is a Marxist without qualification doesn't say much because he espoused many conflicting views and they have been interpreted in diverse ways. It's a bit like calling someone today a Jeffersonian. TFD (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Man and Woman"

[edit]

So, in 1970, Bernie wrote an article titled ""Man and Woman" the Vermont Freeman, a very obscure political publication. Normally that'd be not worth mentioning, except that Sanders opened the article with

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused. A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously. The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church...

And there's a bit more stuff of a rather prurient nature. How much is true or not doesn't much matter and it's in support of a reasonable article about gender roles, but that's not the point.

The point is that this particular passage was picked up (a lot later) by popular publications and became quite notable. Some of the refs for this -- there are others -- are:

And there're plenty of other article in publications of similar notability and lesser but still significant notablity, some of which are also reasonably neutralish tho some are not.

Does all this confer sufficent notability for us to include material on the incident? Yes. Yes, it does. I can't see the as subject to reasonable debate -- look at those refs in highly notable publications. Nor is it emphemara, trivia that will have no interest or use for readers even into the future.

I think that all this is pretty much tempest-in-a-teapot bullshit and many of you do too I'm sure. However, that has no bearing at all on whether we consider it notable enough to include, or shouldn't. George H. W. Bush vomiting incident is tempest-in-a-teapot bullshit but we have a whole article about it, and many others I am sure -- Jimmy Carter rabbit incident etc etc, and why not.

We need to include material about this. Should it be a few sentences (and where), a whole short section, or possibly a separate short article (we do have Bernie Sanders mittens meme after all) -- I dunno, and that's what I'm asking. (We should include exculpatory material too -- Sanders regrets it and so forth.)

Note that if say Speaker Mike Johnson had had this level of discussion in notable publications about writing a passage like this in his past, we would would have a good chunk of material on it, probably a separate article. We need to consider that, because we need to maintain our reputation for ice-cold fair-mindedness. I get it that most of us like Bernie. We can't let that matter.

So... how to proceed, suggestions welcome. Herostratus (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to notability, the impact of that essay doesn't seem to be long-lasting. Even Sanders' opponents rarely bring it up as there's other, more notable details to attack him on. The other topics / Wikipedia articles brought up aren't really relevant per WP:OTHER, but they have articles because of their lasting notability. Wikipedia articles are concise, not holistic, and this detail about him is embarrassing but doesn't seem notable in the grand scheme of things. Yue🌙 15:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are a number of commentaries by various people but no reliable sources that summarize the controversy. News commentaries and analysis are not reliable sources. We cannot therefore write about the controversy in a neutral way, because we don't know what weight to assign to different views.
The fact that an article exists about Sander's mittens cannot be used to defend an article about his 1972 writing. Perhaps the mittens article lacks notability or maybe it had sufficient coverage to write a neutral article.
Anyway, we cannot use this page to determine whether another article should exist, except in case of splitting off large sections of this article to form new articles. TFD (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, comparing this to Bernie's mittens, Bush 41 vomiting, Carter's rabbit, Romney's dog, or imagining a similar situation with Mike Johnson are all whataboutisms. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all this very weak tea. "the impact of that essay doesn't seem to be long-lasting" is your personal opinion (or perhaps personal wish) which has little to do with how we figure if something is worthwhile or not. The WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline), which is quite strongly considered when determining these things, and the nutshell for that is:

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Details are at the link. Note that it says "stand-alone article" and if we don't make one we don't even have to meet the WP:GNG (but we do anyway, by a country mile).

"News commentaries and analysis are not reliable sources" isn't true, and we don't have to pick opinions to valorize or not. We just have to state the facts: 1) he wrote it, and 2) it got famous.

As to Whataboutism,no, it is a "strategy of responding to an accusation" which I'm not responding to anything, I am the initiator here. We are allowed in our conversations here to use examples when making points and it can be useful (as here).

I mean, I like Bernie too. That has nothing to do with what I am doing here and it shouldn't have anything do with what any of us are doing here. I expect that what we're seeing a partisan quick defense, which, fine, that's human. (And if it's just a matter of not having a strong grasp of Wikipedia:Notability, fine, that could be fixed with some reading). But let's take a breath and think about this some more.

Because we have got a problem here and my goal here is to do my tiny part to help ensure that if and when our charity status is taken away (which would be quite a blow I think) on grounds that we are a partisan operation rather than a neutral publisher of information for the public good that it not be justifed. That people not be like "Well, looking at the facts, I have to say that it kind of served them right" and be to a degree correct. Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders&oldid=1295316468"