I JethroBT (talk | contribs) →Revisiting my close of Religion in infobox RfC: new section |
|||
Line 239: | Line 239: | ||
::::::::People pretend Hitler was elected to justify the carpet bombing of German cities and towns in 1940. ([[Special:Contributions/5.81.222.45|5.81.222.45]] ([[User talk:5.81.222.45|talk]]) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)) |
::::::::People pretend Hitler was elected to justify the carpet bombing of German cities and towns in 1940. ([[Special:Contributions/5.81.222.45|5.81.222.45]] ([[User talk:5.81.222.45|talk]]) 00:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)) |
||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
||
== Revisiting my close of [[Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_13#Request_for_comments_--_religion_in_infobox|Religion in infobox RfC]] == |
|||
Hey folks. Apologies for bugging y'all about this again; I suspect we're all more or less exhausted of dealing with it. A handful of people have approached me about my close of this discussion with questions. Some I've been able to resolve through discussion (e.g. [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_21#Talk:Bernie_Sanders.23Request for comments -- religion in infobox|here]], [[User_talk:I_JethroBT#Wrong_Decision on Sanders|and here]]) and some from {{u|Xenophrenic}} that I haven't ([[User talk:I JethroBT#Notice|these comments]], [[User_talk:Xenophrenic/sandbox2|this list of arguments against my close]]). Having reviewed the RfC again with the arguments in mind, here are the main conclusions I've come to: |
|||
*The RfC asked whether the infobox should read "Jewish" for the religion parameter. Much discussion was dedicated to the fundamental question of whether Sanders is religiously Jewish or not. With relevant guidelines, this was the primary lens I used to weigh arguments. To a lesser degree, there was also discussion about whether this information is appropriate for the infobox given the nature of the coverage available. I neglected to incorporate this factor into the arguments I weighed, and consequently, my closure statement. |
|||
*A reasonable argument was forwarded that coverage and direct speech related to Sanders' religious affiliation is fairly complicated, and that when we run into this kind of coverage (and there is a lot of it), we should consider describing it in prose. This approach allows for the varied perspectives present in reliable sources on this aspect of Sanders' life. Given the conflictory nature of reliable sources discussing Sanders' religion, the imprecise nature of the term "Jewish" as it can relate to something other than religion, the limited direct speech from Sanders on the matter, it makes a great deal of sense to represent coverage of this particular facet of Sanders' biography in the article body rather than in the infobox. |
|||
I've struck the final section of my prior RfC close, and have will refer to this section here. On the basis of the above arguments, '''consensus was to exclude the religion parameter from the biography infobox,''' which I will go ahead and do after posting this. |
|||
Finally, thanks to the editors who earnestly approached me on my RfC close and helped keep the conversation productive. I really, really appreciate it. With that said, I ask that any further concerns about this RfC be brought to the [[WP:AN|administrator's noticeboard]] for review from others; I feel like I have spent enough time and thought with this specific issue, and will not be commenting on it any further. [[User:I JethroBT|<b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b>]][[User talk:I JethroBT| <sup>drop me a line</sup>]] 07:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:32, 26 March 2016
Bernie 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What are the requirements of WP:BLPCAT , WP:SELFPUB, and WP:CAT/R?
Either drop this or challenge the closure |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Regarding the press packet, per WP:SELFPUB, you have to establish "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity", right? Or is your claim that this part of the Sanders BLP is not supposed to be "based primarily on such sources"? Feel free to move these questions, and any answer you may have, up to the discussion section of the RFC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's a RS. Just as all the other RSs that exist online which state Sanders' Judaism is not religion-related, rather, heritage-related. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon, you referred in this section to WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." But did you quote that in the RFC, or refer to WP:CAT/R? If not, then the closer may not consider it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Just the fact alone that there's so much argument here over whether Sanders is religiously Jewish is enough to say that we should just leave it out of the Infobox. People can read the article to learn about Sanders' religious and cultural heritage and beliefs. There are people whom it would be very easy to label "Religion: Jewish," but Sanders is clearly a more difficult case. Just let people read the body of the article, and let's quit this useless argument - it does nothing to improve the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Either this discussion needs to be dropped or taken to a formal closure review. The RFC was had, input was made, the arguments have been done to death. The decision was made and it looks to me like the right policy related decision. Discussing it here further is unproductive. Has anyone put this before a relevant notice board for review? If not, there's no further use for discussion. SPACKlick (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
Hitler quote
Hitler never won an election. The quotation by Sanders should be corrected. (81.135.14.93 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- Yeah, we can't possibly allow Sanders' words to stand on their own. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Or we could all read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and consider that some systems choose whoever wins the plurality instead of the majority, instead of assuming that all elections work just like they do in the United States.
Hitler won the most votes in the 1932 election, and again the following year -- in other words, he won those elections. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hitler never won an election, and Sanders is wrong about this. In the final free election the Nazis lost support. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- This was discussed before. Technically, first ministers in constitutional democracies are appointed by the head of state, but reliable sources generally use the term "elected," even when their party fails to obtain a majority of votes or seats as happened with David Cameron's first "election" as PM. Furthermore policy does not allow us to provide our own spin on what people say. TFD (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- A note should be added to say that Hitler never won an election. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- Hitler was not elected. He was appointed Chancellor. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- Indeed. And David Cameron was not elected PM, he was appointed by the Queen. But reliable sources say he was elected and Wikipedia, in keeping with "Verifiability" policy says that too. If you want to correct this, I suggest you begin by writing a letter to The Times. TFD (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cameron was elected in 2015, but not in 2010 when there was a hung parliament. Hitler was never elected, and there should be a corrective note next to the quotation or it should be removed as it is misleading. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- Indeed. And David Cameron was not elected PM, he was appointed by the Queen. But reliable sources say he was elected and Wikipedia, in keeping with "Verifiability" policy says that too. If you want to correct this, I suggest you begin by writing a letter to The Times. TFD (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hitler was not elected. He was appointed Chancellor. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- A note should be added to say that Hitler never won an election. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- This was discussed before. Technically, first ministers in constitutional democracies are appointed by the head of state, but reliable sources generally use the term "elected," even when their party fails to obtain a majority of votes or seats as happened with David Cameron's first "election" as PM. Furthermore policy does not allow us to provide our own spin on what people say. TFD (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hitler never won an election, and Sanders is wrong about this. In the final free election the Nazis lost support. (86.133.254.42 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- Or we could all read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and consider that some systems choose whoever wins the plurality instead of the majority, instead of assuming that all elections work just like they do in the United States.
Hitler won the most votes in the 1932 election, and again the following year -- in other words, he won those elections. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The Times say Cameron was elected and re-elected.[16] Write a letter to them, get reliable sources to stop it, and stop singling out one person. BTW since Cameron's name did not appear on any ballots except in his own constituency, it is incorrect to say he was elected PM. But that's how the papers phrase it. TFD (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cameron wasn't elected in 2010, which is why there was a coalition government instead of a Conservative government. He was only elected in 2015. Hitler was not elected in 1932, which is why he was not appointed Chancellor until months afterwards in the following year. (81.132.49.31 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
- The prime ministerial system can be really hard to understand, can't it? HGilbert (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cameron wasn't elected in 2010. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- The quote says "Won an election" not "Was elected" Hitler, as leader of the NSDAP won both elections in 1932. He didn't win a majority in either of them but won the plurality in both. SPACKlick (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean he won either of the 1932 elections. If he had he would have been appointed Chancellor in 1932. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- The prime ministerial system can be really hard to understand, can't it? HGilbert (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Was Hitler elected?
That quote is wrong and should be removed. (165.120.157.155 (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC))
- The quote itself is an accurate reproduction from a reliable secondary source (CSM). So it should stay as is. However, a clarifying sentence about Hitler's actual selection as chancellor is probably needed. jxm (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Nazis came in first place in the German federal election, March 1933 by a large margin, though they needed a coalition partner (the fifth place party) to establish a government. Granted it was probably not a "clean" election so clarification is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The election in question was either the German federal election, July 1932 or November 1932, both of which Hitler won as leader of the NSDAP. There's no error in Sanders' statement and there's reliable sourcing that he made the statement. So where's the issue? Note Hitler and his party also won elections in March and November 1933, March 1936 and April 1938, and Hitler himself was elected in his own seat several times from 1925 to 1932. SPACKlick (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The two 1932 elections were "cleaner" than the 1933 one. Clean enough to be considered free? I wouldn't know, I know very little about them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I stand corrected. I had made the edit change based on the existing referenced source (Sathish, [17]), which appears to be a little incomplete on detail. jxm (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hitler was never elected, and in the last fair election (in 1932) his party lost support. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- Hitler was never elected, which is why he did not become Chancellor in 1932. He was appointed in 1933 without an election. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- That appears to be a topic better discussed at the Hitler article. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Including that false claim by Sanders is misleading - the German people never voted Hitler into power. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- It's neither a false claim, nor misleading. This is also not the right article to be arguing that point. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a false claim, because Hitler lost both elections in 1932. Had he not been appointed Chancellor in 1933 by a senile President Hindenberg it's likely the Nazi Party would not have survived. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- It's neither a false claim, nor misleading. This is also not the right article to be arguing that point. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Including that false claim by Sanders is misleading - the German people never voted Hitler into power. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- That appears to be a topic better discussed at the Hitler article. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I stand corrected. I had made the edit change based on the existing referenced source (Sathish, [17]), which appears to be a little incomplete on detail. jxm (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Nazis came in first place in the German federal election, March 1933 by a large margin, though they needed a coalition partner (the fifth place party) to establish a government. Granted it was probably not a "clean" election so clarification is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
People do not elect first ministers into power, they are appointed by heads of state. But reliable sources typically say they are elected. For example an article in CNN yesterday refers to Canadian Prime Minister, who is visiting Washington, as having been elected to that position. Indeed the U.S. president was not elected by the people either, he was selected by a 535 member electoral college. Instead of arguing about it here, you need to develop a guideline that says we must report the de jure rather than de facto process. TFD (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Neither Hitler nor his party were elected to government. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- Misleading? No. I'm fairly certain our readers do not come to the Bernie Sanders article to learn about which political positions Hitler gained through "election", "appointment", "selection", etc., and the information is attributed to Sanders anyway, not presented in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. So there is no issue here. Sanders' point was that he discovered how important politics was after learning about Hitler. He has made the same point during many speeches and in many interviews, often without even using the word "election". It's a non-issue. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hitler was not elected, and 50 million people did not die because he became Chancellor. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 ensured there would be another major war. If it hadn't been Hitler leading Germany in World War II then it would have been someone else. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- This is the third or fourth discussion thread. No first ministers are appointed not elected, but reliable sources generally refer to it as election. And speculation about alternative histories is way beyond the scope of this article. TFD (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- TFD, you do realize that they were all started by the same person, right? 81.135.14.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 86.133.254.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 81.132.49.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 213.122.111.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) = 165.120.157.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for what it's worth. Let me know if you run out of food ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The quotation is too simplistic since Hitler was never elected, and the French invasion of Germany in 1923 ensured World War II far more than his appointment as Chancellor. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
- No. Quotes are quotes. And I checked, Sanders was quoted correctly. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The quotation is too simplistic since Hitler was never elected, and the French invasion of Germany in 1923 ensured World War II far more than his appointment as Chancellor. (213.122.111.147 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC))
Related:
- http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/dictator.htm
- http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9222535/bernie-sanders-hitler-election
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/28/why-you-shouldnt-retweet-sanders-claim-that-hitler-won-an-election/
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Quinnipac poll
Re [18]. I'd think my edit summary was sufficiently explanatory: this is one poll among hundreds, why is that particular one notable? Polls from December of the previous year are useless when it comes to actual general election. Ask any professional pollster or political scientist. This is cherry picked. And this violates WP:NOTNEWS. Why aren't we including all the other polls, or, say, betting odds, from bookmakers? The inclusion of this is obviously for POV reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- The treatment of polls should be broader and more nuanced. It should contextualize them with the limits of polling as an information source[19], Sander's position on the political spectrum[20], their impact on the campaign[21], and the shape of the electorate.[22] Rhoark (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is classic POV-pushing: a cherry-picked poll that tells nothing about the person except saying he is a great candidate. The fact that it happens during an active election campaign makes it worse. The fact that the user who removed the obvious NPOV violation was immediately topic banned makes it much worse. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- MVBW, you probably really shouldn't follow my contributions so much. I mean, personally, I don't care and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but you know that this is Wikipedia and even innocent edits can be made to look sinister by bad faithed editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. I saw this on WP:AE and decided to check what this is all about. This is something I usually do with regard to any editor I know if I see him/her on administrative noticeboards. It just so happens that you appear very frequently on them. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- MVBW, you probably really shouldn't follow my contributions so much. I mean, personally, I don't care and I'm not going to tell you what to do, but you know that this is Wikipedia and even innocent edits can be made to look sinister by bad faithed editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is classic POV-pushing: a cherry-picked poll that tells nothing about the person except saying he is a great candidate. The fact that it happens during an active election campaign makes it worse. The fact that the user who removed the obvious NPOV violation was immediately topic banned makes it much worse. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
But yes, polls should be only included to the extent they're in some way notable in and of themselves. For example, I think it would be perfectly fine to say that most polls predicted Clinton would win Michigan but Sanders pulled a small upset. That was significant and notable and there was a lot of stories out there about "why did the polls get that wrong?" But there's absolutely nothing special or notable about this particular poll - it's not even one of the most respected polling outfits - it's just thrown in there to push a POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Notable Media Portrayals
Hi there! After reading this article (especially the Personal life section wherein it describes Sanders' SNL appearance) would it be appropriate to have a minor "Portrayals" section, "Media Portrayals" section, "in popular culture" section, or something similarly titled? There are plenty of comedians who have done impressions of him, and some are very well-documented in reliable sources. For example:
Larry David is known to have done one for Saturday Night Live:
- http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-larry-david-stars-in-bern-your-enthusiasm-gets-visit-from-sen-bernie-sanders-on-snl-20160207-htmlstory.html
- http://time.com/4211100/bernie-sanders-larry-david-bern-your-enthusiam/
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/07/bernie-sanders-and-larry-david-form-a-dynamic-comedy-duo-on-saturday-night-live.html
- http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2016/02/07/larry-david-and-bernie-sanders-saturday-night-live/
James Adomian is known for his impressions, especially in the "Trump vs Bernie" debate series:
- http://www.salon.com/2015/10/20/no_offense_larry_david_but_this_is_the_best_bernie_sanders_impression_in_the_game/
- http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-vs-bernie-comedy-series-fusion/
- http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate/
- http://www.mediaite.com/online/funny-or-dies-bernie-sanders-proves-hes-not-boring/
- http://splitsider.com/2016/02/watch-james-adomian-and-anthony-atamanuiks-trump-vs-bernie-cnn-interview/
- http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/james-adomian-bernie-sanders-impression/
- http://www.thewrap.com/fusion-launches-trump-vs-bernie-starring-anthony-atamanuik-james-adomian/
- http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2016/02/09/comedians-james-adomian-and-anthony-atamanuik-to-square-off-as-bernie-sanders-and-donald-trump-at-rialto-theatre
and even Jimmy Fallon:
- http://www.salon.com/2016/02/11/look_out_larry_david_jimmy_fallon_just_unleashed_a_killer_bernie_sanders_impression/
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/02/11/jimmy_fallon_did_a_perfect_bernie_sanders_impression_following_his_nh_victory.html
- http://www.cnn.com/videos/entertainment/2016/02/11/jimmy-fallon-spoofs-bernie-sanders-orig-vstan-cws.
The comedic impressions are widely known and I believe they pass "Notability" tests. I'd be glad to discuss more. BBoyle81 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Do other politicians and celebrities have mentions of the people who portray them in comedy and the like listed in their articles? I'm not so sure there is a compelling reason to really mention this sort of thing. It's sort of a given that public figures are lampooned in comedy. Centerone (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- BBoyle81 It seems Bernie Sanders does not yet have a "Public Image" (or similar) section or subarticle, where this would kinda fit (at least a little of it). Then the sky is the limit, we have Saturday Night Live parodies of Sarah Palin and Barack Obama in comics etc. For now, I think you could perhaps expand on Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign,_2016#Popular_media. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Nature of Sanders 2016 bid?
Ii there any part of the article where Sanders' central tenets/proposals for the Democratic nomination are explained in brief? i.e. making a "political revolution", fixing a corrupt campaign finance system, etc? Thanks.--TuCove (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Communist
Should we insert reference to Bernie Sanders as a communist? source: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/donald-trump-blames-our-communist-friend-bernie-sanders-for-chicago-clashes/ 182.255.99.214 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sen. Sanders is not a communist just because Mr. Trump calls him one. Sanders does not advocate the abolition of private property ownership, government ownership of all industries and businesses, and the restriction of free speech, among other actual aspects of communism. Perhaps it could be posted(here or on the page about Sanders' campaign) that he was criticized as a communist, but we should not state that he is one. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm also not sure that source is a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Polls
Really, polls about the presidential election or the primaries do not belong in an encyclopedia article. They get outdated very fast. They tend to be cherry picked. It is not our job to try and forecast the election.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
On the subject of Mr. Sander's family name change
I do believe that his father not having his own page, it would be relevant to note his father's last name changed from Gitman to Sanders when he came to the country. Mr. Trump's grandfather has a wikipedia entry that details that the family name changed from Trumpf to trump upon coming to the US. Sanders has no such family entries, so I think it should be there in his "early life", in regards to his father.151.202.181.213 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Was the family name changed while he was alive? Or was it done before he was born? Centerone (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is mentioned in a the footnote. We do not know however if he changed his name, since his father's surname according to the Geni.com was Sander and his two brothers had the surnames Sanders and Gutman. So unless you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this, we cannot expand the information provided in the article. TFD (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Name changes were very common at one time. For instance, in my father's family the name Star-re-ha was changed to Starr. If I had a page I do not feel it would be encyclopedic and I don't feel it's worth a mention here either. Gandydancer (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Father's Age at Death
There is a mathematical discrepancy regarding the age of Senator Sanders' father at death. The article states his father was 17 when he came to the United States in 1927, meaning he was born in 1910. Later it says that Senator Sanders' father was 57 when he died in 1962. If Bernie's father was born in 1910 and died in 1962 he was either 51 or 52 when he died depending on the month of his birth. Kruzich (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good catch. The sources actually say he immigrated in 1921 and became a citizen in 1927. I have changed it. TFD (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hitler did not win an election
WP:DFTT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Nazis lost both elections in 1932. (5.81.222.45 (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC))
|
Revisiting my close of Religion in infobox RfC
Hey folks. Apologies for bugging y'all about this again; I suspect we're all more or less exhausted of dealing with it. A handful of people have approached me about my close of this discussion with questions. Some I've been able to resolve through discussion (e.g. here, and here) and some from Xenophrenic that I haven't (these comments, this list of arguments against my close). Having reviewed the RfC again with the arguments in mind, here are the main conclusions I've come to:
- The RfC asked whether the infobox should read "Jewish" for the religion parameter. Much discussion was dedicated to the fundamental question of whether Sanders is religiously Jewish or not. With relevant guidelines, this was the primary lens I used to weigh arguments. To a lesser degree, there was also discussion about whether this information is appropriate for the infobox given the nature of the coverage available. I neglected to incorporate this factor into the arguments I weighed, and consequently, my closure statement.
- A reasonable argument was forwarded that coverage and direct speech related to Sanders' religious affiliation is fairly complicated, and that when we run into this kind of coverage (and there is a lot of it), we should consider describing it in prose. This approach allows for the varied perspectives present in reliable sources on this aspect of Sanders' life. Given the conflictory nature of reliable sources discussing Sanders' religion, the imprecise nature of the term "Jewish" as it can relate to something other than religion, the limited direct speech from Sanders on the matter, it makes a great deal of sense to represent coverage of this particular facet of Sanders' biography in the article body rather than in the infobox.
I've struck the final section of my prior RfC close, and have will refer to this section here. On the basis of the above arguments, consensus was to exclude the religion parameter from the biography infobox, which I will go ahead and do after posting this.
Finally, thanks to the editors who earnestly approached me on my RfC close and helped keep the conversation productive. I really, really appreciate it. With that said, I ask that any further concerns about this RfC be brought to the administrator's noticeboard for review from others; I feel like I have spent enough time and thought with this specific issue, and will not be commenting on it any further. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)