Talk:Bernie Sanders

Can someone please revert the last edit? Sanders hasn't died...

The sidebar says: Died February 25, 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.14.77 (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

We recently closed an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that showed an overwhelming (75%) consensus for the following:

In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox.

The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research.

The RfC was specific in stating that

"Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.'

User:Bus stop claims that the infobox of this article should contain "Religion= Jewish", which according to the RfC, is anly allowed if Sanders is a religious Jew. As evidence , he cites http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/press-package?download=1 which says "Religion: Jewish".

On the other hand, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html says:

• "He has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president — but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious."
• " 'I am not actively involved with organized religion,' Sanders said in a recent interview."
• "Larry Sanders sums up his brother’s views this way: 'He is quite substantially not religious.' "

So, is Sanders a religious Jew, or is he a person who was raised in a Jewish family? The word "Jewish" can have either meaning. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not know but I do know we should not make any claims unless they are undisputed. I do not see the point anyway. At one time religion was important. Not only did people attend denominational churches, but schools as well. Members of some religions were ineligible for certain types of employment or membership in social organizations. Jewish people were subject to quotas. Everyone knew that Kennedy was Catholic, but how many know what religion Barack Obama is? (His infobox says "Protestantism.") TFD (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is silly and irrelevant. Sanders is Jewish because he says he says he is Jewish, reliable sources say he is Jewish and no sources say he is not Jewish.

See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 2#Is Sanders "Jewish" and does he have dual-citizenship? and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 2#Religion: Jewish and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 3#Jewish, again and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 3#Religion and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 4#"Religion: Judaism". This should not have to be discussed de novo every time a troll decides to vandalize the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPCAT:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. [...] These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You would be right if you weren't wrong. This has been discussed to death, with reliable sources up the wazoo. Look at the archives I linked to. You're intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and with "Ten years and 30,000 edits" you ought to know better. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC)The archives you linked top show a reasonably strong consensus that Sanders is Jewish, but not religious. Also, WP:NPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—there is something called transparency. This RfC, initiated by you, has been a waste of everyone's time. I doubt that many of the participants could have anticipated it would be misused this way. And here you are, hatting a discussion relating to that RfC. As concerns BLPCAT, obviously when he says he is Jewish, as he does in this press package, we assume he actually is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Is his religion Judaism? Orthodox, Conservative or Reform? What synagogue does he attend? Who is his Rabbi? And most importantly, how do you explain all of the sources that say he isn't religious? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—we adhere to the findings of sources. His religion is Jewish according to sources. Do you have a source saying he is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon is unaware that he is talking out both sides of his mouth. His own source says "He has the chance to make history ... as the first Jewish president" and yet he tries to argue that somehow being Jewish isn't relevant to Sanders' "public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". You can't have it both ways. Your own source gives lie to your assertion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Please provide a diff showing where I claimed that being Jewish (which, I remind you, may or may not mean that his religion is Judaism) isn't relevant to Sanders' public life or notability, And please stop engaging in personal attacks. Talk about the evidence for your position, not about other editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to request that all participants step back and take a deep breath and refrain from WP:PA and WP:ASPERSIONS. We have a recent widespread and well-established consensus that unless someone's religion is significant to their lives (and that this significance and importance is backed up by WP:RS citations), it is not to be mentioned in the infobox. Since Sanders has stated that "I am not actively involved with organized religion", then that settles that. He is an ethnic Jew, but he does not practice a religion, therefore no religion can be entered in the infobox, although an ethnicity can be entered there. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This might have some relevance: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/31/what-kind-of-jew-is-bernie-sanders.html —Morning star (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Morning star. Note the article says "Now, is this really 'religion'? It depends what you mean. By Christian standards, not quite." And the article says "But it’s not religion as that term is usually understood in Christian contexts." And the article says "But if we are asking whether Sanders is 'religious' in Jewish terms, the reply must be that he is." And the article says "But if Sanders wants to call that religious, he’s got a long progressive-Jewish lineage to back him up. When he says he 'believes in God in [his] own ways,' he’s not speaking as a quirky, uncombed Socialist from Vermont. However unelectable it may make him, he’s speaking as part of a century-plus tradition of progressive secular Jews who changed the face of America." The question we are dealing with here is Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia the Christian Wikipedia? The thing that many editors don't seem to understand is that religions vary. Every point in Judaism does not have a corresponding point in Christianity, and vice versa. We are expected to follow sources. Instead what we are following are our own biases. Jews represent a minority in the population and Jews represent a minority in Wikipedia's editorship. But that does not mean that our content should not represent each religion for what it is. Here is the article. Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, this is fun. Edit warring over "religion" or whatever we want that parameter to mean. Sure, it seems to me "the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources"--the second part is verified by the article that says "first Jewish president etc.", even if it goes on to say he claims no religion; the first part is satisfied by the very mention "Religion: Jewish" bit in his press kit. I mean, it's in the press kit: it doesn't get more self-identifying than that. But also, really, Guy, did you have to start this? Drmies (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Jewishish?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The overt self identification in the press packet ought to be enough, especially since so many reliable sources call him Jewish and not a single solitary reliable source says "he's not Jewish anymore". It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that he isn't religiously observant enough to be called Jewish. That's presumptuous. And edit warring by those who should know better is not good behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I think Mr. Sanders would smile at that. Also, note that I'm not so good at edit-warring anymore and have not reverted 331dot's revert; this edit summary is a bit patronizing given that Malik had already commented here and elsewhere. Really, I imagine that 331dot will comment here imminently, lest their revert be judged nothing more than a move to further an edit war. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: If saying please is now patronizing and not basic politeness then this discussion has gone very far downhill, and I decline to participate if that's the case. I did not revert to edit war but because of the inappropriate use of the word 'troll'; I noticed the issue was under discussion but did not examine the entire edit history to see who said what first. If that's absolutely necessary before a comment, thanks for the information. I apologize. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 331dot. A lot can hinge on an edit summary; I'm still learning that lesson. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

He is culturally Jewish, but not religiously so. It would be interesting to find out if he is agnostic or atheist, however.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is for him to decide, Zigzig20s, not for you or I to decide and he explicitly self-identifies "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet. According to the recent Washington Post article, he says he believes in God according to his own definition of God. As far as I know, he has never described himself as agnostic or atheist, and Judaism simply does not require a high level of observance in order to be universally considered Jewish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As for Guy Macon's earlier point about denomination and synagogue attendance, there is absolutely no requirement that a Jew affiliate with a denomination or attend a synagogue in order to be accepted as a Jew. Any synagogue in the world would accept him instantly as a Jew at any time. Because he is a Jew. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] From what I've read in interviews, he comes across as not religiously Jewish. If you are correct, is he Orthodox? His close friend/advisor Richard Sugarman is Orthodox, so perhaps they go to the same synagogue. He should probably give a speech or at least an interview about this tbh. Many people are confused.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Cullen328: Do you mean he is culturally Jewish then? That's what I believe too. Surely being religiously Jewish means attending synagogues, etc.?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing in Jewish teaching that says that one ceases being Jewish by failing to attend a synagogue. He clearly states that he is religiously Jewish and it is disrespectful to deny that and to impose the observance norms of other religions on Jews in general and Sanders in particular. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• If the sources don't make explicit that he practises Judaism (or some other religion) then the parameter should be left empty. The "religion=" parameter should be left empty unless the religion can be determined beyond reasonable doubt. Even if he does practise Judaism but downplays it, a body has to wonder why that would be relevent enough for inclusion in the infobox. We're not talking the Pope or Dalai Lama or someone whose life is defined by the religion they practise. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• No one here disagrees that he is an ethnic (or even cultural) Jew (nor that he was raised in the Jewish faith and never converted to another faith). The sources that refer to him as "the first Jewish president" are referring to his ethnicity. The sources referring to him as "Religion: Jewish" offer no elaboration whatsoever and are simply copying the one-word label in the press packet. However since he has repeatedly stated plainly that "I am not actively involved with organized religion" [1], in my opinion this fails the criteria for adding a specific Religion to the infobox. If he were a practicing Jew and his religious practice were a major and important part of his life, and if those facts were all elaborated upon in the wiki article and backed up by multiple RSes, then that would satisfy the criteria for adding an religion to the infobox, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox." Bus stop (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Bus stop: Who wrote that website you are quoting from?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The author is Tracey R. Rich,[2] a lawyer with a suspended license[3]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Softlavender: I am uncomfortable with the phrase "ethnic Jew" for historical reasons. It seems meaningless to me. He is a cultural Jew.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't deal with comfort or lack thereof in regards to facts on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not censored. One can be ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish (Fran Lebowitz is a good example of both), but they are two different things, and religion is a third thing (which Lebovitz isn't [4]). Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC); edited 05:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether he is a follower of Judaism, as the parameter in question is "|religion=". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox: Wikipedia doesn't take the POV of of the ultra-Orthodox or anyone else, nor does this text make it clear that an atheist Jew is considered a follower of Judaism. The parameter is explicitly "|religion=" not "|ethnicity=" or "|culture=". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Zigzig20s, Curly Turkey—you find the same import written in this article, although not as concisely:

On the other hand, Judaism has long had a different understanding. The old saw that “Judaism is a religion of deed, not creed” is, of course, a simplification. But it’s more true than false. To be a good Jew, in Orthodox religious terms, is to obey the ritual and ethical commandments. A handful of those require belief, but the vast majority do not. In college, I remember a teacher of mine, an Orthodox rabbi, telling me that “To be a good Jew, you need to believe in one God, or fewer.”

Likewise among non-Orthodox religious Jews, for whom religion is more about practice than faith, more about action than intention. Even if belief retains some role, it often sits on the epistemological back burner. It’s there, but it’s not a big deal.

Nor—especially for Reform Jews but certainly for secular ones—is the Bible and its legal norms. Secular Jewish morality, and most of Reform Jewish morality, is based on conscience, reason, compassion, and reflection, not Scripture. The Bible may be edifying, but ethical reasoning is primary.

To repeat, this is not true of everyone. Some Hasidic Jews are almost evangelical in their emphasis on personal relationships to God. Many Renewal and Reconstructionist Jews have non-traditional theologies—a bit like Sanders’s—but still emphasize the importance of spiritual experience, ecstasy, or contemplation. But if we are asking whether Sanders is “religious” in Jewish terms, the reply must be that he is. The question isn’t whether he went to a Passover Seder or stood outside the doors on Rosh Hashanah, and it certainly isn’t whether he believes in a creator deity. Sanders is secular, he is atheist or close to it, and he defines morality in ethical, not ritual or traditional or authority-based, terms.

But if Sanders wants to call that religious, he’s got a long progressive-Jewish lineage to back him up. When he says he “believes in God in [his] own ways,” he’s not speaking as a quirky, uncombed Socialist from Vermont. However unelectable it may make him, he’s speaking as part of a century-plus tradition of progressive secular Jews who changed the face of America.

It is important that editors understand their subject matter. It is important that editors have some facility and familiarity of material they are handling. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is important to follow WP:NPOV. There is no room for negotiation there. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe in Jewish ethnicity. This is not a matter of censorship. Jews come in all shapes and sizes. Besides, this is meaningless, because Jesus was Jewish--that would make most people in North America/Europe (Christians) "ethnically Jewish." This is ridiculous; we are all culturally Judeo-Christian, but that's another matter. In any case, back to the infobox, perhaps we should keep "Judaism" in the religion line, since he was raised in the Jewish religion after all (he attended a Hebrew school and celebrated his bar mitzvah).Zigzig20s (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Belief in facts is not required; they remain facts despite your disbelief. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As the issue is the "|religion=" parameter, could we please stick to that topic? Culture and ethnicity are not at issue and this is not the forum to discuss our beliefs about them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!

Sure. Just had to explain as this was brought up by User:Softlavender. Anyway, since he attended a Hebrew school and celebrated his bar mitzvah, I believe "Judaism" should appear in the religion line of the infobox.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Which would lead to the absurd proposal that "Catholicism" be listed as the religion of John Calvin and Martin Luther. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not a fair comparison, as he has never rejected his Jewish faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Makes no difference: We cannot derive his religious beliefs from what rituals he performed sixty years ago. This is why the parameter must remain empty: because we do not know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is incorrect. We do know in his own words, Curly Turkey. He explicitly self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish". It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to perform a religious observance test on Bernie Sanders, especially since not a single solitary reliable source says "Bernie Sanders is not Jewish". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it's a matter of WP:DUE whether to highlight this fact prominently in an infobox when the man himself downplays it. Zigzig was suggesting his religious beliefs could be inferred from his bar mitzvah sixty years ago, a claim would should be rejected outright. The question remains: why put it front and centre in the infobox? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] We know he did not recant his religion. He may not go to the synagogue every Sabbath, but many Christians don't go to church every Sunday either. He does need to give a speech/interview about this, but in any case--he is Jewish--apparently not an atheist, despite being a socialist/marxist.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to a genuine reliable source that verifies that Sanders is a "Marxist"? Not some conservative polemicist. Sanders treasures his personal privacy and intensely dislikes discussing the details of his private life with the general public.. He is under no obligation to give a speech or an interview about in details of his religious beliefs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cullen328: Do you have a close connection? He picked the wrong job if he treasures his privacy. The entire world wants to know everything about the next POTUS. In any case, I see no indication that he is not religiously Jewish at this point; he seems to be not only culturally Jewish, but also religiously Jewish. I am opposed to censoring this from his infobox. But I don't think I have much more to add on this front--others will decide.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Censorship" is a ludicrous charge: His religious history will inevitably be in the body. Highlighting his current religious practice prominently in the infobox requires justification with an individual known to downplay his beliefs. See WP:DUE. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

despite his being a socialist/Marxist: holy shit, man, it's like you're asking everyone to throw your credibility in the toilet. Regardless: If his religion is to be highlighted in the infobox, giving it such weight should be justified in some way other than "we know he didn't recant his religion". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Those on the far left are almost always atheist, as they only worship the state. Anyway, this is slightly off topic; he is religiously Jewish apparently, but he should probably give a speech/interview about this, as no one really knows.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

they only worship the state. Holy fuck. I'm going to back off now before I get my shoes mucked up in your horseshit. You've lost whatever credibility you might have had, btw. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. But it does provide some good context for this thread--he was raised as a religious Jew, but now his religious faith seems to be a known unknown.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No, we're not going to "agree to disagree" with someone so obviously here on a mission. You're extremely biased opinions are noise in the context of Wikipedia. Go find yourself a blog---you're done here. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was providing intellectual context for this conundrum (is he religiously Jewish?). In any case, I have nothing to add on this front. But you don't own Wikipedia and shouldn't try to discourage other editors when they disagree with you. Assume good faith, pun unintended. In any case, I am done with this thread.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just keep blubbering away. You've exposed yourself, and I can't see anyone taking you seriously here anymore. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about a Wikipedia talkpage; it's about improving the article. I believe the article would be improved if we added his religious affiliation to the infobox, as I've explained. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That would be fine if Bernie Sanders had a religious affiliation, but he doesn't. He himself made this clear when he said "I am not actively involved with organized religion". You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this mean he is "passively involved with Judaism" (sic), in other words a non-practising Jew, like many people who were raised as Christians but don't go to church? Those people are still affiliated with a religion unless they recant it; it looks like he is too (since he is apparently not an atheist).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. He is like the many people who were raised as Christians but don't go to church. We leave the religion entry blank in such cases. The overwhelming consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes (examples section) was that "Non-practicing X" and "Raised as an X" are examples of nonreligions that are not allowed in the religion entry of the infobox. All of this information is allowed in the body of the article, BTW, so nothing is being hidden from the reader. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, when you say that Bernie Sanders has no religious affiliation, that is demonstrably false since he states himself "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet. What reliable source says that a Jew must be "actively involved with organized religion" in order to be accepted as a member of the Jewish religion? That artificial standard that you have created is completely contrary to how reliable sources describe Jewish religious identity, which overtly allows its adherents to refrain from "active involvement" in "organized religion" while still remaining members of the Jewish religion. If Sanders did not overtly self-identify with the Jewish religion, then I would agree with you. But he does self-identify, and the Jewish religion not only does not require "active involvement", but explicitly accepts those who refrain from active involvement as Jews. Every Jew recognizes Bernie Sanders as a Jew (though many would criticize him as a low quality Jew), but not one single reliable source I have seen says "Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Jewish religion". Why do you advocate so forcefully for something that no reliable source says? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The reliable source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html says it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That is called "not answering the question". That link establishes what is already acknowledged, that he is "not actively involved" in "organized religion". Yet, Sanders self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish". So my question stands: What reliable source requires a religious Jew to be "actively involved" in "organized religion"? Suppose a Jew is passively involved in disorganized religion? Are they then somehow excommunicated from the Jewish religion? Of course not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 14:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

According to your logic, it appears that we can can call anyone any religion in the infobox. You could say that Penn Jillette and Richard Dawkins are "passively involved in disorganized religion" and put "Religion = Christian" in their infoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That does not make sense, Guy Macon. They both self identify as atheists. Sanders self identifies as "Religion: Jewish". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—you must invoke Christianity. Note that you are saying, for instance, in one of your posts, "Yes. He is like the many people who were raised as Christians but don't go to church. We leave the religion entry blank in such cases." This is not Christianity we are discussing. Christianity and Judaism are two different religions. And obviously we have no requirement to assume a Christian perspective. There is likely a systemic bias at Wikipedia as there tends to be elsewhere. But as an encyclopedia, our aim is to educate the reader as opposed to miseducate the reader. That is accomplished by providing information squarely. It may be easier for both the editorship of Wikipedia as well as for the typical reader of Wikipedia, to recycle prevailing misunderstandings about Judaism. We can be mindful of the perspectives of the population at large but in the final analysis our responsibility is to provide the best information that the best quality sources provide to us. Not only does the man himself state that he is Jewish but another source goes to the trouble of explaining the Jewish perspective concerning Jews such as Bernie Sanders for those who may be unfamiliar with Jews and Judaism. Just because the prevailing perspective is the Christian perspective is no reason not to portray the subject of the biography from the perspective that is applicable. You are arguing for portraying a Jew from a Christian perspective, but these are two different religions. They are similar in some ways but they are different in some ways. Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish for two reasons: Bernie Sanders says that his religion is Jewish. The second reason is that all reliable sources without exception say that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish. No reliable source says that Bernie Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I was answering a direct question that contained the words "...like many people who were raised as Christians but don't go to church?". Please stop stuffing words in my mouth. And please stop telling fibs about the sources. The sources do not say that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish. They say that Bernie Sanders is Jewish and that Bernie Sanders is not a member of any religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon—you and others have mentioned Christianity numerous times in advancing your arguments. But we are not talking about Christianity, except by comparison. Of greater importance is the Jewish perspective. It is the perspective applicable to the subject of this biography. The Jewish perspective, relative to the Christian perspective, places lesser emphasis on such factors as attendance or membership in places of worship, adherence to or practice of "ritualistic" activities, and statements attesting to beliefs held. An editor here has to be familiar with the religion that they are arguing about. When you invoke Christianity you are falling back on your familiarity with Christianity. How does that help the reader? It only perpetuates an already prevailing perspective. We should be portraying a Jew from a Jewish perspective. Concerning the subject of this biography, it is the applicable perspective. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Of greater importance is the Jewish perspective.: this statement is about as explicit a violation of WP:NPOV as it gets. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders clearly self-identifies as Jewish. Really, those six words should be the end of the discussion here. He has clearly, verifiably, unambiguously stated that he is Jewish. But aside from that, that's been widely referenced in reliable sources, to the point he's been referred to as a potential "first Jewish President". So there is no issue, in terms of BLP or otherwise, in listing him as Jewish, whether in the infobox or otherwise. That is not "Jew-tagging" (a practice I find very distasteful, and one BLPCAT was explicitly intended to put an end to), it is respecting an individual's clear and unambiguous self-identification. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would think it useful to ask whether his self-identification refers to Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity, or both. Jewish ethnicity and religion are closely related, but they are not the same thing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—Bernie Sanders is ethnically Jewish. That is because he was born Jewish. Additionally he enunciates that he is Jewish, satisfying our requirement for self-identification. Bus stop (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Does he enunciate that he is ethnically Jewish, or enunciate that he practices the Jewish religion? If he's ambiguous about it, then I am not convinced we can properly state that his religion is Jewish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't have to say certain "magic words". If he clearly self-identifies with and embraces "Jewish", that is enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If Sanders means that he is Jewish ethnically, and we assign him Judaism as a religion, then I want no part of it without some corroboration.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—of course he is ethnically Jewish. When countless sources speak about his parents and extended family being Jewish, they are affirming that he is ethnically Jewish. But Wikipedia requires more than this. Wikipedia wants to hear this from the subject of the biography. Bernie Sanders says that he is Jewish. That is self-identification. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If he meant to self-identify as ethnically Jewish, then I would prefer not to tell him that his religion is therefore Jewish. Just like if he said that he's feeling "happy and gay", I would prefer if Wikipedia would not proclaim that he is homosexual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

His official press packet says "Religion: Jewish". It's pretty concrete. If you say you're religiously Jewish, you are. Parabolist (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but he's also said he's not particularly religious. So if we say his religion is Jewish we should always include some sort of caveat.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you do the same for non-Jewish politicians who don't attend church regularly? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the Jewish religion is an organized religion, Sanders has said he's not actively involved in it, so the infobox should say "Religion: Jewish (inactive)". Same for any person inactive in any other religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

that is OR and an assumption of a fact (that by only organized Jewishness is Jewishness). Many many people have personal faith. Not attending church says nothing about what their religion is or if they are active in their religious life. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The Abrahamic religions are all largely considered organized (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Bahá'í Faith). Sanders says he is not active in organized religion, but that his religion is Jewish. So the most informative and accurate thing we could say in the infobox is "Religion: Jewish (inactive)". It's just following what Sanders has said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

{ec} No, the box is religion, not religious. If it asked if he was a practicing Jew then you might be right, but it just asks for religion. So Jewish is all that is needed. And this really should be all. It is really quite crazy that this conversation has gone on so long on this topic. Let's move on to all the other politicians who don't practice their religion and delete their infoboxes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The infobox has entries for political party, spouse, and children; we include parentheticals for all of them (how long he's been in the political party he's in now, how long he's been married to the current spouse, who the mother of each child was), so I don't see the problem for a parenthetical for the religion entry. Otherwise many people will think that he's an active member of the Jewish religion, which he has said he is not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The overlap between Jewish ethnicity and religion is complicated. Fortunately Bernie has resolved that for us by explicitly stating his religion as jewish, while also saying he is not involved in organized religion. These are not contradictory statements. Like many Christians,Muslims or people of any faith, not all Jews are involved in an organized form of faith or worship. Within the Jewish tradition this is even more true. Sanders has spoken about Sanders - who are you to disagree? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—he is ethnically Jewish. That is not in question. Our question is whether we can say he is Jewish. That requires self-identification. We are not concerned with for instance membership or attendance at houses of worship. We are not concerned with for instance the performance of rituals. We are not concerned with for instance the affirmation of any beliefs. Whether they are present or not, is not our concern. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• He's Jewish. QED. Are we going to edit every Catholic politician's article if they didn't give something up for Lent, or if they didn't go to Church on Sunday? It's not up to us to determine practice. We just need to determine verifiable evidence that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. We have that. That should be the end of the story. Whether or not you are going to invite him to give a sermon for your son's Bar Mitzvah is up to you, but for an infobox, this matter should be put to rest. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with the editors above who make the distinction between on the one hand the sources that say he is ethnically Jewish and self-identifies as such, which is enough to put him in Jewish categories, and a substantial lack of sources that say he is religiously Jewish, which would have been needed to add "Jewish" to the "religion" field in the infobox. I would like to add that the personal attacks on the original poster of this section, comparisons with Obama, as well as the vehement cries that he is Jewish, are not in any way convincing. It would be better if those editors could bring some source that he is religious, like that he goes to Temple every Yom Kippur, or the like. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Basing his religion on what place of worship he has been seen attending would be original research, and not attending such a place of worship is in no way indicative of a lack of religious faith. What we need is a clear statement, and once we have it we should still consider whether it should be highlighted in the infobox (per WP:DUE). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sander's own materials say his religion is Jewish. We do not second guess people's own statements regarding their religion. If he had not made such statements, we still wouldn't guess - we wouldn't put anything in at all. If reliable sources discuss the degree to which Sanders does or does not practice, then possibly such commentary could be put into the body (conforming with WP:WEIGHT) but nobody is presenting any reliable sources with that type of discussion Gaijin42 (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That self-identification certainly belongs—properly contextualized—in the body. The infobox puts that information front-and-centre as a defining aspect of the man. Where are the sources that justify that weight? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Cullen328 just put "religion = Jewish" in the infobox, claiming "Per talk page discussion".[5] If there is no consensus on the talk page, the right thing to do is to keep discussing, not pretend that there is a consensus and make the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If he doesn't wait until a consensus has been declared then Cullen328 will be eligible for a block; if this is a behaviour pattern, then a topic ban may be in order. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I made one bold edit based on his overt self-identification and got reverted. I will not edit war. What "behavior pattern" are you talking about, Curly Turkey? If you really think that deserves a topic ban, then I will see you at the appropriate noticeboard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I know a lot of the editors in this discussion have a "thing" about this particular type of subject. If you're not one of them, great. I do know that you've been around long enough to know that your edit wasn't simply "bold", but outright contentious. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I don't think adding his religious affiliation to the infobox is undue at all. It's just a fact. We're not saying he's a rabbi here. We're just saying that he is religiously Jewish--he celebrated his bar mitzvah and never recanted his religion. He may not keep a kosher kitchen--possibly because his wife is a Catholic--like many Americans, he believes in God, but he spends most of his time focusing on improving public policy for the public good as an elected official, not studying the Torah. Btw, Hillary Clinton's infobox also lists her religion (Methodism) and no one is suggesting she might be some kind of religious figure. Besides, many readers will be relieved to find out that Sanders is not an atheist.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Clinton makes a big deal of her Methodism. Sanders does not. "many readers will be relieved to find out that Sanders is not an atheist" is both fantastically irrelevant and more evidence that you're here to stir the pot. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith. I'm here to improve the article, nothing else. Sanders says he is Jewish; HRC says she is Methodist. I see no difference here. Now Sanders says his Judaism convinced him that politics mattered because of his family history; Hillary writes in Living History that she stayed with Bill because of her religious upbringing. Both use religion in their political rhetoric.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Curly Turkey, I do not think that such a degree of original research is a problem. If people go to church/temple/mosque, they are religious. That is not "research", that is common sense. But the issue is a merely theoretic one, since nobody shows such sources, and he seems to be non-religious, so shouldn't be mentioned as "Jewish" in the religion field of the infobox. Simple as that. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

So if he asked you would not put Tefillin on him? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Whether he would or not is irrelevant to the topic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. That comment was personal, and had better remained unsaid. Nor do I understand the logic behind the question. And am not interested in it, since, as said, this is not the issue here. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The answer is obvious: yes. Any Orthodox Jew would put Tefillin on Bernie Sanders. There would be no hesitance. Any Orthodox Jew would recognize Bernie Sanders as a Jew. We are not evaluating someone who is not a Jew. The criteria used to determine Jewishness in Bernie Sanders are Jewish criteria. This thread should not be swayed by non-Jewish criteria. No Orthodox Jew would seek any other prerequisites of Bernie Sanders prior to putting on Tefillin. It would not matter whether or not he attended or was a member of a Jewish house of worship. Nor whether he practiced or failed to practice anything of a ritualistic nature. Nor whether he held or failed to hold any particular beliefs. No one in this thread should be swayed by non-Jewish criteria because it is a Jew being evaluated. He is a Jew according to every source that has been presented. And no source has been presented saying he is not a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been called out enough times for violating WP:NPOV, Bus Stop. Put a stop to it, and your patented tangential walls of words. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You make a valid point, Curly Turkey, and I am going to selectively strike through my above "wall of words". Sometimes I get carried away. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Simple as that", yet that is exactly what people are proposing—he had a bar mitzvah sixty years ago, QED. Personally I think the "|religion=" field should be abolished except in cases where the subject's religion is a prominent part of their notability—that would solve these ridiculous discussions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is part of WP:BLPCAT, which applies to categories. Infoboxes is another issue, and rightfully so, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This section should not be titled "Is Sanders a religious Jew?" I would suggest this section be titled "Religion field in Infobox". Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

having "inactive" is also POV since you don't have that by any other politician. The box doesn't say Religiosity or something like that, it says Religion, and simply put, Sanders is Jewish and it should just say Jewish, as his press packet says, any additional is POV. If you want to say he is not so religious, that can go in the article but that doesn't belong where his labeling of what religion he belongs to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with User:Sir Joseph. And again, it is important for our readers to know that he is not an atheist, and that he lives in a Judeo-Christian household. But all of this can go in the body of the text. The infobox should simply list his religion (Judaism), as Sir Joseph just explained.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What other politician has self-identified as being an inactive member of a particular religion? The infobox is full of explanatory parentheticals, so why not here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Because the source says "Religion: Jewish". So the infobox should say "Religion: Jewish". This is extremely simple. Parabolist (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

One source says that, and another source says that he is an inactive member of that religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You guys are awfully eager to ensure Bernie's background is clearly and prominently marked. Any reason you guys aren't satisfied with his coverage of his religion in the body? Y'all have dodged this question more than once. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Because this is Wikipedia. His religion is Judaism. It's not asking how many times he prays, if he wears tzitzis or if he keeps kosher or if he only eats glatt. It just asks what is his religion. Are you so strict with the 535 other members of Congress or just the Jews? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I've already stated here that the "|religion=" field shouldn't be specified unless the subject makes their religion a defining part of themselves. Now answer the question. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, fudge off, and I mean that civily of course. Don't demand me to answer you, you have some nerve, are you going to go through all 535 members of Congress and delete the infobox? Are you going to check their drawers for religious observance? So answer me, why are you so gung-ho to remove his Jewishness from this article? Secondly, religion is in the infobox, so we use it. Thirdly, religion plays a role in politics for better or worse so it is notable so it needs to be placed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: why are you so gung-ho to remove his Jewishness from this article: why are you so gung-ho to paint me as wanting to remove his Jewishness from the article? That's extraordinarily dishonest, and perhaps answers the question you refuse to answer directly. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I also would very much like to see an answer to the question. I can think of several reasons why some here might not be satisfied with covering Bernie Sanders' religion in the body of the article, but most of them either revolve around the fact that you can make the claim in the infobox without anyone adding nuance or context, or on the belief that there is something wrong with presenting information in the article. I am not saying that this is the case here, but I have often seen people insist on putting things in politician's infoboxes based on the theory that the information will reach more potential voters that way.

I am going to WP:AGF and assume that there is some reason that I have not thought of, while noting that it is curious that this question never gets answered. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph: you continue to participate in the discussion but refuse to answer a straight question. Should we assume you retract your accusation? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

what's my accusation? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That I've made any effort to have Sanders' Jewishness removed from the article—particularly when I've explicitly called for more detail on it in the body. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "reaching more voters" or anything else. The RfC cited above stated that "Jewish" is a special case, and in the religion parameter, should apply only to those who are religiously, not just ethnically, Jewish. (I agree entirely with the RfC results, including that aspect, incidentally.) But the way we determine an individual's religion is via self-identification. If Sanders identified as Catholic, or Buddhist, or Pastafarian, that's what would go in the infobox. He explicitly and recently identified his religion (not just his ethnicity) as "Jewish". Therefore, since he explicitly says so, he is Jewish by religion. It is absolutely, positively, not our place to determine if he's "active" at it, or observes it properly, or is "Jewish enough", or any other criteria. If that's what he says his religion is, that's what it is, and that's what we list it as (without qualifiers). Period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Which is fine for the body (where it really needs to be beefed up). Your argument doesn't really address why his religion should be highlighted in the infobox when the man himself downplays his religion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it is notable, simple as that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, so it goes in the body. We're talking about the infobox. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Standard practice. The basic information goes in the infobox, it gets expanded upon further in the article. Just like we'd do for anyone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pleae provide the guideline that explicates this is "standard practice". It's not hard to find biographies that don't indicate the religion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 01

I agree with Curly that merely stating "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox does readers a disservice, and makes it seem like Sanders actively practices the Jewish religion, which he has said he does not. But I don't agree with Curly that we ought to remove that material from the infobox. It would be much more straightforward to simply add the parenthetical "(inactive)". Sanders self-identifies as inactive, and we have lots of other parentheticals in the infobox. It's true that we don't add parentheticals to clarify how active the other politicians are with regard to their religion, but that's probably because other politicians have not identified as inactive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We wouldn't be removing it: it's not there now. Sanders does not self-identify as inactive: he identifies as having particularly nuanced spiritual beliefs, which the infobox can't hope to capture. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why? Readers aren't stupid. How many of the Christians in the US are practicing Christians? How many of the 535 members of Congress go to Church every Sunday? Religion is just that, religion. Anything else is Original Research. If you want to say he doesn't dip his marror into charoses, then put that in the article. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/05/religious-affiliations-of-members-of-congress-mirror-regional-trends/Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If Person X says "I am an inactive member of religion Y" then Wikipedia editor Z is not engaged in "original research" when he writes "religion: Y (inactive)". If you think otherwise, then I'd advise you read up on WP:OR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

But the infobox is not asking if he's active or not, just what religion he's in. Are we putting active/inactive by all other members of Congress? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—you say "…merely stating 'Religion: Jewish' in the infobox does readers a disservice, and makes it seem like Sanders actively practices the Jewish religion…" No, it does not. It says that he is Jewish—which he is. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph, you ask "Are we putting active/inactive by all other members of Congress?" I'm happy to do that if you would point to any other member of Congress who explicitly identifies as active or inactive. You say that the infobox is not asking for such information, but if you want to take that attitude then the infobox is not asking for any of the parenthetical information that's already in the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line? Hillary Clinton stole top secret emails, and stealing is against her faith, so she's not practicing, should we put that in the infobox? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If and when Hillary says her theft of secret emails means that she's not a practicing Christian, then, sure, let's put "non-practicing" in her infobox. I won't hold my breath waiting for her to say that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—secular Judaism is extremely common. Such people are called Jews. They are said to be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A "secular" Jew does not necessarily have any religion at all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—I can agree to placing "Religion: secular Judaism" in the Infobox, or "Religion: nonobservant Jew". I think this serves the reader's interests. Bus stop (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Either of those would be okay, I guess, but the best thing would be to use the words that Sanders himself uses: "not active" (or equivalently "inactive"), unless you can find a good source that uses "secular" or "nonobservant".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Except that is not how Sanders identifies himself. Did you read his press package? Page 1 of his kit: "Religion: Jewish" Are we now going to go into the religion identification business? If secular Jews identify as Jews, then it is good enough for Wikipedia. We're not their deity I don't get the vendetta and jidgement people have. He's Jewish, he may not be practiciing, but he's Jewish. As per WP:SELFIDENTIFY, that should be enough to stop this conversation already for this topic. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/press-package?download=1 Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Bernie Sanders self identifies as "Religion: Jewish" and in matters of religion, Wikipedia places a very high priority on self identification. There is no precedent that I am aware of for adding qualifiers to a person's religious self identification in an infobox. Who are we as Wikipedia editors to question his explicit self identification? Of course, I will drop my opposition instantly if Sanders changes his official press packet to say "secular" or "nonobservant". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Joseph and Cullen, you are both mistaken about the facts. Yes, Sanders self-identifies as being of the Jewish religion, but he also identifies as being inactive in that religion.[6] So there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with us saying that he is of the Jewish religion and is inactive in that religion. The position that you are both taking puzzles me, because you are both asserting that I am seeking to characterize Sanders in a way contrary to his self-identification, which is simply false. Since you have both been participating in this conversation for quite a while now, you ought to realize that it is false.I should have known better than to get involved in a religious war at Wikipedia!Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Better yet, leave it to the body of the text to properly describe his nuanced religious beliefs. There's no reason to highlight it in such a distorted way in the infobox. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Where does beliefs and practice come into anything? The label is religion, for the millionth time. The article already mentions he doesn't practice. Don't single out the Jew, it's not a good thing. The infobox RFC clearly says the religion is for the religion so it stays, it is notable, especially for a presidential candidate. You are just trying to be pointy for some reason. I suggest you just drop it already. 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)

Read WP:DUE, and then tell us how prominently highlighting Sanders' religion is giving his religion due weight. (remember that Infoboxes are not mandatory and a large number of Wikipedians oppose infoboxes in general—this debate being one example of why) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to let others use profanities, but WP:DUE? Really? The title is RELIGION and the ANSWER is JEWISH. How much more neutral can you be? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll answer your absurd question when you answer my reasonable one. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I will try to answer your reasonable question, Curly Turkey, and I mean that sincerely. I can take or leave infoboxes, but it is highly unlikely that they will be removed from articles about U.S. presidential candidates. An infobox is a presentation and summary of datapoints. It is an important part of an article but less important in my view than the lead of the article, and far less important with the body. Including data in an infobox is not "prominently highlighting" it. Who cares passionately about his birthday, the name of his first wife, or the university he attended over half a century ago? The body of the article describes his time at the University of Chicago with a fair bit of detail. The infobox just records that he graduated. Similarly with religion. His religion is just another piece of biographical data. He self identifies as Religion: Jewish. That belongs in the infobox in a straightforward way. The body of the article is the proper place to describe him as non-observant, and to describe his non-traditional belief in God. As an analogy, many Democratic Catholic politicians have been criticized quite harshly by bishops for supporting public funding of contraception and legal access to abortion. We do not add qualifiers to the infobox description of them as Catholic. They are self-identified Catholics. In summary, infoboxes do not "highlight", they present datapoints. They should be complete, clean and simple. Subtlety and context are presented in the body of the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope you weren't interpreting my comment as suggesting they be removed. Anti-infoboxers complain (rightly) that subtle and nuanced information far too often gets distorted in infoboxes. They should not be "complete" in the sense that every possible field be filled—there is definitely no consensus in favour of that and very strong feelings against it. Try launching an RfC insisting Infoboxes be "complete" and you'll find that proposal thoroughly ground into the dirt. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do not advocate that infoboxes be complete in the sense that every conceivable field be filled out, Curly Turkey. However, there is a vast body of literature about the religious beliefs of U.S. presidents and serious contenders for that office. The non-traditional religious beliefs of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln has been studied by legions of academic biographers. Leaving the "Religion" infobox field blank for Bernie Sanders given his self-identification and the interest in his heritage seems stunningly unencyclopedic to me. Self identified non-traditional Jews are just as much Jews as those who delight in ritual observance. The body of the article is the place for nuance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal disclosure: I am a self identified non-traditional Jew who often delights in ritual observance. Trying to build consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's funny you would bring up Abraham Lincoln—take a look at his infobox. Nobody—not one person—has suggested removing talk of Sanders' religious beliefs from the body of the article. "his self-identification and the interest in his heritage" deserves exploration in the body, and there seem to be plenty of sources to build that on. That he chooses to downplay his beliefs must be considered when choosing whether to prominently highlight them in the infobox (or lead).

Any reader looking to find Sanders' religious, cultural, ethnic, or whatever background (and even those who aren't) will find them in this question. The question is whether to give them extra weight by highlighting them prominently in the infobox. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion in an infobox is not extra weight. Tell you what, Curly Turkey, you and I and anyone else can work on Bernie Sanders and Judaism, and link to that in the infobox when it is no longer red. Also, keep in mind that Lincoln never once self identified his religious identity, but Bernie Sanders tells every reporter who asks for a bio that he is "Religion: Jewish". Keep that simple core fact in mind, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're well aware that's no "simple core fact"—that he so downplays whatever it is he believes is a major topic of discussion, hence this discussion.

Religion in an infobox is not extra weight—anything in an infobox is extra weight. You yourself said "I certainly do not advocate that infoboxes be complete in the sense that every conceivable field be filled out"—why not, if filling out these parameters doesn't place any extra weight on that data? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders Jewish and does he self-identify as such? If the answers to those questions are yes, then "Religion: Jewish" belongs in the Infobox. I don't think this issue is much more complicated than that. We should be equally concerned about the glaring omission of this biographical data. Bus stop (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You have yet to address what I've asked you to address above, Bus Stop. Yes, I know it's inconvenient to you, but that's no excuse, and it gets beyond obnoxious when you do that in every single discussion, year after year. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am also getting tired of Bus Stop repeating "Bernie Sanders is Jewish", asking "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish?" etc, as if somebody in this conversation was disputing that. I am also getting tired of Bus Stop following up his (true) claim that Bernie Sanders is Jewish with the (false) claim that Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism as if the one proved the other.

I personally strongly agree with our article at Jews#Who is a Jew?, which says:

"Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used. Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion"

I can't help but wonder why those who insist that there is no possible other meaning to the word "Jewish" other than "followers of the religion" don't attempt to correct our article on Jews. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon, there is no need to edit that article on Jews. If Sanders self identifed as simply ethnic Jewish, or "Religion: None", or said that he was agnostic or atheist, then this conversation would not be happening. But he self identifies as "Religion: Jewish", and says he believes in his own personal conception of God. Please be aware that religion is far broader than "organized religion", especially in Judaism. "Organized religion" in Judaism is the world of denominations such as Reform, Conservative and Orthodox, and their groups of affiliated synagogues and rabbinical organizations. These are all creations of the past few hundred years and it is in no sense mandatory that members of the Jewish religion immerse themselves in that world. Judaism is not heirarchical, as is Roman Catholicism with a Pope, the Vatican, cardinals, bishops, dioceses, and only priests authorized to perform sacraments. Any ten Jews with a Torah scroll can conduct a sabbath service in someone's home - no rabbi or synagogue required. Any Jew can express their religion by working for social justice, which is how Sanders does so. So when Sanders says that he is not a part of "organized religion" that in no way, shape or form means he is an "inactive" Jew. Rather, it means that he expresses his Jewish religion outside the narrower bounds of organized religion, which is entirely consistent with a contemporary Jewish religious identity. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that what you posted disagrees with Religion: Jewish in the slightest. Arguing over what it means is just semantics. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We would be remiss if we omitted this piece of biographical information from the Infobox. In saying that I am assuming only two choices: to include "Religion: Jewish" or to omit "Religion: Jewish". In other words, I am only addressing a simplified version of this issue. Concerning that simplified choice between inclusion or omission of that verbal formulation, I am pointing out that there is a downside to its omission. What I want to say is that in my opinion its omission could be called a "glaring omission". Everyone does not have to agree with me. But I am trying to be a reasonable participant in this discussion. In the past 24 hours I have received a "Discretionary sanctions alert" on my Talk page. I think this may be uncalled for. I am trying improve Wikipedia too. Our articles should be complete and informative and easy to use. Concerning the admittedly simplified choices between inclusion and exclusion of that verbal formulation I am only pointing out the downside to omission. While I understand and to some extent appreciate the arguments focussing on his lax observance in the sphere of religiosity, there is also the fact that the discussed piece of biographical information often has resonance with readers for reasons I cannot address as doing so would constitute little more than speculation. For the quality of our encyclopedia I think inclusion is the stronger choice. Bus stop (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date." Source: Template:Ds/alert --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am assuming only two choices: to include "Religion: Jewish" or to omit "Religion: Jewish": I agree. If there is any question as to what role religion plays in the subject's life, the default should be to leave "|religion=" empty, per WP:WEIGHT. If his beliefs are nuanced or unclear, the body is the appropriate place to describe them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, his religion is crystal clear, undisputed by reliable sources, a significant part of his identity and public image, and self-identified. "Religion: Jewish". The only dispute is among Wikipedia editors, some of whom feel obligated to challenge his own explicit self identification by insisting that he explain himself in greater detail or engage in conventional public religiosity. How sad. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite honest, is it? If it were "crystal clear" as you say, then why is it such a subject in the news? The answer: because it ain't clear at all. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What do mean by "in the news", Curly Turkey? The controversy is entirely in the minds of a handful of Wikipedia editors. There is not a single, solitary reliable source that says that Sanders is not a full-fledged indisputable member of the Jewish religion and if I am wrong, link to it here. Ruminations by conventional thinkers about the level of his public religiosity should not have any effect on his crystal clear self-identification. In matters of religion, self-identification is paramount in Wikipedia BLPs, as you well know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Again you're talking as if anyone has suggested removing Sanders' Jewishness from the article—I've explicitly called here for it to be expanded on, so you'll have to stop insinuating otherwise. Please stay on the topic, which is explicitly and exclusively about whether to highlight Sanders' Jewishness in the Infobox when the man himself downplays it. As you well know. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that Sanders "downplays" his Jewishness. Seems like more wishful thinking to me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. I mean, Google's right there. He downplays it so much that many assume he's an atheist. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mischaracterizing your argument, Curly Turkey, but you are saying that we could err on the side of including his religion in the Infobox but I want to point out that we could err on the side of omitting it. I am saying that it would be a glaring omission to fail to note his religion in the Infobox. We would be remiss in failing to note his religion in the Infobox. We are expected to provide good quality information clearly and in an easy-to-grasp way. Infoboxes are used to outline basic biographical details that are available to a reader at a glance. If we are to depart from our standard operating procedure there has to be a good reason for doing so. Our gold standard is self-identification. Our gold standard is not observance—at least not concerning Jews. Nonobservant Jews are not some exotic variety. They are exceptionally common. Bernie Sanders is not unusual in this way. Many Jews are extremely lax in observance. Consider the differences, noted in this article, between the Jewish conception of religion and the Christian conception of religion. An added bonus: the article is about Bernie Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing we would be "erring" by including a religion in the infobox. I'm arguing (a) it is undue WP:WEIGHT when the man himself downplays his religion; and (b) his religious beliefs as he explains them don't fall into what a reader would expect "Jewish" to mean, thus they should be presented in a properly contextualized manner in the body (and I'm surprised that hasn't been done yet). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Are we supporting or opposing? This is mind-numbingly confusing and an immense waste of time. Simply put, Bernie Sanders is Jewish. 'Nuff Said. The only people who can determine otherwise, or who should care, are Bernie Sanders and G-d. Those are the only people who should matter in such a determination. Bernie Sanders says he is Jewish and we can't exactly get a quote from god. What else do we need to know? I call for the immediate removal of the "dubious" tag from the infobox, which I personally feel is potentially quite offensive. It is not our place to determine the level of practice or belief or judge this point of fact. Centerone (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I should have just said "this is a cited reference." This clearly should be included as it is with HUNDREDS if not thousands of other people and has been and so I reverted the revert of someone who removed it from the infobox. SO, maybe it was my mistake to be so disgusted by all this ranting that I wanted to see the logical and sensible voices over the people who are attacking a man because they don't think he is religious enough for them, but this should NOT be removed because I made a knee-jerk comment as to why I was reverting the removal of factual referenced information. That being said, this information belongs in the infobox as it is with tons of other profiles of BLPs. The only people who seem to be arguing against the case seem to want to redefine religion or make claims as to how religious one needs to be in order to consider oneself ones own religion. Or how public one needs to be about the practice of one's own religion. Not all people think you need to go to a building in order to be religious, or that you need to cite or reference god or religion constantly or in everything you do. The voices to the contrary seem overwhelming and numerous. Plus, that was not the only thing I said. People are also forgetting that this is a page about a PERSON not just about a politician. It is not undue weight to mark the religion of a person, of an individual when that is factually referenced in multiple reliable sources and from that individual themselves. There is absolutely no reason that this should be a point of contention, this is an absurd attack on someone of a minority religion. I ask you: how religious is Donald Trump? What about any of the other candidates in any other race? How about all the people who think Obama is a Muslim? What everybody thinks about Bernie Sanders' religion is irrelevant. What matters is what he thinks. That is all that matters. It has been quite clearly stated that many many many people who are or consider themselves Jewish practice their religion in a similar way. Centerone (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments -- religion in infobox

Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Sanders self-identifies as Jewish, multiple reliable sources describe him as Jewish, and no sources say he is not Jewish. Parsing his level of engagement with organized religion -- based on a single source -- or speculating whether he is Jewish by ethnicity or religion is original research. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• And yet this RfC -- which you yourself wrote -- does not ask the question "is Bernie Sanders Jewish?". Instead you wrote an entirely different question, which you have made no actual argument concerning. I suspect that this is because you refuse to accept the definition of "Jewish" that is in Jews#Who is a Jew?. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Are you seriously saying there is a question as to the Jewishness of Sanders? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—Why do you feel the need to delve into other Wikipedia articles? Do we seriously have to examine other Wikipedia articles in this discussion? I find that obfuscatory. The reliable sources found externally to Wikipedia unanimously support that he is Jewish. And those sources are correct. He is a Jew. And he separately and many times refers to his Jewishness. He does so explicitly. It is an impeccably established fact that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Both of you (Bus stop and Sir Joseph) have been repeatedly told that claiming that Bernie Sanders is Jewish, being told that nobody disputes whether Sanders is Jewish, then repeating the exact same claim a day or so later is being disruptive. This has been addressed multiple times by multiple editors. You are just trying to make it look like other editors are making claims that they never made. Stop it, both of you, or this will end up at WP:AE. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—it is important, at least in this case, that editors have a grasp of the material they are editing. As for policy, we already have Wikipedia policy addressing exactly this. Sanders self identifies. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a source for itself. For support we look to sources outside Wikipedia. Yet up and down this Talk page you are citing Wikipedia articles for arguments you wish to make. I am openminded and flexible concerning entertaining novel arguments. But the sources external to Wikipedia do not cease to exist while we examine other Wikipedia articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support: The general requirement is self-identification as Jewish, which is present. Other outlets describe him as basically a secular Jew, which is a significant portion of Jews in the US and elsewhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sanders identifies as Jewish, his press kit has it as "Religion:Jewish." There was an RFC at Template_talk:Infobox#RfC:_Religion_in_infoboxes, and quite simply the infobox is RELIGION, not PRACTICE or BELIEF. I would be very interested to find one of the 535 members of Congress who is not an atheist without a religion mention in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Press kits are not reliable secondary sources under Wikipedia policies. They are neither secondary nor reliable, See WP:V, one of our core content policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia selfidentify and wikipedia common. Again, are you saying he's not Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody disputes whether Sanders is Jewish. You are being being disruptive. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand your point then. You acknowledge his religion as Jewish. The question is now to put that in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• You are correct. You don't understand my point. (Shouting) "HE IS JEWISH" IS NOT THE SAME THING AS "HIS RELIGION IS JEWISH"!!! Now stop saying things that are not true such as claiming "You acknowledge his religion as Jewish" when I most certainly do not (and neither does Bernie). The core problem is that you have no clue as to what the word Jewish means and you refuse to learn. Look it up in a dictionary or encyclopedia. Or just type "Who is a Jew?" into Google and start reading. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• How about every time I make a pee-pee I understand what it means to be a Jew? This is hilarious. Here is some anonymous user trying to reinvent the definition of Judaism, religion, policy, self-identification, etc. If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish. I can keep saying that you realize that. I don't need to Google anything, and you're inane posts aren't going to change anything. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sanders is Jewish, but according to the sources his religion is not Judaism (he is a non-religious Jew, AKA secular Jew). According to this source, Sanders is not particularly religious and indeed actively works to downplay his religion/lack of religion when asked about it. When someone is not particularly religious and/or downplays their religion, highlighting that person's religion prominently in the infobox violates WP:WEIGHT. Those who support this proposition with the phrase "Sanders is Jewish" appear to not know what the definition of the word "Jewish" is, and some appear to be ineducable on the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Edited 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. Thus, any arguments that Sanders is religious are valid arguments, but arguments that agree that Sanders is not religious or arguments that Sanders is Jewish without arguing that he is also religious are arguments that we should put a nonreligion in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox. This contradicts WP:LOCALCON policy and thus those arguments should be discarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The above is of course incorrect. Guy Macon says "Thus, any arguments that Sanders is religious are valid arguments, but arguments that agree that Sanders is not religious or arguments that Sanders is Jewish without arguing that he is also religious are arguments that we should put a nonreligion in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox." This is incorrect. In fact, in that sentence, Guy Macon has summed up the original research upon which his argument rests. Sanders is in fact not religious. But his religion is Jewish. He may not go to synagogue, but Wikipedia abides by reliable sources. He is a secular Jew whose religion is Jewish. This is supported by sources. That he is "not a member of any religion" is merely a Wikipedia editor's opinion. It is not supported by any source. And it is original research. We don't weigh the religiosity of the subjects of our biographies. If we want to know, as in this case, whether a person's religion is Jewish or not, we must look at the sources. Sources are very good at speaking the English language. Sources could say, for instance, that while Sanders' ethnicity is Jewish, his religion is not Jewish. Do they say that? No, of course not. The Jewish religion has a long and strong tradition of religious secularism. Sources are aware of this. Sources are not about to say that Sanders' nonobservance negates his religion. Only Wikipedia editors engaging in original research make that argument. Bus stop (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Sanders self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" and that ought to be the end of the matter. The only problem here is that a Wikipedia editor thinks they are better able to deternine Sanders' religion than Sanders himself. That is classic original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't been following this page, and I came here from seeing the RfC notice. Given that the page says that he has said that he is proud to be Jewish, the fact that he is not observant is not relevant to the short description of him as Jewish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (or support with qualification) A number of reliable sources report he is non-religious. Spiritual belief in a nondescript higher power is not what users assume when we list "religion." I don't understand the number of support votes claiming he's Jewish - he's Jewish, that's not in question. The question is whether he's religious. Enough reliable sources say he's not to make the claim controversial and inappropriate without qualification. D.Creish (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The only source we really need is his, and he says he is Jewish. Also, we don't need to know whether or not he is religious, that is for a rabbi. The infobox is just to identify the religion. Do we determine level of religiousity for all other 534 members of Congress? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• You've responded to my point that Jewish ethnicity and religion are distinct by again conflating them. The majority of your (numerous) responses on this page are a variation of "He's Jewish" irrespective of context - it's bordering on tendentious. Again, there's no debate over his ethnicity. Religion is not conferred by birth. D.Creish (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• D.Creish—Do we determine level of religiosity for all other 534 members of Congress? Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  Of course. Nothing should be in the infobox that doesn't play a prominet role in the subject's biography. Do we list handedness? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Not as far as I'm aware and I'm not suggesting we do. It is not the case that (a) if he's ethnically Jewish and (b) if he believes in the supernatural or spiritual (c) those beliefs are necessarily some degree of Judaism. His beliefs could be closer to Buddhism for all we know - his parentage has no relevance. To include "Religion: Jewish" unqualified in the infobox I'd expect multiple sources unequivocally suggesting he practices Judaism. D.Creish (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Info-boxes should be used for clear, uncontested facts, not things that take sentences to explain. TFD (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I can find no source who says Sanders isn't Jewish, and he self-identifies as such. He even states it as a matter of personal pride. So unless leaders of the Jewish faith disavow him and say he is not Jewish, then his professed religion should be included in the infobox, just as religion is in all of his peers' (namely the other presidential candidates) boxes.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: (a) the "|religion=" field should not be filled in by default, but only when a person's religion plays a prominent role in their life (b) Sanders downplays his religion—the infobox would draw attention to it, thus violating WP:WEIGHT (c) whatever his beliefs are, they appear to be too nuanced for the infobox (d) if the body of the article doesn't make it clear Sanders is a Jew, then the body needs to be rectified. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Edit: Upgraded from "weak oppose" to "oppose" now that Sanders has publicly stated that what he believes "is not Judaism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—you are misconstruing what Bernie Sanders said. He has not "publicly stated that what he believes is not Judaism." I find this source saying: "'I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,'" said Sanders. "'And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.'" That article even goes on to say "In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words, it's not in the least clear what he believes. That only reinforces my oppose, though my oppose is based primarily on WP:WEIGHT. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He isn't even talking about Judaism. He is talking about "the suffering of other people". He makes it clear that he is not talking about Judaism. He says "…this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about". The article goes on to editorialize: "In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Why are you misconstruing that to mean "what he believes is not Judaism"? He is merely pointing out that concern for the suffering of other people is a value shared by more than one religion. 03:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, but even if this statement didn't exist I had already opposed on the grounds of WP:WEIGHT and how poorly the infobox could address his religious beliefs. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion He has said himself that he is not religious but proud of his Jewish upbringing. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_sanders-religion-1050am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl What is it says Jewish (non-practicing)? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Every source says he is Jewish, no source says that he is not Jewish, and Bernie Sanders says that he is Jewish—thus we have self-identification. As to his lax observance, that is no big deal. That is very common. A great many Jews are nonobservant. In Judaism, that has no bearing on whether someone is a Jew or not. That cannot be emphasized in this discussion enough. Nonobservance has nothing whatsoever to do with whether someone is a Jew or not. In Christianity the situation may be different. But systemic bias should not be a factor in our discussion. There would need to be a reason to omit "Religion: Jewish" from the Infobox, and not being religious does not constitute such a reason. That is because not being religious is 100% irrelevant to whether someone is Jewish or not. An interesting question was posed above. If a completely non-religious Jewish man approached an Orthodox Jew and requested to borrow and be instructed in properly putting on Tefillin, would the Orthodox man comply with such a request? The answer is that he would comply unhesitatingly. Nor would such compliance be tantamount to conversion. This would be done simply because the nonobservant man would be recognized as completely Jewish. That is the situation we have here. Substitute Infobox for Tefillin and you have the parallel situation. Do we recognize Bernie Sanders as complexly Jewish? This is actually the question that we are discussing. All of the sources recognize him as completely Jewish. This source says "But if Sanders wants to call that religious, he’s got a long progressive-Jewish lineage to back him up." And it says "But if we are asking whether Sanders is 'religious' in Jewish terms, the reply must be that he is." The source points out the different views Christianity and Judaism have on religion, saying "But it’s not religion as that term is usually understood in Christian contexts", and "By Christian standards, not quite." All sources affirm that he is Jewish. And there is no source that questions whether he is Jewish or not. That includes the subject of the biography himself. Bernie Sanders does not mince words about this. Bernie Sanders explicitly states that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose not a prominent part of his life that he is really noted for as Curly Turkey points out Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not a simple, black-and-white fact that is clear and understandable on its own, out of context. It may belong in the article where it can be contextualized and explained, but it isn't appropriate for extraction into the infobox. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 00:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. His press packet says "Religion: Jewish" so if we say exactly that and use that as a source, we avoid making our own interpretation about who is and who is not a Jew, which we must not do. Jonathunder (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support, Sanders has clearly, unambiguously, and recently stated that he is Jewish in religion. It's not our place to second-guess or question that. Self-identification is absolutely the most important factor in determining an individual's religious beliefs. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - As several others have correctly pointed out, Sanders identifies as 'Religion: Jewish' and so should the infobox in this article. The question at hand is not the degree to which he follows the customs of his chosen religion. It is quite possible to be a member of a religion and not be "particularly religious". The infobox parameter is religion not religiosity.- MrX 02:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Listing him as Jewish would be a clear BLP violation. He is ethnically Jewish, but has not publicly identified himself as religiously Jewish. The Washington Post quotes his comments on the Jimmy Kimmel show: Asked during an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel's show this week whether he believed in God, Sanders demurred.

"I am who I am," Sanders said. "And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we're all in this together. That I think it is not a good thing to believe that as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people."

Sanders added: "This is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about -- that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that." (Emphasis added.)

This is open-and-shut. I'm listing this at WP:BLPN so that this RfC can be closed and not drag on. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• He has publicly identified as Jewish, see his press kit where the quote is "Religion:Jewish" it is not up to use to gauge how religious someone is, but to identify in a box what his religion is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, we all know about the press kit by this point. The authorship of that press kit is unknown and unclear -- as opposed to the statements that have come directly from Bernie Sanders' own lips that essentially say, "It's complicated." If it's complicated, it doesn't belong in an infobox. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that's an overreach, the press kit is his. If it said something he didn't agree with it wouldn't get released, or it would get retracted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Public relations materials are produced all the time in large political campaigns without full review by the candidate. We don't even know who the author is. Standing against the press kit is a growing set of reliable secondary sources and straight-from-his-mouth primary sources that clearly disagree with the oversimplified statement that "Religion: Jewish" applies to Bernie Sanders. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 22:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As often seems to be the case with BLP RfC's I've responded to of late, the greater majority of the above respondents have predicated their opinions on their own subjective reasoning as to what qualifies one as being "authentically" Jewish (in the sense of religiosity, not ethnicity). That's simply not how content is decided on Wikipedia. The only factors which should be influencing whether we list Sanders' religion as Jewish is whether WP:RELIABLE SOURCES reference it as such. No matter what our own editors happen to think about the logic of those sources or whether they got it right. I'm not really familiar with the sourcing, and don't have time to investigate the matter today, which is why I'm not !voting either way. But this a straight forward WP:WEIGHT issue. Do the the sources, on the balance, reference his religion as Jewish. And, for the record, press kits are absolutely not reliable secondary sources under our policies--they are unabashedly primary and fail RS standards on numerous other levels. Again, this is Wikipedia, so even your personal inclination is to say "religion is a self-determinative state so all we need to know is what his most recent statement is, then I'm afraid I have to be the one to tell you that you are deeply in need of much more significant familiarization with our WP:verification; this is not a matter of subjective assessment, yours or his--it's a matter of what the reliable secondary sourcing says on this project, period. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Snow Rise I beg to differ. The relevant guideline is in WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. We need RS and for him to identify as Jewish. See also this RfC result and observe how "Jewish" is noted as a special case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, so we need both--was not aware BLPCAT now applies to infobox listings in this area, and though I wonder at the wisdom of that change, I'm unfamiliar with the consensus that led to it and don't have any grounds to disagree with it. Nevertheless, reliable sourcing will have to govern our interpretation of both factors (his stance and the balance of the sourcing in general). Snow ^{let's rap} 05:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Just putting "Jewish" or "Judaism" without a strong caveat is highly misleading and unnecessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support. He is both culturally and religiously Jewish. He went to a Hebrew School as a child and celebrated his bar mitzvah; he never recanted his religion; he even played the role of a rabbi in a 1999 film!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support I realize the question of Who is a Jew? has plenty of academic interest. But trying to minimize Senator Sander's minority status, such as it is, when he is currently running again a woman (whose agents constantly harp on her "minority status", and have coined the term Bernie Bro[7] to paint his supporters, women and all, as sexists) seems like a purely (inter-)partisan affair. It sounds a bit like the same people on the Left, who supported Clinton in 2008, trying to say Obama wasn't really Black, because he was half-White, and his ancestors never experienced slavery. Wikipedia should just report the facts, and not takes sides here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that is what is going on here. For example, I agree with you about the "Bernie bro" outright nonsense and I am in fact most definitely a Sanders supporter. However, while it is certainly notable that Sanders comes from an ethnic Jewish background—especially in light of his political success—it's also notable how much religion is a non-issue for Sanders in the context of his enigmatic campaign. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is not an issue, so why try to suppress the information? We're an encyclopedia. And besides, this isn't the Weimar Republic; this is the United States in 2016. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting information in the body of a Wikipedia article instead of the infobox is not "suppressing the information." And our many editors from the UK, Australia, etc. would be quite surprised to find that "this is the United States in 2016." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose When something is too complex to be summarized in a single label the correct thing to do is to not put it in the infobox or add it as a category but to give the required nuance in the body of the text. I think this is clearly the case here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think this is the essential point in this conversation. There's not a simple fill-in-the-blank answer, and infoboxes are exclusively for things with simple fill-in-the-blank answers. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 21:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Jewish is Sander's ancestral ethnicity, not his religion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• support Sanders has self identified both ethnically and religiously as a Jew, although he says he is not active in organized religion. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple RS interviews and multiple reliable sources identifying him as not practicing a religion. We don't fill out the Religion field in infoboxes unless the person practices the religion in a substantial way and their religious practice is very important to them and an important and publicly noted factor in their lives. That's why hardly any infoboxes have that field filled out. The sources that say "Religion: Jewish" are all simply iterations of the press pack, and there's zero elaboration, discussion, substantiation that he actually practices a religion, how he practices it, what synagogue he attends (because he doesn't). Again, this equals a net zero as far as actual religious practice. We can add "Jewish" to the ethnicity field (both of his parents are ethnic Jews), but not to the Religion field. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Infoboxes only perform their function of an at-a-glance overview if they remain concise and do not attempt to shoehorn nuanced issues into a curt phrase. It is clear that Sanders' press kit states "Religion: Jewish", and that other sources (including Sanders himself) describe him as "not particularly religious". When we have differing views from equally reliable sources, we state both with attribution, and leave the reader to decide. This cannot be done in an infobox field, and regardless of any other considerations, that in itself is conclusive reason not to include the |religion= parameter in this article. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi RexxS—yes, the press package reads "Religion: Jewish". Self-identification is also satisfied by the Christian Science Monitor article reading "I’m proud to be Jewish". You may not be aware of it but many if not most Jews are "not particularly religious". The "Religion" parameter has no test for minimally acceptable level of religiosity. Bus stop (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The CSM article is about Sanders' citizenship (erroneously cited as US-Israeli by NPR, thus the CSM article is specifically a clarification interview about that) and his ethnicity. It is not about his religion (which is why he states upfront in it "I'm not particularly religious"). The only mention in the interview that he makes of his Jewishness is about his ethnicity, namely: "As a child, Sanders said, being Jewish taught him 'in a very deep way what politics is about'" [vis-a-vis Hitler and the Holocaust, a strictly ethnic concern]. If he's not particularly religious, the Religion field should obviously not be filled out, just as with every other infobox on biographical articles of people who are not particularly religious and don't practice a religion. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it obvious that it shouldn't be filled out? What percent does someone have to be religious for it to be filled out? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender—an ethnic Jew is a Jew who is Jewish by birth. This can be contrasted with a Jew who is Jewish as a consequence of conversion to Judaism. Most Orthodox rabbis, for instance, are ethic Jews. The only exceptions would be those Orthodox rabbis who are Jewish as a consequence of conversion. The Christian Science Monitor article constitutes a perfect instance of self-identification. And of course there are other instances of self-identification. When he says that he is "proud to be Jewish" he is obviously saying he is Jewish. There is no other possible interpretation of that. But you go on to say that "he's not particularly religious". Be aware that Wikipedia policy has no test for minimally acceptable levels of religiosity. Nothing is compelling him to tell us that he is proud to be Jewish. He voluntarily chooses to articulate his embracing of his Jewish heritage. It is purely your opinion that this is not a good enough articulation of his Jewish beliefs. And that is an example of original research. We don't have a source saying that his religion is not Jewish. We only have your opinions. Therefore the Infobox should be reading "Religion: Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he's an ethnic Jew, and proud to be one. He has never articulated any "Jewish beliefs", whereas he has several times articulated beliefs that are completely ecumenical [8] [9], [10]. And yes, we do have guidelines of minimally acceptable levels of accuracy and importance and relevance for things that are entered into infobox fields as facts. He's not an observant Jew or a religious Jew; he's apparently not even a revolving-door Jew (one who goes to synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) [11]. I'm not interested in discussing this further, particularly since this is the Survey section and not the Discussion section; I simply wanted to correct a misperception above. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The very fact that you have to explain to someone "who may not be aware of it" proves my point completely: anything that needs explanation is not suitable to put in an infobox. Period. It's nothing to do with his religion or ethnicity or pride or how he may or may not identify himself - or even tests for 'religiosity'. It is the common mistake of trying to oversimplify nuances in order to cram them into an infobox. The potential to mislead readers who don't share your background does a disservice to them, yet is easy to avoid - just leave the parameter out in this case. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's the point, there is nothing to explain, the infobox should be how he selfidentifies. As per Bernie Sanders' own views, he identifies as Religion: Judaism. Anything else is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. His press kit and his own words are good enough for an infobox, if you have more, that goes in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't you find it ironic that you claim there is nothing to explain, then add another few hundred bytes to the many thousand already expended here, in order to make an explanation? Why not explain why he claims to be "not particularly religious", perhaps? --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

RexxS—what needs to be explained? When he says "I’m proud to be Jewish" what else can that mean other than that he is Jewish? What does "Religion: Jewish" mean? That is in his "press package". Do you think he doesn't know what he is talking about? Have you ever heard of WP:BLPCAT? It is the policy covering this. It tells us that we must have "self-identification". This is no reason why our Infobox should not read "Religion: Jewish". Being nonobservant does not disqualify a Jew from being a Jew. Approximately 50% of all Jews are nonobservant. No one ever says that any of them are not Jewish. And you have not shown even one source that says that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish. It is important to understand that Judaism is different from Christianity. You don't have to take my word for it, because we have sources speaking about the different conceptions of religion applicable to Judaism and Christianity vis-a-vis Bernie Sanders. Please read this article. It is about Bernie Sanders. Notice sentences like "Now, is this really 'religion'? It depends what you mean. By Christian standards, not quite." The norm for Christian standards is different than the norm for Jewish standards. Notice a sentence in that article like "But it’s not religion as that term is usually understood in Christian contexts." You can't apply Christian criteria to Jews without reaching skewed and incorrect conclusions. That article says "But if we are asking whether Sanders is 'religious' in Jewish terms, the reply must be that he is." That article in "The Daily Beast" is unaware of Wikipedia's tempest in a teapot over the "Religion" field in our Infobox. That article goes on to say "But if Sanders wants to call that religious, he’s got a long progressive-Jewish lineage to back him up. When he says he 'believes in God in [his] own ways,' he’s not speaking as a quirky, uncombed Socialist from Vermont. However unelectable it may make him, he’s speaking as part of a century-plus tradition of progressive secular Jews who changed the face of America." This may not constitute "self-identification" but it certainly corroborates the self-identification provided by other sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

RexxS—let me respond to your most recent post. You say "Why not explain why he claims to be 'not particularly religious', perhaps?" The simple answer is because he is not particularly religious. But you have to understand what that means in Jewish terms, and how it relates to our policy. He is a secular Jew, also known as a nonobservant Jew. Actually, I don't have a source for that. But the common terminology for that state is non-religious. He is not religious. Like approximately 50% of American Jews. This is not something unusual. It is extremely commonplace. Wikipedia does not have policy relating to minimally acceptable levels of religiosity. He may not be particularly religious, but that is acceptable as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. And this is the way it should be. Jews are considered Jews regardless of whether they are secular or Orthodox. Many sources expound on his Jewishness. There are too many to mention. Books are written about Bernie Sanders' Jewishness. You can try to change Wikipedia policy in this regard but I don't recommend it. We should merely be reflecting the findings of the vast majority of sources. They do not question his religion and nor should we. Bus stop (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

That's another 4,000 bytes of text explaining what you claim doesn't needs to be explained. I "have to understand what that means in Jewish terms", do I? So what about the millions of readers who need to understand that as well? How are you going to fit "He is a secular Jew, also known as a nonobservant Jew. Actually, I don't have a source for that. But the common terminology for that state is non-religious. He is not religious. Like approximately 50% of American Jews. This is not something unusual. It is extremely commonplace." into an infobox? It's blatantly obvious that the more you feel the need to explain, the more you make my point that you can't summarise the topic of Sanders' religion in a single word without misleading the reader. It's not suitable for summary in an infobox and that is apparent to everyone.

What policy am I trying to change? Quote it or retract that. Here's the policy you're trying to change: WP:YESPOV: "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." It's simple: you can't include all of the verifiable points of view in an infobox, so don't do it. Why not explain now why his brother has described him as "quite substantially not religious"? --RexxS (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

RexxS—you say "What policy am I trying to change?" I'm sorry if I was not clear. I was not saying that you were trying to change policy. Policy changes would be proposed on the Talk page associated with the relevant policy, not on the Talk page of an article, in this case a biography. The policy I had in mind was WP:BLPCAT, and I'm sorry I didn't specify that—that was unclear writing on my part. WP:BLPCAT is the most applicable policy to what we are discussing. Its key feature is "self-identification". Do you think we have "self-identification" in this instance? I'm interested in your response. Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: He has described himself as Jewish by background, but secular in day to day life.[12]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

C.J. Griffin—you say "He has described himself as Jewish by background, but secular in day to day life" and you have provided a source—but that source does not say he describes himself that way. That is just the terminology provided by the source. He is not quoted as saying that about himself in your source. Bus stop (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: That we're even having this level of discussion on the issue suggests that it is not something that should be boiled down to a simple entry in an infobox, but rather merits a full discussion within the text of the article itself. DonIago (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

OpposeI have to agree with my colleagues that this is a rather complex bag. Leaving it to article prose seems like the best option as it will more clearly give Mr Sanders position on religion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

Support per Gaijin42 and this article. Sanders is Jewish and, while he says he likes Pope Francis and isn't interested in organized religion, he never renounces his Judaism as a faith. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. He self-identifies as Jewish. That should be sufficient enough. We're not here to judge his "Jewish-ness." Calidum T|C 16:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: Multiple reliable sources identify him as Jewish in religion, and that should be more than sufficient. Shedinja500 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Name three pf these "multiple reliable sources [that] identify him as Jewish in religion". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—the Christian Science Monitor quotes Sanders as saying "I’m proud to be Jewish". Please tell me why that is not a source supporting that his religion is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a weak source because it refers to his "religious heritage" which could well be about being ethnically Jewish rather than his religion. Although it is paired with the quote about being not particularly religious. It could go either way. That said The Week specifically refers to his Jewish faith and the Times of Israel talks about him being Jewish when discussing religion. And there's his Press Packet and the senate Roll Call, those are all better sources. SPACKlick (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Support. I got drawn into this from the template:Infobox RfC before I worked out that it was all about this article. It seems to me (as someone watching USA politics from outside) that as a politician with a lot at stake, Sanders is being careful to be ambiguous enough not to turn off any significant group of potential voters. That said, He self identifies as Religion: Jewish (in the press kit), and no significant Jewish religious leadership is rejecting his claim, so as far as I can tell, choosing to identify in a group and having that group accept him as one of their own makes him part of that group, whatever religio-cultural group it is. Australia had a (religious and ethnic) Jewish Governor-General in the 1930s who openly spoke against Zionism. The world is not black and white, there are many shades and colours (or colors), and they look different depending what colour lenses are in your glasses. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No one rejects his claim. It is not only that "no significant Jewish religious leadership" rejects his claim. And yes, in my opinion the "template:Infobox RfC" is all about this article, in particular its language "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. This bypasses our reliance on reliable sources because that language makes it possible for Wikipedia editors to reach conclusions unsupported by sources concerning Jews. 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Bus stop (talk)

• Comment It seems clear that if Sanders self-identifies as Jewish when he presents himself as a candidate (and I doubt a staff member could "fill in the blank" without the candidate's approval!), then Sanders is Jewish. The real question is whether or not the religion spot in the infobox is relevant to this candidate. If he doesn't make his religion an issue, doesn't refer to it or make appeals to his Jewish heritage, then religion seems irrelevant to the infobox. Just because there is a spot on the template doesn't mean that it needs to be filled. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• It may not be relevant to Bernie, but it's relevant to the American people which is why the 535 members of Congress have the religion infobox and the RFC says the infobox stays for the MOC because in America religion is relevant for important people and certainly for presidential candidates. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose An important thing for the closing admin to note is that a lot of editors appear to have the misconception that being Jewish means you have Judaism as your religion. The truth is that being Jews are an ethnoreligious group, and there are many Jews who are not religious at all, but are still Jewish because of the ethnic factor. Sanders clearly identifies one such person. It would therefore seem highly inappropriate to list "Judaism" as his religion, as he doesn't have one. Number 57 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• From the article, "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "background" being the keyword. This does not mean every member of the group practices the religion. Number 57 15:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• The infobox has nothing to do with practice of religion, it is just an identification of what is his religion. I am not sure why for Jews the person has to be a Rabbi but for every other religion just "being" a Christian will get you a "Christian" in the infobox. If you want a practice infobox, then by all means, don't put Bernie as a practicing Jew, he's not. But as a member of Judaism, Bernie certainly fits the description. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I wholeheartedly disagree. He doesn't have a religion, he has an ethnicity. The fact that they are the same one doesn't make it right to list his ethnicity as his religion. Number 57 15:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is a special rule for Jews then? Where everyone else can identify as per BLP their religion but if your Jewish, you need to practice it and go to shul and be a rabbi or something? He identifies as Jewish, his press kit says Religion: Jewish, the news now says First Jewish..... what more do you need? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Number 57—you say "It would therefore seem highly inappropriate to list 'Judaism' as his religion, as he doesn't have one." I don't think we were contemplating adding "Religion: Judaism" to the Infobox. I think we were contemplating restoring "Religion: Jewish" which was removed in this edit and I think that verbal formulation is supported by Bernie Sanders' press package which reads "Religion: Jewish". Your thoughts? Bus stop (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that this is semantics and that it should not be listed in the infobox. Number 57 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Per my comment below SPACKlick (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Summoned by bot. Yes, this is all over the media. If he isn't then this is the first I've heard of it. Coretheapple (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If he says he's Jewish, he's Jewish. It is inappropriate and offensive for us to judge how Jewish he has to be before he gets to be Jewish. Gamaliel (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support - If he says he's Jewish and the sources state he's Jewish then well.... He's Jewish!, We shoudn't be judging how jewish someone is, Fact is they are jewwish and so it should be included. –Davey2010^Talk
• Comment. I probably won't !vote in this survey. But, I'd like to point out (e.g. for the closer) that many !voters including the last several insist Sanders is "Jewish", whereas no one disputes that he's "Jewish". He very clearly is Jewish in many senses. For example, no one disputes he is Jewish in a secular, cultural, ethnic, social, or genetic sense. The RFC question is instead whether he is Jewish religiously, i.e. whether he has a religion that is Jewish, and whether it's okay for the infobox to say "Religion: Jewish" without elaboration. Creating a straw man that the RFC question asks if he is Jewish really doesn't help, and !voting on a question that has not been presented isn't really useful, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Anythingyouwant—a nonobservant Jew's religion is said to be Jewish. That is how Judaism works. Reliable sources are aware of how Judaism works. Had they wanted to make a distinction between ethnicity and religion, which is what this RfC is about, they certainly could have done so. Reliable sources not only know about Judaism, but they have a good command of the English language. When a Jew is nonobservant he can be said to be not religious. Such a statement does not say that his religion is not Jewish. It merely says that he is lax in observance of the rituals typical of more observant Jews. No source has been presented making the distinction that this RfC is about. The sources that have been presented in support of the ethnicity argument are all or|original research. The original research at the heart these arguments is that lack of observance equates to the negation of religion. This could be the case to varying degrees in other religions but I don't think that mechanism has any applicability in Judaism. We go by what reliable sources say, and no source can be found saying that his religion is not Jewish. Wikipedia doesn't define Judaism, except insofar as reliable sources define Judaism. And Wikipedia does not say that someone's religion is not Jewish, unless reliable sources say that person's religion is not Jewish. Original research is frowned upon here. Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, obviously a person can be Jewish in one sense and not another. I was simply pointing that out. That observation is common knowledge. AFAIK we have zero reliable sources that suggest it would be more accurate for us to say "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox rather than "Religion: Jewish (secular)" or to leave the religion field blank (just as we leave the field blank for zillions of other BLP subjects who are just as religious as Sanders), but I leave that for others to decide. All of these people are Jewish, but we would be crazy to say "Religion: Jewish" for any of them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we make pronouncements about what is "common knowledge" in the absence of support from reliable sources. We do not have reliable sources saying that any such thing is "common knowledge". Furthermore, at the heart of this discussion are not generalizations about Jews. The common knowledge to which you refer may have a place at a more general article, and of course only with accompanying support in sources. But this is about a specific individual. He may be like countless other individuals. But we are not addressing a multitude of articles on individuals like Sanders. Reliable sources are perfectly capable of articulating an assessment of Sanders' Jewishness. This RfC concerns a hypothetical division of Sanders Jewishness into an ethnic component and a religious component. Are sources incapable of saying that Sanders is ethnically Jewish but religiously not Jewish, or something to that effect? Reliable sources have a good command of the English language. We can depend on them to express themselves. Yet we do not see a source saying that Sanders is ethnically Jewish but religiously not Jewish. How do you explain that? What you are saying is common knowledge is in fact not common knowledge. Nor does it matter, except to more generalized articles on Jews or Judaism. We rely on sources. There haven't been any presented in support of the hypothesized distinction between ethnicity and religion concerning Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are gobs of such sources. See, for example, ABC News: "the self-described Democratic socialist has said in the past that he is culturally Jewish". How many sources do you want that make the distinction between religion and ethnicity?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

How many sources do I want? In answer to your question—one. Show me one source that says that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Show me one source that says that Sanders is ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish. In short—show me a source that uses the language used by some in this RfC to reach the farfetched conclusions that some argue for. As it stands, based on available sources, Sanders' religion is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia operates like that. For instance, I cannot produce a single reliable source that says Sanders does not drink a quart of maple syrup per day, but that doesn't mean we should say he drinks a quart of maple syrup per day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources say that his religion is Jewish. The sources do not say that his religion is not Jewish. The original research presented in this RfC is like smoke and mirrors. Reliable sources can express themselves. They don't express that Sanders' religion is not Jewish yet inexplicably some in this RfC insist there is support in sources for that farfetched assertion. This is "smoke and mirrors". It toys with the notion (not supported in sources) that lack of observance negates a Jew's religion. This is a farfetched notion, unsurprisingly, not supported by sources. Reliable sources have a good command of the English language. Why don't they just say that Sanders' religion is not Jewish even though his ethnicity might be Jewish? Please try to address that question. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Per MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject". No one disputes that Sanders is Jewish, generally speaking, but that generality does not imply that the Jewish religion is a key feature of his life. I only jumped into this survey to say that the !voters who claim Sanders is Jewish are not addressing the RFC question. That's really all I have to say. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

He is a nonobservant Jew but a Jew nevertheless. This RfC attempted to argue that his religion is not Jewish. The absence of sources for that argument renders that argument little more than original research. Furthermore we do not even know that he is an absolutely nonobservant Jew. I don't know that sources support specifically that. Bus stop (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment As the person who wrote the RfC question, I can state categorically that Anythingyouwant is 100% wrong. I wanted people to opine on whether the infobox should say "Religion: Jewish", nothing more and nothing less. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Did I say that you didn't want people to opine on whether the infobox should say "Religion: Jewish", nothing more and nothing less? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

FFS, can you not read what you wrote? "The RFC question is instead whether he is Jewish religiously". No, it isn't. I wrote the question, so I know. In fact, anybody who can read English can see that isn't the fucking question. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your two consecutive edit summaries calling my words "ignorant", or by your swearing, or by your ripping quotes out of context. The sentence I wrote was: "The RFC question is instead whether he is Jewish religiously, i.e. whether he has a religion that is Jewish, and whether it's okay for the infobox to say 'Religion: Jewish' without elaboration." If that doesn't accurately describe your RFC question, then maybe you had better start another RFC that reflects what you were really trying to say. At a talk page like this, people can't read your mind, only your words. Cuss some more if you like, but it doesn't seem relevant to the infobox. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I made the mistake of saying "this RfC attempted to argue that his religion is not Jewish." That of course was not the intent of this RfC. The basic argument presented by those arguing to remove the Jewish designation from the Infobox is that Sanders has no religion. This is additionally seen in the edit summary that removed the Jewish designation from the Infobox and initiated this latest round of argumentation: "not a member of any religion." Nevertheless it was my error to say "this RfC attempted to argue that his religion is not Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Called by bot. Sanders is clearly Jewish, raised Jewish, proud to be Jewish, but his religion obviously isn't Judaism. No idea why we're obliged to write something that's false and has zero sources supporting it. -Darouet (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• And yet Bernie Sanders disagrees with you. http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/press-package?download=1 and Wikipedia policy says we take his word for it. WP:SELFIDENTIFY. Note the part that begins, RELIGION: Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • That primary source indicates his religion is Jewish. We also have secondary sources that say he's a secular Jew, and that attribute the "secular" characterization to Sanders. So it's a mixed bag. What we completely lack is any primary source or secondary source or tertiary source that remotely suggests, per MOS:INFOBOX, that his Jewish religion is one of the "key features of the page's subject".Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • You seem to be missing the point. What does him being secular have to do with it? The infobox is an identification. He is Jewish. He identifies as Jewish. He said so and is proud of that. It's in the article. The infobox is not about practice or religious beliefs. We don't measure that for anyone else, why are we doing that for Jewish people? As for why religion should be in the infobox if he's not a very religious person? Firstly, he's a politician, he's a member of the Senate and he's running for President, all that means religion is important for the infobox. Look at all the other 534 members of Congress and all other candidates, the American people love to know religion of candidates. As far as Jewishness of Sanders, it makes no difference how much he practices or how little he practices, he is Jewish. His press kit is really all we need, but of course we have tons other sources saying he is Jewish. Do you have any sources saying he is not Jewish? That is really the only question, not whether he is secular or if he's not so religious, are you going to remove Donald Trump's religion? He said he hasn't been to church in ages, why does he get a free pass? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • No, I don't think I'm missing the point. This article's section on his religion makes it pretty clear that the Jewish religion is not currently a key feature of Bernie Sanders, and I think he would be the first to agree. I'll leave it at that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • So, I think you are missing the point, this article is not written for Bernie Sanders, it's written about Bernie Sanders. I agree with you that his being Jewish may not be a big part of his life, however his being Jewish is notable enough to be part of the infobox, same as all the other politicians and presidential candidates. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—You mean when he says he's proud to be Jewish we interpret that to mean that Jewishness is not particularly important to him? Is he just saying that as filler, between the more important things he has to say? It is amazing that anyone can argue that something that he is proud of is somehow less than applicable. This is a biography and even aside from his political aspirations, he is a person; biographers are necessarily interested in what makes him tick. The Jewish religion traditionally places emphasis on birth as a factor imparting Jewishness to an individual. Wikipedia does not have to adhere to the traditional thinking patterns of Jews in this regard. We have our own policies and guidelines. But sources abide by their own guidelines. And we necessarily adhere to the findings of sources. The sources are not saying that his religion is not Jewish. No editor has presented any such source. The obvious path forward is adherence to the findings of sources. The arguments for adherence to original research have to be identified for what they are. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There is no source saying that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, you asked this: "You mean when he says he's proud to be Jewish we interpret that to mean that Jewishness is not particularly important to him? Is he just saying that as filler, between the more important things he has to say?" I think you know very well that Sanders is proud of his Jewish ethnicity. If you look at Category:Secular Jews, you will find 26 people listed; five of them have no infoboxes, and of the remaining 21 only two of them state religion in the infobox. Thus, the standard way of handling this situation is to omit religion from infobox, because the Jewish religion is not a key feature of their lives. Jewish ethnicity is in the infobox for some of them, and very properly so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—you say "I think you know very well that Sanders is proud of his Jewish ethnicity." I happen to think that Sanders is proud of being Jewish. I go by what sources say. Sources are composed of intelligent people. Do you not wonder why sources cannot be found in support of any of your arguments? Are sources capable of expressing themselves? Or do only some Wikipedia editors have this special talent? The assertion that "Sanders is proud of his Jewish ethnicity" is original research. Original research is frowned upon here and we should not decide questions such as this one based on original research. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, obviously a person can be proud of being Jewish even while being a Jewish atheist, for example. All I'm saying is that Sanders's statement of pride in being Jewish is not evidence that "Religion: Jewish" belongs in the infobox. Having clarified that point for you, I would like to move on. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support, per his self-identification. It's not up to others to second-guess someone's own expressed view about their own religious identification. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Jewish" is an ambiguous term that can also refer to ethnicity and since he has said he is not religious there is not enough evidence that he practices Judaism. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support (but possibly with a clarification of (non-practicing) or the like added afterwards.) I was divided before reading over the sources, but after reviewing them, I don't think there's any support for leaving Judaism as his religion out of the inforbox. Yes, Sanders is generally described in the sources as a "secular" or "non-practicing" Jew, but I disagree with the assertion that this implies that Judaism is not his religion. It means that he does not perform any formalized religious observances or rituals, and may not agree with all the formal details of its religious dogma, but I think it's clear the sources still consider Judaism his religion. For instance, read the CNN coverage carefully (which I feel is the best source we have, since it addresses the issue directly) -- it calls him a secular Jew and says that it is more about culture to him, but it also talks about him "invoking his religious background"; about how someone "describes Sanders' religion", about how his "religion received little mention" and about "how his religion would be perceived by a Republican Party". None of this supports the contention people are making above that Sanders lacks a religion, only that he rejects organized religion; all of them, in context, seem to be describing Judaism as his religion, even if it's one he holds without practicing it and without any formal observances. It's a Judaism that he has a complicated relationship with, definitely (which we can cover in more depth in the article), but I feel the sources still unequivocally describe it as his religion, and that none of the sources people are pointing to to argue that he is "secular" or "non-practicing" contradict that. His exchange with Anderson Cooper, here, reads to me as him affirming that he considers Judiasm his faith even if he doesn't agree with all of its tenets in a conventional sense (notice the key point of discussion here is "Jewish, but without ties to organized religion".) I feel that, given the level of coverage it has gotten, it's not credible to say that one or two words devoted to this is WP:UNDUE; and I think that at the bare minimum, "Judaism (non-practicing)" or something along those lines would be a more accurate representation of the sources than leaving it out. --Aquillion (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per arguments above, he is non-practicing and infoboxes are meant to give descriptive, relevant, uncomplicated information about the person. If the RFC said "religion = Jewish (nonpracticing)" I may have supported it, but not "religion =Jewish" Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Supporting for the following reasons

Sanders Self Identifies as Religion:Jewish per Press Packet

Self published sources are sufficient for Self Identification per WP:BLPCAT and WP:ABOUTSELF

-The material here is clearly not self serving nor exceptional

-The claim is not about third parties

-The claim is not about events

-The source is certainly authentic

-It is not the basis of a significant portion of the article

Says he’s proud to be Jewish and says not particularly religious (not non-religious) (weakly supporting, the question was about heritage and inferring from his reference to religion is mildly OR)

He answered the senate Roll Call with Religion:Jewish

The Week refers to his Jewish Faith

Times of Israel refers to him as Jewish when discussing his religion's impact on his election chances.

My thoughts on the above arguments opposing

Sanders doesn’t participate in organised religion Counter:Participation is not a policy requirement of identifying someone as religious or belonging to a religion

Highlighting the religion in the infobox gives undue weight to it and it is not a particularly important part of Sanders’ life. Counter, that so many articles are devoted to the discussion of Sanders' faith shows it is a matter of import. And I would disagree that summarising article text in the infobox highlights it.

Jewish doesn’t always mean religion. Counter:It is clear in his press packet and roll call that there it does mean religion.

A lot of information can/needs be given about in what way he is Jewish that cannot fit in an infobox Counter:this is true of all religion parameters, that argument would preclude using it ever. Some catholics follow every tenet others see a church once a year, we don't need to put every detail in the infobox.

On Jimmy Kimmel he said his beliefs weren’t Judaism Counter: He said that one point he made wasn’t Judaism, not that his beliefs weren’t Judaism as is pretty clear from context

In Short Bernie Sanders Says his religion is Jewish both in the roll call and his press pack. Lots of news articles talk about Bernie’s religion, some of them outright saying he's Jewish although often they refrain from calling him Jewish and that content is worth putting in the article such as him saying he’s “not particularly religious” but that he has “very strong religious and spiritual feelings”. Given that it is hard to dispute the fact that 1) Bernie considers himself to have a religious affiliation of Jewish 2) Lots of news ink has been devoted to the topic of Bernie’s faith/religion it should be in the infobox and in the article and I’ve yet to see a cogent argument that it shouldn’t be. SPACKlick (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SPACKlick: I'm confused by some of your statements. While Sanders might self-identify his religion as Judaism (the press kit is still questionable), he also self-identifies as non-religious, self-identifies as secular, has stated, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world, I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That’s my religion." Would you be okay with including his full self-identification about his religion in the infobox? Also, you not that Sanders said he is "proud to be Jewish"; you do realize that was in response to a question about his "Jewish Heritage" in the context of citizenship, right? (Watch the video.) Finally, you refer to Sanders self-identifying in "roll call"? You do realize that Roll Call is just a media company, and is no more "official" than the Washington Post, right? When you say, "so many articles are devoted to the discussion of Sanders' faith", can you specify whether you feel those articles were written because Sanders is a non-religious Jew or because Sanders is a presidential candidate? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support OK, I've been following this article since "Bernie" was a gleam in the eye of a few progressives and caused the eyes to roll of all of the media and the pundits. Lots has happened since then. But this keeps coming up again and again. Initially I felt that it should be removed from the info box. I've changed my mind. The big plus in my mind has been his press release page info. Others have argued that that is not RS. IMO, we need to use our good sense in this case and view it as a good source for the information that we need for this article. It is also clear that Sanders is proud of his Jewish heritage. IMO Bus stop has done a great job of presenting excellent arguments related to Sanders's Jewish background and the infobox. If it is decided to delete it from his infobox that will we OK with me as well. I only hope that we do not need to keep going over it again and again. Gandydancer (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I was summoned here by bot (my support !vote is in the previous section) and this discussion is getting me dizzy. Look, ordinarily religion shouldn't be in an infobox. But in this instance his religion/ethnicity has been a subject of multiple reliable sources and has been discussed all over the media. It is not our job to determine how he feels about his religion, just simply to reflect the reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Even ignoring the strength of their arguments the sheer number of opposes indicate the claim Religion: Jewish is sufficiently contentious to be unsuitable for an infoxbox. The recent, repeated insertions prior to a close here seem to disregard the RFC process entirely. I ask Centerone at least to revert his recent edit as the edit-summary claim that There's a very obvious and clear consensus is demonstrably misleading. D.Creish (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Support So, if it isn't already clear by my other comments in the various discussions on this page, I strongly support the inclusion of Religion : Jewish or Judaism in the infobox. BTW, has anybody yet brought up the religious scholarship on what makes a Jew? Hint: If you're a jew, you're a jew. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm This is not up to anybody else to decide. He declares himself a Jew, he is Jewish by birth, he is a Jew, his religious practices or lack thereof don't matter. Centerone (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Washington post: Why Bernie Sanders doesn’t participate in organized religion
• Chicago Tribune: Bernie Sanders not "involved with organized religion"
• CNN: Bernie Sanders not "actively involved with organized religion"
• Washington post: Bernie Sanders: Our first non-religious president?

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The last source is speculation hence the "?" in the title. The first three don't say "isn't religious", nor do they say "isn't a jew" in reference to religion they say doesn't actively participate in organised religion, which is true of many religious believers. It is worth adding to the article text but it doesn't change the discussion on whether "Religion: Jewish" applies. Bernie claims to be Jewish, Claims to be deeply spiritual, Claims to believe in God and all of this is reported in reliable sources. He claims to be not particularly religious and not to participate in organised religion and this is confirmed in RS but neither of these things override the basic fact that by all reasonable measures it is sufficiently sourced that Sanders is Jewish. To take the others as source saying he isn't it to overinterpret the sources.SPACKlick (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

1. "He says he's Jewish"
2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
3. GOTO: #1

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's only a loop because you don't seem to get it. The RFC is not how religious he is, it is what religion he is. He says he is Jewish. He identifies as part of the Jewish religion, whether it's through his press kit, whether it's through it's through all his statements whether it's through all his news sources, he is a Jew and part of the Jewish religion. Is he a religious Jew? No. But that is not what the RFC is about, nor what the infobox is about. So quit pushing your POV here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I apologise, that was my fault for being unclear. When I said "He says he's Jewish" I meant to say "He says his religion is Jewish". Nothing has been posted to dispute his claim that his religion is Jewish. Other people have speculated on his religion, but when flat out asked, twice at least Sanders has given the unequivocal answer Jewish. The process is really

1. "He say's he's of the Jewish Religion, and that he's religious and that he's spiritual."
2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity"
3. "GOTO 1"

and has been over and over in this RFC. It's a shame that people aren't having the discussion that's actually debatable which is what the notability requirements are for a religion to be in the infobox. But instead there are multiple people claiming to know Sanders religion better than Bernie himself. SPACKlick (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

So someone hacked your computer, logged in pretending to be you, and wrote the words "He claims to be not particularly religious"?[13] If you have a source that has Bernie Sanders himself saying that he's religious, why haven't you produced it? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally not understand Jewish identity. In Judaism, it's *perfectly okay* to be 'not particularly religious' and still consider oneself a Jew, within both religious and ethnic circles. You can be both 'not particularly religious' and still be religious; this is NOT a contradiction from a Jewish perspective. As I posted before, even Orthodox Jews still will recognize non-practicing Jews as Jews, on a religious basis. Here is but one article from a Hasidic Orthodox viewpoint: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm Plenty of people have already spelled this out numerous times; please let us know how many times you need to hear it in order to understand or at least accept that Religion: Jewish or Judaism is perfectly acceptable and factually correct. Centerone (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Whats being Jewish got to do with religion. Religion is one idea being Jewish is another idea, both are choices. He clearly chooses the latter, not both. No brainer. SaintAviator lets talk 07:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He appears to have chosen to be identified as Jewish religion, according to his Press Pack. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Who is "he"? the unidentified member of his campaign who wrote that? We have multiple reliable secondary sources that directly quote Bernie Sanders himself as not being a member of any religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tired of seeing people who think that being ethically Jewish immediately implies being an observant religious Jew. Tired of seeing people simply using the press packet as the only thing needed to form their opinion and ignoring contradictory evidence from the candidate. Tired of the undue readiness to include statements that might be false in the article rather than leaving them out until any ambiguity is resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support. He self-identifies as not just ethnically Jewish, but also religiously Jewish, and the Wikipedia standard is self-identification. Editors don't get to censor verifiable information just because they do not like it, or do original research and say that he doesn't pass their personal litmus test for religiosity; the only standards that matter under Wikipedia rules are verifiability and self-identification, both of which are satisfied. —Lowellian (reply) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: MShabazz;s support !vote[14] and Kingsindian's support !vote[15] both contain a logical fallacy, and thus might be subject to being discarded per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome:

"The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."

In particular, the argument contains the following example of the affirming the consequent fallacy:

1. If Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism), then Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
2. Bernie Sanders is Jewish.
3. Therefore, Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism).

The fallacy consists of assuming that being a member of the Jewish religion (Judaism) is the only way to be Jewish. Other ways of being Jewish include but are not limited to::

• Members of an ethnoreligious group originating from the Israelites, or Hebrews, of the Ancient Near East. See Jews.
• Through matrilineal descent as defined by Halakha. See Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth.
• Descendants from a population bottleneck of 350 individuals who lived about 600-800 years ago. See Genetic studies of Jewish origins and Medical genetics of Jews.
• Those who have the right to live in Israel and to gain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
• Various definitions used by racist groups for the purpose of targeting Jews for persecution or discrimination. While these definitions are generally considered invalid, they are vaid for the specific purpose of prosecuting members of such groups for Hate Crimes.
• Those who either share, or are only one step removed from, a pattern of values for 6 Y-STR markers, named the Cohen Modal Haplotype and thus are claimed to be/may be descended from Aaron, brother of Moses, in the direct lineage from Levi according to the tradition codified in the Tanakh. See Y-chromosomal Aaron.

Notes:

In general, Orthodox Judaism considers individuals born of Jewish mothers to be Jewish, even if they convert to or are raised in another religion. Reform Judaism views Jews who convert to or are raised in another religion as non-Jews. See Who is a Jew?#Jews who have practiced another religion.

The 2013 Pew Research study of American Jews found that 62% thought that being Jewish was mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while 15% thought that it was mainly a matter of religion. See Who is a Jew?#Ethnic and cultural perspectives.

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if MShabazz is busy or not, so I will speak for him, WTF are you talking about? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you even read what you pasted, here's the first sentence of the ethnoreligious article: "An ethnoreligious group (or ethno-religious group) is an ethnic group whose members are also unified by a common religious background." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "unified by a common religious background" and "unified by a common religion"? The people of India are unified by a common religious background (Hinduism) but are not unified by a common religion (20% of the population are not Hindu) and it would certainly be wrong to put "Religion - Hindu" in the infobox of someone who is Indian but states that their beliefs are "Not Hinduism". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you not understand the difference between India which is a country that has a different religions and peoples and Jews? Besides, I thought you weren't participating in this anymore? In addition, are you seriously still on the Bernie's not Jewish bandwagon? Haven't we had enough of you already? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Guy Macon's oppose vote is of course just a logical falsity and just continuing his waste of time from his RFC above, he also mentions sources, but brings no sources relevant to the infobox. The article does indeed mention his lack of religious observance, but that is not what the infobox is about. The infobox clearly says Religion. His press kit says religion, and Sanders identifies as Jewish. I really don't know why we have to go through all this. I wonder if we will go to Donal Trump's infobox next. Sander's is Jewish, whether he is a practicing Jew is irrelevant to the infobox Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Please stop saying "Sander's is Jewish" when absolutely nobody disagrees with you on that point. It is getting to be quite annoying. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yet you have an RFC here. The infobox is for religion. You are wasting everyone's time here. All the infobox is quite simply, is he Jewish? Yes? then that goes in the box. TFD says it takes sentences to clarify, no it doesn't. Is Sanders Jewish? Yes. QED. That is all. Nothing to clarify. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Since Guy Macon's oppose vote is clearly based on original research, the closer should disregard it. There are absolutely no sources that say Sanders is not Jewish, which is the question posed by this RfC. There have been no sources produced either that say Sanders' religion is not Judaism, which is what Guy is arguing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously? You don't even know what the question asked is in an RfC that you wrote? This RfC does not ask whether sanders is Jewish, so why are you pretending that it does? As for sources, [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html ] is a reliable source for sanders not being a member of Judaism or any other religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• The objections seem to be to the Religion part of the infoxbox, not the Jewish part. I don't see where original research comes into it when sources report he's "openly not religious." D.Creish (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The infobox is not about how religious someone is, it merely asks what religion someone is. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • When someone is not particularly religious or downplays their religion, highlighting that person's religion prominently in the infobox violates WP:WEIGHT. Would you support a lead that stated "Bernard "Bernie" Sanders (born September 8, 1941) is a Jewish American politician and the junior United States Senator from Vermont."? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Firstly, I wouldn't have a problem with it. He is a Jewish American politician. It's not saying he is a religious Jewish American politician. Finally, the infobox is just identifying the religion, so it is not undue. I am not sure how many more times that has to be repeated. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

  You don't have to repeat it at all. Have you even read WP:WEIGHT? If you had, I don't believe you could make a statement like "the infobox is just identifying the religion, so it is not undue". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment One of the reasons why we have religion in the infobox of American politicians is because it is notable. As such, Sanders' religion as being Jewish is notable and not undue weight to include. His practice of being Jewish is irrelevant for the infobox, but is relevant for the article and is mentioned as such in the article. People love to know the religion of the politicians and that is what the infobox does, it doesn't matter the practice of that religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Certain Americans have an obsession with sexual orientation as well. Should we brand every LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ politician as such in their infobox? Notability and sourceability alone are not sufficient to highlight something in the infobox. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Start an RFC and see if that flies, right now consensus is to include religion in the infobox, your comment is a red herring. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Not in the least—you've merely dodged the point ("Notability and sourceability alone are not sufficient to highlight something in the infobox") and falsely asserted a consensus exists where it most clearly doesn't. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • To clarify, consensus is still unclear at this point -- and I say that as an until-now uninvolved editor. The survey above at this point is 8 to 6, and the lengthy discussion above that, plus the RfC, seem to be evidence that consensus has yet to arrive. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't mean consensus on this page, I mean consensus for all 535 members of Congress, is to include religion. We should not exclude the Jew solely because some people don't like that he is not 100% religious. Some religions don't follow the same rules of Christianity. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
          • That's a valid definition of "consensus," but it's not what it means here on Wikipedia in the context of discussions like this one. A more appropriate word would be "precedent." The question here is if the precedent you cite should be the deciding factor on this question -- and that's what we're waiting to see if consensus arises around. Please remain patient. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. There is no way that this would not violate BLP, as Sanders does not identify publicly as Jewish. I asked at WP:BLPN for this RfC to be shut down. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, you seem to have a deeply confused understanding of how the consensus building process works on this project, particularly WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. RfC's are not "shut down" because one party objects to one or more of the possible outcomes. You either make an argument which persuades your fellow editors that your position is most consistent with broader community consensus and policy or your fail to do so. You're free (indeed, welcomed) to take the issue to BLPN or any other central community discussion space to solicit as broad a degree of community involvement as possible, provided you stay away from the beahviours proscribed by WP:CANVAS. But the ultimate decision will be determined as a result of consensus following a conscientious exploration of the proposed content and the available sources, as approached through the lens of our community guidelines--that is, not by decree or fiat after attempts to stifle that discussion in violation of this project's most basic editorial and community principles. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Snow Rise It appears you're right this time. My action was based on a misreading of option 2 here - I did not read the footnote. I hope I have not run afoul of WP:CANVASS. Still I find it hard to believe that this RfC will have to remain open for thirty days while editors make a tremendous amount of noise over what boils down to a straightforward BLP issue that only can go one way. That seems to violate WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Alas, that's the price of an open-collaboration/consensus model. :) It gets messy and inefficient at times, but on the balance we get many other benefits, many of which are essential to the Wikipedia process, including a closer approximation of absolutely neutrality as a result of distributing that decision-making process. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Sanders has stated publicaly that what he believes "is not Judaism", as Sammy1339 has pointed out at WP:BLPN. Supporters who have not examined these remarks should do so now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes "He has in recent years been famously prickly about his Jewish identity — he snapped at me for raising the subject a couple years ago. Folks in Vermont told me he may be concerned about how overt Jewishness would play in the state’s rural, more conservative quarters.". Any voter who calls themselves "conservative" and wouldn't vote for a politician because they are Jewish, is antisemitic. That is completely unacceptable. I don't think Sanders should hide his Jewish heritage/religion because of a fear of antisemitic retaliation.--Zigzig20s (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  If it says "Religion: Jewish" on his press handouts, then he's doing an awful job of hiding it. Something tells me that an American politician running for president who would declares himself a socialist isn't afraid of much. Regardless, what you link to is speculation and doesn't add to the discussion. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Kendrick7: Why do you say "trying to minimize Senator Sander's minority status"? The parameter is "|religion=", not "|ethnicity=", and Sanders has said that what he believes "is not Judaism". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, @Curly Turkey, that's sort of a strange question to ask of a Catholic whose family has been in the United States since 1812. In short, not all minorities are based on ethnicity. Can I get a citeref on your "is not Judaism" part? Googling, I see the quote via a very right-wing site here[16]. In context he surely means "this is not [about] Judaism" or perhaps "this is not [only] Judaism" since he goes on to immediately mention Pope Francis. One muddled and unclear quote doesn't negate a person's religious faith. Not to mention the old Jewish saying, which I'm having trouble sourcing just now: "When your neighbor is ill, don't say 'there is a God and I hope He helps them'; say 'there is no God, and so I will help them.'" I reject the idea that we can't say Bernie Sanders is a Jew simply because he's humble. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

  @Kendrick7: I don't what Sanders means by the quote, and I don't trust any of the very partisan editors on this page to interpret it. But my question was why you would interpret leaving the "|religion=" parameter blank "trying to minimize Senator Sander's minority status". I see no effort by any editor on this page to hide Sanders' ethnic/cultural/religious/what-have-you backround, and I've explicitly called for more detail on that in the body. You appear to be making a very unjustified accusation of bigotry. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

His observance or nonobservance is an extraneous concern—extraneous to this decision-making process. As to why noting religion is important—it is not a question we need to entertain. It is important. Why it is important is an extraneous concern—extraneous to this decision-making process. Numerous articles are written about Bernie Sanders' religion. That suggests a degree of concern with this factor, warranting it a place in our Infobox. Undue weight in this instance would be the omission of this biographical fact from the Infobox. It would be a glaring omission to omit the indisputable fact that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. The reader attaches a degree of importance to religious affinities. One would have to have one's head in a hole in the ground to think that a US presidential candidate's Jewishness is a non-notable factor. Bus stop (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The body talks about it. Saying the Infobox must highlight it because the Infobox must highlight it is a tautology. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

But of course I did not say that the Infobox must "highlight" it. But the Infobox should note it, and the omission of this biographical fact would be a glaring omission. Bus stop (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Every detail in the Infobox highlights an aspect of the article subject. That's the whole raison d'être of an Infobox. Calling "the omission of this biographical fact would be a glaring omission" is another tautology. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is merely semantic. It only serves the purpose of obfuscation. Anything anywhere can be construed as "highlighting". But we have standard operating procedures. There can be exceptions. But the subject of the biography is Jewish and the Infobox can note that. You can consider that "highlighting". But Wikipedia does not have to follow your personal interpretation of the most straightforward way of constructing an article according to Wikipedia policy. We would be remiss in omitting from the Infobox that the person is Jewish because that is a biographical detail likely to be of interest to the reader. No reason has been adduced for excising that biographical detail from the Infobox that has anything to do with Wikipedia policy. Its glaring omission is a mark against the quality of the article. Consequently it should be restored. Sources unanimously support the biographical detail. There are no sources telling us that he is not Jewish and he tells us himself that he is Jewish. Our policy specifically addresses this in WP:BLPCAT. As much as I like to ignore all rules, this is a time that I like to fall back on policy. As much as I like the freewheeling approach to writing an article, this a time that policy must be invoked. This does not happen to be the Christian encyclopedia. A Jew is running for president of the USA. This is not a gung-ho rallying cry for Jewish-American power. I believe statistically more American Jews support Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders. But the fact of the simple matter is that the populace takes interest in the religious identity of someone like Bernie Sanders. A multitude of sources tell us that. You cannot argue that "undue weight" is being given to the noting of this in the Infobox. The "weight" amply exists in a great variety of sources examining the man's Jewishness. The sources are also targeting what they perceive to be the "typical" reader. It is thus a glaring omission to excise material that fits all of our requirements for such material. That is a contrivance only explained by the biases in our editorship. One would have to have one's head in a hole in the ground to think that a US presidential candidate's Jewishness is a non-notable factor. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Asked about his remark on organized religion by Anderson Cooper at last night's town hall meeting, he said he had very strong religious and spiritual feelings.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey: You made a very bold edit in my opinion here, and you removed referenced info where he says he is indeed religious. I am trying to assume good faith here, but it is becoming difficult.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Subsequently, I restored the in-line referenced info about his Jewish faith in the "early life" section (as that's where it always was), and I removed the off topic similar info from the "political positions" section. Being Jewish is not a political position. It's a religious/cultural aspect, nothing political about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: My edit wasn't bold at all: I didn't remove it, I moved it. Read it again. The quote you added from the town hall speech is still there in full. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone think his Judaism is political? Zionism might be, but Judaism isn't. I'd like to avoid an edit war. Please discuss here if you think it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I stated clearly in my edit comment that it wasn't the best place, didn't I? But "Early life" was only worse as the quotes you quoted were from 2016. I've now put it in its own section until it can be sorted out, but let's stop with the accusations. You're trying way too hard to "gotcha" me, and you're making a mess of the article to do it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, there's nothing personal about a Wikipedia talkpage. But moving his Jewish faith to the back of the bus/bottom of the article, when we are discussing its possible inclusion in the infobox, seems strange. Another editor also questioned your POV editing about Sanders on your talkpage. In any case, what do the other editors think of this new editing decision?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You think it belongs somewhere else? Then—Holy shitmoley!—put it somewhere else! I put it there because there was no obvious place to put it. The "other editor" is full of shitbaloney and wants it all deleted—you don't appear to agree with that POV, do you? You really are trying way too motherfuckingloving hard to fault me for cleaning up your mess. If you're only here to fight, get lost. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And here he is rejecting a call for a truce. Obviously only here to stir the pot. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

After you use swearwords (see above), I won't apologize for doing nothing wrong; this is ridiculous. I am not interested in talking to you, since I have no idea who you are (someone who uses swearwords, I guess). I am interested in improving Bernie Sanders's article. I'd like the other editors to discuss whether they think it is appropriate for his Judaism to be redacted from his "early life" section, even though we still have his wife's religion there for some reason, and the fact that he acted as a rabbi in a film as well. This seems nonsensical, and I am dismayed to see his Judaism sent to the back of the bus/bottom of the article. But I will be patient and see what the others have to say. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said: here to stir the pot. We'll just have to keep an eye on the article and make sure you don't botch it further, unless someone gets around to blocking you first. Notice he keeps whimpering about the last section when I've already offered to let him move it. He didn't want it moved: he wants a fight. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey: Please stop talking to me! I see you have been threatening User:Sir Joseph on his talkpage, and User:Cullen328 has questioned your POV editing on your talkpage. Stop it! I am not interested in talking to you. This is the Bernie Sanders talkpage and I am only here to improve his article. I would like the other editors to decide whether it makes sense to have removed referenced content about Sanders's religion from the "early life" section, but kept details about his wife's religion and his role in a 1999 film. Zigzig20s (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

So figure out where to put those details and move them, for fuck'sPete's sake, instead of whimpering about it, lying about people, and otherwise botching the article. As if you can blame me for where you've fuckedgoofed up putting the movie details. I can only fix so many of your fuck-upsmistakes at once. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, this is a contentious issue and the whole point of the talkpage is to come to a decision in a collaborative manner. So I will wait for the other editors to answer the questions here. There is no need for you to reply with swearwords and threats here; many editors have been discussing whether "Judaism" should appear in the infobox, and they must have an opinion over its sudden removal from the "early life" section. That's what I'd like to find out. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sudden removal? It's still fuckingright there in the article. You've been told to place it wherever the fuck you want it. Now you've stepped clearly into troll territory. You're not here to "collaborate", you're here to fuckmess with heads. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

This page is to talk about the article, not on other editors. Your last comments, @Curly Turkey: are way out of line. Jonathunder (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: I've replaced my language, though one has to wonder why I'm being singled out—no-one has taken Malik to task for it. The fact remains that Zigzag's last few comments were aimed at getting a response: after a point it's clear he's lying when he accuses me of removing material, etc. Will you talk to him about being "out of line"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that someone email the senator and ask him, but I suspect that his response, if any, might be, 'I really don't mind.' Putting 'Religion: Jewish' on his Senate page might be just like ticking a box on a form when you join the army, so they put a Star of David and not a cross on your headstone if you're killed, or it might be to honour his parents and his cultural heritage, the way Catholic women who are complete atheists will still wear a gold cross round the neck. He clearly does not follow any 'religion' in the sense of a set of beliefs or practices handed down by authority, so the Jewish religion doesn't own him, but of course he's Jewish -- a unique ethnic descriptor which is neither religious nor national nor cultural in any specific way, and which no one can define, but which everyone recognises all the same. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed the mere fact that there is discussion about this issue and that there are two potentially valid perspectives should mean that we leave this blank. The infobox is for facts that are simple, uncontroversial and uncontested. The discussion here demonstrates that this piece of information is not this kind of fact. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Sanders has described his religious views thusly, in the Washington Post:

I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we're all in this together. That I think it is not a good thing to believe that as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people. This is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about -- that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.

(emphasis mine). Ergo, it would appear by his own statement that his religion is not Judaism/Jewish. Even if one were to consider this to be a contextual comment/statement to whatever degree, he has also repeatedly said, in more than one venue, that he is not involved with organized religion and is not particularly religious; and his brother has confirmed that he is "quite substantially not religious". The parameter in the infobox should be left blank, as per usual. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender—you write "emphasis mine". You are misunderstanding a source, and you are adding "emphasis" to strengthen your misunderstanding. You write "it would appear by his own statement that his religion is not Judaism/Jewish." He isn't even talking about "Judaism/Jewish". He is talking about "the suffering of other people". He is saying that "This is what Pope Francis is talking about". Is Pope Francis a Jew? You should be careful not to derive from a source that which is not there. If you don't believe me when I say you are misinterpreting a source, consider another source covering the same Sanders quote, and especially look at the commentary provided by that source after the quote. In this source we have the same quote covered. The "International Business Times" covers the same quote as follows: "'I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,' said Sanders. 'And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.' In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Let us not add any "emphasis" and read what is written. He is saying that it is not only Judaism that can't turn its back on the suffering of other people. He cites "the Pope" in order to say that Christianity also can't turn its back on the suffering of other people. If you still doubt me, look at the final comment that the International Business Times makes: "In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He didn't say "This is not only Judaism"; he said "This is not Judaism". He is talking about "what I believe in and what my spirituality is about", and he says "This is not Judaism". It's obviously something intrinsic to Judaism as well as to other religions or spiritualities, but Sanders specifically states, when describing his own beliefs/spirituality, "This is not Judaism". Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

He is including Christianity in the abhorrence in turning one's back on the suffering of other people. He is saying I am not only speaking of Judaism but of Christianity as well. How do you derive "his religion is not Judaism/Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You're interpreting it as saying "This is not only Judaism", but that's not what he said. He said "This is not Judaism", and he said this in the context of "what I believe in and what my spirituality is about". You can interpret it your way, that's fine; I however am not interested in pursuing this repetitive discussion further, so this is my last reply to you on this topic. Softlavender (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We go by sources, Softlavender. We read quotes such as this one, and we also read surrounding commentary by the source. I am asking you to read the surrounding commentary. This source prefaces the question that prompted Sanders' quote with the following commentary: "Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president if elected, dodged the question about believing in God but turned his response into a summary of the philosophy that drives his run." Sanders responded to the question "about believing in God but turned his response into a summary of the philosophy that drives his run." Do you see the understanding that the source has of Sanders' quote? And do you see how it differs from your understanding? You are insisting that Sanders continues to respond to "the question about believing in God". But the source is clear in its own commentary. He "dodged the question about believing in God but turned his response into a summary of the philosophy that drives his run." Notice that that there is even a sentence break. He begins a new sentence reading: "I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people…" And then he begins yet another new sentence. It reads: "And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about…" He is talking about "the suffering of other people". You are insisting that he is providing commentary on his understanding of Judaism. But that is not what he is doing. And not only does the source make that clear in its commentary prefacing his quote, but it also makes that clear in its commentary after the quote: "In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." The commentary of the source that Sanders "deftly and subtly made" a point. Which point? That "caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Your fanciful interpretation should be disregarded. We adhere to the findings of reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You have shown yourself to be not qualified to determine what the sources say.[17][18]

Someone who thinks that "wet" and "dry" are identical will necessarily see every citation that shows that water is wet as support for inserting "water is dry" into Wikipedia articles. all the while claiming that he is "adhering to the findings of reliable sources". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're clearly reading his statement "this is not Judaism" incorrectly. He means it the exact same way Muslim leaders say this is not Islam for isis or other terrorists. Being a bad person or only doing certain things is not what religion is about, that is what he clearly meant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

" 'I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,' said Sanders. 'And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.' In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Source: Bernie sanders, Quoted in an article in the International Business Times.[19]

In his own words, what Bernie Sanders believes in and what Bernie Sanders' spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. In his own words, Bernie Sanders thinks that it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people. In his own words, Bernie Sanders says that what Bernie Sanders believes in and what Bernie Sanders' spirituality is about is not Judaism. In his own words, what Bernie Sanders believes in and what Bernie Sanders' spirituality is about is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. In his own words, Bernie Sanders says that life is more than that. BTW, I agree. Bernie Sanders is right. Life is more than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—Sanders is saying that it is not just Judaism which can't turn its back on "the suffering of other people" but Chistianity as well, as exemplified by Pope Francis. I'm not sure why you are finding any issue here. Here is the relevant section from the source which you have provided:

Sanders, who would be the first Jewish president if elected, dodged the question about believing in God but turned his response into a summary of the philosophy that drives his run.

"I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people," said Sanders. "And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that."

In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion.[20]

The source even explains the quote for you. There is no reason for you not to understand the quote. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—you say "You have shown yourself to be not qualified to determine what the sources say." You are unwilling to accept sources and you are unwilling to accept policy. I am not determining what the sources say. The sources are perfectly clear. This press package is perfectly clear: "Religion: Jewish". Am I determining what the source says? No. It says what it says, and it is perfectly clear. If you don't like that source we have this source. It is the Christian Science Monitor. In it we find Sanders in an interview saying "I’m proud to be Jewish". Am I determining what that source says? No. It is perfectly clear. But you are unwilling to accept sources and you are unwilling to accept policy. The most applicable policy to this question is WP:BLPCAT. You are unwilling to accept the policy which says that "self-identification" should determine whether the "Religion" parameter in the Infobox gets used. We have "self-identification", do we not? But you are unwilling to accept sources and you are unwilling to accept policy. Bus stop (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You just made the same error you made every time. You used a reference that says "at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Bernie Sanders spoke of how his Jewish heritage informs his politics" and used it to support your claim about the Jewish religion -- because you think religion and heritage are the exact same thing. In other words, you cited a reference that shows that water is wet as support for inserting "water is dry" into Wikipedia articles -- because you think "wet" and "dry" are the exact same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—he has Jewish heritage. Why wouldn't a source refer to his "Jewish heritage"? Besides, we are less concerned with a comment by a staff writer at a source than what is said in quotation by Bernie Sanders. Have you forgotten the wording in WP:BLPCAT requiring "self-identification"? You say "…you think religion and heritage are the exact same thing". I do not think that at all. Most Orthodox rabbis are of Jewish heritage, with the exception being those Orthodox rabbis that are converts to Judaism. Do you see the distinction between "heritage" and "religion"? When Bernie Sanders states "I’m proud to be Jewish…", that is a clear instance of "self-identification". According to WP:POLICY and according to sources, the Infobox should be reading "Religion: Jewish" for Bernie Sanders. And he uses a verbal formulation that exactly matches that in his press package: "Religion: Jewish". What is unclear to you about that? You seem to think that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a role in evaluating Jews for level of religious observance. Yes, there are religious Jews and yes, there are nonreligious Jews. But it is not at all Wikipedia's role to evaluate Jews in this way. We should simply be adhering to the findings of reliable sources. There is something ridiculous about Wikipedia trying to evaluate a Jew for minimally acceptable level of Jewishness. As one source puts it: And if Sanders doesn't want to talk about his personal views on religion, that's fine by Davis. If he were running for president, Davis would have an answer ready for any reporter who asked about his worship practices, he said: "I would say: 'That's none of your business.'" Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies. I confused you with another editor.[21][22] (For the record, do you agree with or disagree with his position?) In your case, I have no idea why you You used a reference that says "at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Bernie Sanders spoke of how his Jewish heritage informs his politics" and used it to support your claim about the Jewish religion. I only know that you did. I apologize for assuming that you made such a basic error for the same reason Sir Joseph keeps making it. You also quoted Sanders as saying "I’m proud to be Jewish…" as if that had something to do with his religion. If you could explain why you keep confusing "I am Jewish" with "My religion is Judaism" perhaps we can figure out together why you keep citing sources that support "I am Jewish" as if they supported "My religion is Judaism". At least a dozen editors have tried to explain your error to you without success, so could you please explain, in detail, why you keep citing Sanders saying "I am Jewish" as support for Sanders' religion being Judaism? Yes, I agree that you have that one source (the press kit) that backs up your position, but you don't have a second source, and those who oppose you have multiple high-quality sources that are direct quotes from Sanders. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—you say "I have no idea why you You used a reference that says 'at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Bernie Sanders spoke of how his Jewish heritage informs his politics'." I was responding to you. I would not have mentioned his Jewish heritage if you had not introduced "Jewish heritage" in this post. Please don't hold me accountable for your introduction of the topic of "Jewish heritage" to this discussion. As concerns who you are speaking to—that too is your responsibility. You say "I confused you with another editor." OK, you made a mistake. We are very forgiving. Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish. What is your issue with that? We were not contemplating putting "Religion: Judaism" into the Infobox because that is not what you removed from the Infobox in this edit. We adhere to the findings of reliable sources, of which there are an ample number supporting the terminology "Religion: Jewish". For one, he says "I'm proud to be Jewish". That statement constitutes self-identification for the purposes of an Infobox reading "Religion: Jewish". Additionally his press package reads "Religion: Jewish". Yes, it reads those exact words. That too is self-identification. You have a knack for reading into plain statements to reach unsupported conclusions. Wikipedia adheres to the findings of sources. Wikipedia isn't here for you to express your personal ideas in the absence of support from sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment How about you let Judaism determine what is Judaism? For thousands of years, Judaism had most of its adherents exactly like Bernie, not being exactly among the most religious of the members, yet he is still a follower of the religion. That's Judaism for you. Do we go into every other religion and decide what their tenets of its faith are? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let Jews determine what "Jewish" means? Great idea! "In the most comprehensive study of American Jews in 12 years, a strong majority said being Jewish is mostly about ancestry or culture, not the religious practice of Judaism. 'A Portrait of Jewish Americans,' released by the Pew Research Center, shows strong secularist trends most clearly seen in one finding: 62% of U.S. Jews said Jewishness is largely about culture or ancestry; just 15% said it's about religious belief. 'Non-Jews may be stunned by it,' said Alan Cooperman, co-author of the study. 'Being Jewish to most Jews in America today is not a matter of religion.' "[23] It certainty isn't to Bernie Sanders, as he himself has said multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• That kind of proves my point. Think about it for a second. Let it sink in. Members of the Jewish religion, in a survey said that religion is not that important to them, but culture and and ancestry is. Which is exactly what I said.Which is exactly how it's been for generations. And again, regardless, while you keep ignoring policy, Bernie Sanders' identifying as a member of this religion, is enough. So unless you go though every other religion to identify tenets of their faith and practice you need to stop. The Jewish religion, has most members not caring about the religion, and in the Jewish religion, the religion says that it makes no difference, you are still a member of that religion, and that is also how Bernie identified himself, how his press kit identified himself, how all the news sources identifies himself, how everyone in the US identifies himself. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—a Jew is not a non-Jew. You should stop foisting your personal views on us in the absence of sources. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." All sources support that Bernie Sanders is Jewish. There are available sources which constitute self-identification. There is nothing lacking in the way of justification for the Infobox reading "Religion: Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you three just take a break from this now and let the RfC conclude. You are not producing new arguments at this point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

New arguments? There never has been a cogent argument for removing "Religion: Jewish" from the Infobox. That aspect of the article had been stable for months. Guy Macon initiated an RfC which read that "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. If a rule has to be written in such a way that it has Jews as an exception to that rule, then the rule is problematic. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus—this is not rocket science. Each religion has its own criteria for validity. We editors don't make up our own criteria for the validity of Jewish membership. That is left to reliable sources. We have a requirement that applies to all religions called self-identification. I can respect that because it applies to all religions. But this is nonsense when a rule is written to apply differently to Jews than it does to other religions. I'm referring to this language: "Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother. That simply opens the door to original research. The fact is that Jews exist on a spectrum of observance. Wikipedia editors are now going to decide what level of observance is acceptable and what level of observance is unacceptable as pertains to the Jewish religion? That is so completely absurd that it is mind-boggling that we are even entertaining the idea. The Jewish religion is whatever it is and nobody has to like it. But we still have to abide by the findings of reliable sources. And no reliable source says that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

One final point before I join you: if it were true that ethnically Jewish = religiously Jewish, we should include Religion: Jewish in Christopher Hitchens's infobox. Though no less accurate it would be far more humorous. D.Creish (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But of course no one has said that "ethnically Jewish = religiously Jewish". We abide by the findings of reliable sources. We don't engage in interpretation, unless on-topic reliable sources address a given topic. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." You can't bring a source such as this one, deriving from the Pew Research Center, and think that it has a whole lot of bearing on Bernie Sanders. It is of interest, yes. But in the final analysis we should abide by sources that are more on-topic. If interpretation is part of our decision-making process, that interpretation should be found in on-topic sources. When Wikipedia editors engage in freewheeling interpretation we have the equivalent of original research. Bus stop (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The above, though largely accurate, has no specific relevance to this disagreement. I was surprised to see the earlier close. This should be stated clearly for future reviewers: the only source that connects "Religion" to "Jewish" WRT Sanders is the press pack. No secondary sources whatsoever. They connect "Sanders" with "Jewish", and "Sanders" with "Religion" but not "Jewish" with "Religion." We do however have secondary sources that connect "Sanders" with "atheist." That's enough to indicate simple inclusion in the infoxbox without qualification is inappropriate. D.Creish (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

D.Creish—atheism does not at all obviate someone's religion being Jewish. You are not the arbiter of whether someone's religion is Jewish or not. No Wikipedia editor makes that decision. That decision is made by reliable sources. You and others have an argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. You need sources to support that argument. Sources should be on-topic. Neither you nor anyone else has presented any sources supportive of the notion that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Guy Macon in this edit removed "Religion: Jewish" from the Infobox. His edit summary reads "not a member of any religion". Please show me the source supportive of the notion that Sanders is "not a member of any religion". Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of any religion. Bald is not a hair color. Bald is the lack of any hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Off is the lack of any TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Barefoot is the lack of any shoe. Silence is not a sound. Silence is the lack of any sound. Never is not a date. Never is the lack of a date. Clear is not a color. Clear is the lack of a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. You had your chance to make your "atheism is a religion" argument at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes -- in fact you presented your case sixteen times -- and the Wikipedia community rejected your arguments with an overwhelming (over 75%) consensus. D.Creish is right; you have a grand total of one primary source, and no other source says that Sander's religion is Judaism. And no, I am not going to engage you in yet another long, pointless discussion, no matter how hard[24] you try to get me to do so. Both of us have made too many comments already, and others here are getting annoyed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

D.CreishWhat sources say Sanders is an atheist? Sanders himself says he believes in God and that is quoted in this very article. As for Sander's religion being Jewish, we all know that he's Jewish and that the consensus says he's Jewish, regardless of what Guy Macon says. It's rather insulting to have one guy on the internet decide for a religion what is and what is not acceptable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—please notice a post such as this: "Objective3000—atheism is not a religion". I didn't argue that that atheism was a religion. I stated the opposite—that atheism is not a religion. Why are you saying "You had your chance to make your 'atheism is a religion' argument at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes"? I never argued that atheism was a religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Let us suppose for a moment as a thought experiment that he were to report his religion to be atheism. If so it would be entirely irrelevant which other people thing atheism a religion or not a religion. What would be decisive is that he said it was his religion. It's a very simple rule. If he had never said anything about his religion we might have a problem for the infobox.

Reddit brought me here, LOL. 192.0.158.233 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There seem to me to be three seperate discussions being had over the top of eachother in this discussion and discussions further down the page. First there's the BLP policy on identifying Sanders' religion. Categories regarding religious beliefs...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements.. Then there's the policy for including a suitably identified religion in the infobox. Help:Infobox says Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. and MOS:Infobox says the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). I've split three subdiscussions off below to account for these.SPACKlick (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Spiritual but not religious

Numerous credible sources describe Sanders as "spiritual but not religious" [25]; [26]; [27]. Therefore, I submit that per standard infobox inclusion criteria, the "Religion" parameter should not be filled out. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Support Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose What does religious have to do with religion. As was pointed out a million times on this page, you don't need to be religious to be part of the religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete RFC question

During the past day or so, the infobox has stated "Ethnicity: Jewish". In contrast, the RFC question was posed (and answered) when "Jewish" was not in the infobox. While it remains, there is no reason to believe that people who answered affirmatively to the RFC question would want the infobox to include both "Ethnicity: Jewish" and "Religion: Jewish", and this new reality ought to be recognized in the RFC close.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it is obsolete, there is a discussion about whether his religion is worthy of inclusion in the infobox, that is entirely independent of his ethnicity's merit for inclusionSPACKlick (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not entirely independent of his ethnicity, as several people are determined to use his ethnicity as justification to label him religiously Jewish, too. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Does Bernie Sanders Self Identify as Being a member/believer of the Jewish religion: Judaism?

My answer to this prong of the lemma is that yes, whilst he is often reluctant to talk about it and doesn't want it to be front and centre in the campaign, the fact that on the two official documents where he was requested to identify his religion he has identified that he is Jewish seems to satisfy the criteria of self-identification required by BLP rules.SPACKlick (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

By "official documents where he was requested to identify his religion", did you mean his Official Senate Bio, wherein he conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God at all, while many of his Senate colleagues ([28], [29], [30], etc.) do? Remember that "Roll Call" is a media company that is anything but official (they might even have copied from Wikipedia), and the press .PDF file people keep pointing to has errors and vagueness (e.g.; saying he was elected mayor by 12 votes instead of 10, saying he was born in NY City instead of specifically in Brooklyn, mixing up Judaism and Jewish, etc). Whom do you suppose "requested" Sanders to identify his religion for that .PDF file? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

To be fair in regards to your statement: "By "official documents where he was requested to identify his religion", did you mean his Official Senate Bio, wherein he conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God at all, while many of his Senate colleagues ([35], [36], [37], etc.) do?" I'm not sure, and we can't say "he was requested to identify his religion" without proof of a questionnaire prompting him to do so - I'm guessing that due to this being an official government site, it wouldn't do that, even though these are personal bios, because of the whole government and separation of church and state issue. His political / election bio is however not an official government document and it DOES clearly state his religion, however, Guy Macon wants us to believe that since he didn't personally type and layout it himself, it doesn't apply or can't be trusted, which is patently absurd. Furthermore, the three examples you cited don't exactly do that either. What they do do is this: Citation 35 (Jeff Sessions of Alabama) mentions that he is a leader and talks about positions (i.e. achievements and responsibilities). It does mention "belief in God" as part of several "core values", but so has Bernie Sanders repeatedly stated he believes in God and is spiritual. Bernie Sanders isn't a synagogue member, so he can't exactly hold office in synagogue, and the way they tend to operate is different. 36, David Purdue's entry only mentions a church he attends, but doesn't specifically say he believes in God or practices a religion, if we were to play the same sort of games with this, attendance at a church does not necessarily mean one is of a particular religion. 37, Lamar Alexander's doesn't mention belief in God either, it once again talks about a position in a church. Centerone (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

So we mostly agree? In Sanders' Official Senate Bio there is a conspicuous absence of religion, while his colleagues' Official Senate Bios are filled with "... was instilled with the core values ... belief in God – that define him today ... served as a lay leader and as a Sunday school teacher at his family’s church ... Ashland Place United Methodist Church ... Chairman of his church’s Administrative Board ... selected as a delegate to the annual Alabama Methodist Conference ... attend Wesley United Methodist Church ... He is a Presbyterian elder ..." My point is that Sanders did not feel that his religion, or lack thereof, was even worth mentioning on his official bio — it's not that significant to his notability or PUBLIC life — while many dozens (I stopped after just 3) of his colleagues mention it. You argue that just because they mention churches and God, it doesn't mean they attend or believe, and I suppose they could be pretending, but my point still stands: Sanders' doesn't even consider it relevant enough to pretend. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders Religion relevant to his public life?

Given the amount of news ink devoted to the question of the impact of Bernie Sanders' religion and beliefs on his campaign for presidency I fail to see how it can be argued that his beliefs are not relevant to his public life. Pretty much every source quoted on either side of the this discussion above supports this point by its very existence. SPACKlick (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Questions for you, SPACKlick, to help me understand:

• Do you think "the amount of news ink devoted" is because Sanders is a non-religious Jew, or because he is a United States presidential candidate?
• When I search the many thousands of articles published on Sanders, I find just a small fraction of them even bother to mention religion at all (and most that do are probably already linked on this Talk page) — do you see the same ratio?
• Of that small fraction of articles on Sanders that do bother to mention religion, I find that the vast majority of them only say "Sanders had a Jewish upbringing, but he's non-religious, he tends to avoid speaking about it, and it has little or nothing to do with his public life" — have you observed the same thing?

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In the opinion of of a few Wikipedia editors his religion is not relevant to his public life but sources tell us that his religion is relevant to his public life. A source with a title like "Why Bernie Sanders’ Judaism is so important" and with a subtitle "Sanders considers himself secular, yet his overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is profoundly Jewish" conveys to us the importance of his religion to his public life. The existence of many articles of this sort argues the case that his religion is of relevance to his public life. I am respectful of the opinions of Wikipedia editors but we should be abiding by sources, many of which examine Sanders' candidacy from the perspective of his religion. I am not arguing that his religion is of outsized importance. His religion may be a minor factor. I am sure his political positions eclipse his religion in importance in the minds of all voters. But it would be incorrect to argue that Sanders fails the requirements of WP:BLPCAT on the basis that his religion is not of relevance to his public life. It may be a minor factor but sources delve into discussion about his religion and his public life, thus amply satisfying this Wikipedia policy requirement. Words like "important" and "profoundly" matter. One could quibble over whether a passing reference to his religion constituted relevance per WP:BLPCAT, but in this source his religion is characterized as being both "important" and "profoundly Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this. Your college student's essay on how Sanders' "empathy" for people is a Jewish trait that had to come from Judiasm presents 'interesting' theories. I'm sure there aren't "many" articles like that, and for every one you can produce, there are dozens which explain that he isn't religious - it has no significant bearing on his life - he doesn't "wear it on his sleeve". As for his "empathy", all the theories of college students notwithstanding, he will tell you in his own words about his empathy - and conclude, "This is not Judaism." Given a choice between Sanders and Salon opinion essays... Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So 'an overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is profoundly Jewish' is what a certain Matthew Rozsa says of Sanders (note the 'yet' defining the sentence). The message is, logically, for Rozsa, either that 'that any goy who feels empathy for the downtrodden must get it from Judaism' or that goys don't have anywhere near what "we" have, an empathy for the downtrodden. It's precisely because Sanders doesn't think like that, as if universal sentiments were a prerogative or distinctive virtue of one background, that some here get upset, and try the old trick, shared by anti-Semites as well, of identifying someone as a Jew, and on the strength of that, glossing everything (s)he might do or say as evidence for 'Jewish characteristics' (ugh). Thanks for putting me, for one, in my place as ethically inferior. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming the above are sufficient to identify Bernie Sanders as Jewish (in terms of religion) Does it merit inclusion in the infobox?

It seems to me that like all cases of inclusion of a religion, there is more to say than simply a label and it would be inappropriate to say it in the infobox. However almost every entry in an infobox requires expansion in the article and by the MOS and Help pages I cited above it would appear this is indeed the intent of infoboxes, to summarise simply the information. Every time you label someone as "Christian" or "Hindu" or "Muslim" you put them in a very varied category of person that requires some explanation. I can't find any PAG relating to infoboxes that would argue against inclusion, assuming the above two criteria are met but would welcome the presentation of some. SPACKlick (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "Assuming the above are sufficient to identify Bernie Sanders as Jewish (in terms of religion) Does it merit inclusion in the infobox?" The answer is No. There are a minimum of TWO conditions that need to be met. This has been explained repeatedly with citations to the specific policies and guidelines that define the two conditions in threads that you have participated in. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPCAT, "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) … should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources....These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements." Per MOS:INFOBOX, an infobox "summarizes key features of the page's subject".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• No it is not relevant to his notability and isn't worth including per the reasons Anythingyouwant has given. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

How is it not relevant when SOOoooo many articles discuss it, etc. etc.? Surely and quite clearly people care. Centerone (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No one said that people don't care, and while some articles mention religion (I think every single one must be linked on this page by now), those are but a small fraction of the many thousands of sources on Sanders, the vast majority of which make no mention of religion at all. The articles are written about Sanders not because he is a non-religious Jew, but because he is a presidential candidate; that is why he is notable. Here's the funny thing: Well meaning editors ask, "but if at least some media sources are writing about Sanders and religion, it must be relevant to him, right?" No, because what those very sources are saying is that Sanders is NOT religious - does NOT practice/observe - drifted away from the religion and ritual - does NOT talk about it - isn't concerned with it - and religion has little or no bearing on his public life at all. In a nutshell: Sanders is not notable for being Jewish. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

He's not notable for his birthdate, his spouses, his domestic partners, his children, etc. but all that information is in the infobox. I'm pretty sure in the case of most people with that information that few of them are actually 'notable for their religion.' Centerone (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

probably no consensus

ust a quick note. It is pretty obvious to me that there is no consensus on the RfC. There are strong, good faith, policy-based !votes on both sides of the question and plenty of both. Folks should be thinking about where to go from there. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If there is no consensus, then the |Religion= field remains in its default state (blank). Consensus can change, however; people have been known to "find Jesus", "get religion", or have an "awakening" at the drop of a hat, if the right situation arises. Perhaps sometime in the future we can revisit that. I don't agree that there is no consensus, by the way. Policy requires that entries in the |Religion= field must be (1) self-identified through direct speech (not an intern-typed press pack), (2) relevant to notability or public life (the few sources about Sanders which even bother to mention religion do so only to say how non-religious he is and how inconsequential it is to his public life), and (3) an accurate, unambiguous summary of clear facts already in the article (multiple RfCs, multiple noticeboard discussions, and this huge Talk page are evidence that the proposed entries are anything but unambiguous, clear summations of Sanders' religious status). Xenophrenic (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you making up rules just for the Jewish Sanders? He has repeatedly stated he is proud of being Jewish and I don't know why you swallowed Guy Macon's koolaid bit about some intern typed press pack and why that is not acceptable either. Something doesn't smell right on this page and it must stop. It really is disgusting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've not made up any rules. Wikipedia made up the rule that if Jewish Sanders wants to have his religious beliefs (if he has any) mentioned in the |Religion= infobox field, he must self-identify in direct speech, not through a press pack of unknown origin. When he said he is "proud to be Jewish", we looked at the actual source and discovered that he was actually answering a question specifically about Jewish Heritage in the context of dual citizenship. Wikipedia made up the rule, not me, which says we must adhere to what the reliable sources say - so perhaps you should watch the interview response instead of make stuff up. Something does indeed smell, but you know what they say about "He who dealt it..." Xenophrenic (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, press-kits are RS, secondly, Bernie said I am proud to be Jewish. You don't get to distinguish what he meant. He clearly differentiated. He said I am proud to e Jewish and proud of my heritage that is two statements. And yes, something does smell rotten when you fight so hard to not include someone's obvious religion in an infobox. In addition, your link is not policy, it is "guideline" that is to be followed with common sense, when you have a press kit, that is obvious the same as direct speech. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"I am proud to be Jewish" does not necessarily say religion. I am Jewish, I have never in my life set foot in a synagogue. Jewish is an ethnicity as well as a religion and they do not have 100% overlap. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is for leaving the field blank

The fields in the infobox are for clear, accurate, unambiguous summaries of facts in the article body. The arguments above clearly demonstrate that the religion field in the infobox is inadequate to convey an accurate summary of the facts in the Religion section of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Amen. Gandydancer (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because you think so doesn't make it a consensus. It is very clear, accurate and unambiguous that his religion is Jewish, it is only certain editors that are pushing certain viewpoint and being tendentious for whatever reason. All the infobox asks is "what is his religion?" That is all. All the rest is irrelevant. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not "all the infobox asks". Religion and sexual identity are special case fields with additional rules that you must follow. Religion must be relevant to his notability (it's not, his religion has little or no bearing on his public life). Religion must be self-identified through direct speech, not through a press pack of unknown origin. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Why don't you read that page again. (Besides, that page is or CAT, but regardless, read the top of the page.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' Hitler remark

"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932. He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews."

– Although the gist is true in a very broad-brush sense, Sen. Sanders is a bit off on historical detail. Hitler was never 'elected' to anything.

• Hitler ran for president of Germany in March 1932, and finished second behind Hindenburg, winning 36 percent of the vote to Hindenburg's 53 percent.
• The Nazis' high-water in a free Reichstag election was 37.3 percent, in July 1932. However, the Nazi Party's share declined in Germany's last free election, in November 1932, to 33 percent.
• Hitler came to power on Jan. 30, 1933, not as a result of an election victory, but because a cabal of reactionary politicians persuaded Hindenburg, then 85, to appoint him chancellor, figuring they could 'manage' him. (They were very, very wrong.)

I leave it to others to decide whether Sanders' Hitler remark should be deleted or retained, or perhaps annotated in a footnote. Sca (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

These historic criticisms should be directed to Sanders. What is relevant for wikipedia is that fact that Sanders said this sentence and the meaning of his sentence was not to discuss on details about Germany history, was about importance of politics. --Bramfab (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Technically, prime ministers are not elected, they are appointed. Frequently, they do not get a majority of seats and govern in minority or coalition. It is extremely rare for them to get over 50% of the vote. Yet we routinely say they are elected. David Cameron for example got a plurality of seats with 36.1% of the vote in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. In the United Kingdom general election, 2015 he won a majority of seats with 36.9% of the vote. Yet his Wikipedia article says, "He was re-elected as Prime Minister in the 2015 general election," and reliable sources generally express it that way. Ironically he has never received the same percentage of support as Hitler in July 1932.

What makes a PM "elected" is that they are able win the confidence of a majority of elected legislators, which Hitler did.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Understand your rationale but don't believe it's valid for a large proportion of English speakers, particularly Americans (306 million native speakers of English), for whom 'elected' generally connotes popular vote. Further, the import of the all-too-frequently stated misconception, "The Germans elected Hitler," is simply false. As the presidential election results show, more than half of the German electorate voted against Hitler personally the one time they had the chance. Sca (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

See an article in the Washington Post: "Cameron, just reelected leader of a European nation...."[31] The Atlantic: "Stephen Harper in Canada. Tony Abbott in Australia. John Key in New Zealand. And now, impressively reelected, a second-term David Cameron in the United Kingdom." (Like Cameron, Harper was "elected" with a minority of seats and "reelected" with a minority of votes.) NBC News: "Newly Re-Elected British Prime Minister Visits The Queen".[32] In fact in the U.S., the people do not elect the president, that is done by the electoral college and in 2000 the candidate with the most votes lost.

It is not the purpose of this article to explain parliamentary government to Americans. And all English-speaking countries other than the U.S. have parliamentary systems. If Bernie Sanders uses the same descriptions that are routinely used in reliable U.S. sources, there is no reason for us to comment on it. How would you describe Cameron's reelection? The Queen appointed him five years earlier and he continued in his position after the general election.

18:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Preceding unsigned comments posted by The Four Deuces (TFD). Sca (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't control how journalists use the word elected.

I understand how a parliamentary system works. I also understand how a democratic republic works. And I understand how the U.S. Electoral College functions. (An anachronism that should be repealed, IMO.)

What I can't understand why some people apparently want to perpetuate the myth that Hitler was elected by a majority of the German people. This has become, to an extent, an urban legend. It's not true. Sca (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I know what an urban legend is. The reality is that Hitler's party won the most seats, formed a coalition with the Conservatives and had the confidence of the Reichstag, representing a majority of deputies elected with a majority of the people. If you want to educate Americans about the parliamentary system, then this is an odd place to start your campaign. This article does not after all say Hitler was elected, but that Sanders says he was. Why not start with the Cameron article? Change "re-elected" to "following new elections in all parliamentary districts, the Queen accepted Cameron's advice that he remain as her prime minister and First Lord of the Treasury." TFD (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sophistry. In my view we are here to serve the public with information that is readily comprehensible, not to demonstrate our own putative intellectual superiority. Sca (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest your war against sophistry begins with explaining that Cameron was not reelected prime minister. Go and edit that article. TFD (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The reality is, the appointment of Hitler as chancellor was not an open political process, but was stage-managed behind closed doors by Papen, Hugenberg and Kurt von Schröder. The Nazis, after they became the only 'legal' party in Germany, habitually referred to this process as die Machtergreifung – the seizure of power. Sca (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The same process is used in all parliamentary democracies. In 2010, Gordon Brown attempted to put together a coalition behind closed doors, as did David Cameron. The non-democratically elected monarch then appointed Cameron her premier and members of both Tory and LibDem parties as her other ministers, even though neither party had a majority of seats. Hitler was appointed premier by the democratically elected president because the other right-wing parties agreed to support him. He assumed dictatorial powers when the Reichstag voted 441-84 in favor. Sure the suppression of left-wing parties made the vote more lop-sided, but he would have won it anyway. TFD (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Sca, NSDAP was allied with another nationalist and anti-semitic party that wanted war with Poland, DNVP. Together they had over 50%(NSDAP 43.91% and DNVP 7,97%) of votes in elections(and their policies were supported by other parties as well in part). It's an urban myth that Nazis and their allies didn't enjoy majority of support in Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sca is basically right, and the statement from Mr. Sanders is plainly wrong (both by year, and by the basic facts), which should be annotated in the article (or the statement deleted).

Whether or not the Nazi regime enjoyed majority of support in Germany (and at which time) is debatable. As a fact, both Hitler in the presidential election 1932 and the Nazi party (NSDAP) in the last parliamentary election before Hitler's rise to power (Fall 1932) gained about 1/3 of the popular vote. Hitler was appointed chancellor by president Hindenburg in January 1933, without an election. By that time, the NSDAP and its coalition partners did not have a majority in the parliament (Reichstag), nor did they seek one for their legislation.

Some try to cram the events of 1932-1935 into the scheme of a working parliamentary democracy, which Germany wasn't any more by that time. Since 1930, legislation was largely run by executive orders of the president, without consent of the parliament. The Reichstag was in agony, caused mainly by the combined anti-democratic forces of Nazis and communists. In a parliamentary democracy, a minority government has to seek for a case-by-case majority for legislation. Hitler instead kept running legislation on the president's executive orders (or through direct legislation by the government).

The last multi-partisan parliamentary election was in March 1933, more than one month after Hitler's appointment. By then, the regime had already arrested (or killed) communist and social democratic candidates, and bullied the electorate with their paramilitary troops of SA and SS. Shortly before the election, the Reichstag had been burnt down (for which the Nazis accused the communists). The psychological impact should not be underestimated. Even then, the NSDAP failed to gain an absolute majority of the vote. And even though Hitler's coalition (not the NSDAP alone) had a majority in the Reichstag after this election, they did not use it for legislation. Instead they kept on using executive orders. Finally, when the Reichstag voted for the enabling act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which has been mentioned here before, the government had to manipulate the parliamentary procedure rules (making the members it had arrested before count as 'present') and pressurized the parliament with the (illegal) presence of armored paramilitary.

There were no free elections after that. Germany was turned into a single-party state. Hitler used plebiscites for his 'legitimation' which don't really prove anything about the real will of the people in a dictatorship.

Leaving Mr. Sander's statement unannotated, is misleading IMHO. --Mottenkiste (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Absent a source commenting on his statement specifically, adding a comment ourselves would be synthesis at best. And I'm not sure I agree with you; in a parliamentary system, it is common to refer to whoever manages to build a coalition that puts them in power as "winning an election" even if they only actually got a plurality rather than a majority. Regardless, our own debates over the meaning of the term are irrelevant -- you need a source for your criticism that discusses Sander's statement specifically before we can put anything in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Article 48 (Weimar Constitution) was the same as the Defence of the Realm Act 1914 or the War Measures Act of Canada 1914. It allowed the head of state to issue decrees on the advice of the first minister. In all cases, the first minister had to have the confidence of the legislature and Germany had the additional safeguard that the head of state was elected rather than hereditary. In all cases the decrees were used to jail political opponents without charge, and in both the UK and Canada elections were suspended. However Hitler won the March election, he was already chancellor.

I am not saying that one cannot make an argument that Hitler, or any other first minister was not really elected, especially when they head coaltion or minority governments, but it is against neutrality to annotate someone's words they are reasonably supportable. It reminds me of all the attempts to correct the Obama article to say he is not African American because his mother was white and his father was not American.

You appear anyway to miss the thrust of the comment. Dictators may come to power even in countries with constitutions and free elections. Hitler came to power with the support of elected representatives, rather than as a result of a coup. He already tried that, didn't work, and hence used the electoral process to obtain power.

TFD (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I need sources for clear historical facts? What kind of encyclopedia is this? And how do you prove something did *not* happen in the first place?

The facts are: There was no election in 1932 won by Hitler or the Nazi party. Hitler came to power without an election. The only election (edit: won by Hitler and the Nazi party) which could (arguably) be considered 'free' took place when they were already in power (with the aging president still in place, who played a dubious role).

@TFD: No, the chancellor did not have to have the 'confidence of the legislature'. And Hitler did not come to power with the 'support of elected representatives' (at least, it did not play any important role), and he did not 'use the electoral process to obtain power'. Hitler and his 'movement' were clearly anti-democratic and anti-parliamentarian. The only point where parliamentary action played a major role in Hitler's ascent to power was the enabling act, which resulted in parliament conceding all legislatory power to his government.

Mr Sanders' statement, quoted in the article, is incorrect. Either he doesn't know better, or he is lying. Given he's running for President, I'd consider both relevant.

BTW: If the historical facts prove anything, it's certainly not the importance of elections, but quite the contrary. --Mottenkiste (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Article 54 of the Weimar constitution said, "The Chancellor and national ministers must have the confidence of the Reichstag for the exercise of their offices. Any one of them must resign if the Reichstag withdraws its confidence by express resolution." TFD (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts please

I deleted this information:

Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and self-identified Jewish American to win a US presidential primary[154][155][151] (Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, was the first winner of Jewish heritage, though he was a Christian by religion).[156] It also marked the first time since 1984, when Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale, that an insurgent candidate defeated a party favorite in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.[150]'

While I agree that the info that "Sanders became the first self-described democratic socialist and self-identified Jewish American to win a US presidential primary" would be good in the article, I can't see keeping the rest of it. The Goldwater info isn't even in Goldwater's article and I can't see how the Mondale/Hart info improves Saneders's bio. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines when I first saw it. The article would be improved by removing it.- MrX 00:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree, but the stuff that "would be good in the article" and was nevertheless removed ought to be put back.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem overly trivial in the 2016 campaign section given the current pool of trivia. First Jewish winner is more significant than first-since-84 upset. Is there a reason we qualify "Jewish American" with "self-identified"? We wouldn't say self-identified African American. Are we drawing a distinction between Sanders and past Jewish American primary winners who didn't self-identify? D.Creish (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get started on the Jewish stuff here as it will only complicate a decision (please see the numerous discussions above). Gandydancer (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you really say, "the Jewish stuff" and say it with what reads like a disgusted tone, Gandydancer? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think if there's any "disgust" it's that I've complicated this discussion with an unrelated question. For what it's worth I agree: I should have raised the question elsewhere. D.Creish (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that should actually be in the lead, something as prominent as first socialist and first Jew to win a primary should be in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the "self-identified" part for Jewish, not sure why that was in there. I think we should add the sentendce into the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My only issue with this is that he won as a Democrat, not as a "democratic socialist."Zigzig20s (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

His political party is Democrat because he needs the delegates to win the primary but his ideology as he self describes or as he is is democratic socialism. He's not the first Democrat to win a primary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point about the delegates. I think I read he won the popular vote but the Democrats gave the victory/superdelegates to Hillary--perhaps because he used to be an Independent.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

My view is that simply winning a primary or caucus does not justify including this type of information. If someone wins a major party nomination for President then I think it is reasonable to say that he/she is the first "Whatever" to do so, where "Whatever" = Jewish person, woman, self-described democratic socialist... or African-American, openly LGBT person, Asian-American, Latino-American, Hindu, Muslim, or whatever other notable "first" may occur (or has occurred, in the case of African-American.) But individual primaries and caucuses are just small pieces of the nominating process and I don't think we need to have this kind of debate every time a new "first" wins one. Neutron (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As a gay man, I would find it significant if an LGBT politician was the first to win the NH primary. The reason I think it is significant in this case is because his victory is, in a sense, a victory over antisemitism.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As a socialist, I would find it significant if a socialist politician was the first to win the NH primary, although that has yet to happen. Given his platform and voting record, Bernie is a rather run-of-the-mill social democrat, but that's not sensational enough for the yellow press, is it? --RexxS (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your characterization of him as a social democrat is original research, RexxS. He calls himself a Democratic Socialist as do a massive number of reliable sources. In left politics in the last 60 years in the US, "social democrat" is associated with overt and strident anti-communism, whereas "democratic socialist" has more accomodating connotations. Sanders clearly falls into the second camp. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your description of leftist politics is the original research. Why not look at the articles I linked and see how "socialist" and "social democrat" are described in the real world. You'll see that Bernie definitely falls into the second camp, even though he does indeed call himself a Democratic Socialist. Then again, Hitler called himself a socialist, but that didn't make him one. --RexxS (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, it seems that there is no disagreement to deleting (Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, was the first winner of Jewish heritage, though he was a Christian by religion).[156] It also marked the first time since 1984, when Gary Hart beat Walter Mondale, that an insurgent candidate defeated a party favorite in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. Will do... Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Note to editor Laura: Feel free to join in on the discussion page even though you may not feel quite ready to edit the article page - the more the merrier! :). You need not join WP to edit any page but I encourage you to join so that you can keep track of the articles you work on. Gandydancer (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Does this information now have to be in the article twice (including the intro) without mentioning Barry Goldwater even once? Goldwater's father was Jewish and he did refer to himself as Jewish. He's also mentioned in many articles about Sanders' win. It's kind of odd that Ted Cruz is unambiguously called "the first Hispanic" to do this or that on Wikipedia despite only being half-Hispanic, but Goldwater is completely stricken from the record as irrelevant? Sanders can be called "the first non-Christian" but he really shouldn't be called "the first Jewish American" (especially with this hyphenate wording) without the Goldwater asterisk being mentioned. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:All Hallow's Wraith: Countless newspaper articles say Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win the NH primary. Please stop doing original research here.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to stop. Countless newspaper articles mention Barry Goldwater in the context of Sanders' win, so shouldn't that be included as well under this standard? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Not the articles I've read in the JTA, etc. And that's too many details for the lead. You may add it to the body of the text, but it is inappropriate in the lead.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The JTA is not the definitive source from which Wikipedia must be transcribed. The Goldwater mention was already in the article later on, but people keep deleting it for some weird reason. It makes no sense to whitewash Goldwater's ancestry and identification while the Ted Cruz article calls him strictly Hispanic over and over. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater did not attend a Hebrew School or celebrate his bar mitzvah!Zigzig20s (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

So what? That's original research. Ted Cruz does not speak Spanish, should that disqualify him? Barry Goldwater's second wife, Susan Shaffer Wechsler, was Jewish. Bernie Sanders is married to a non-Jewish woman and Ted Cruz is married to a non-Hispanic woman. More original research. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not OR because that's what the third-party references say; Goldwater won as an Episcopalian, Sanders as a Jew who lost family in the Holocaust, etc. Besides, traditionally Judaism is passed on via the mother; and he was raised in the Jewish faith, contrary to Goldwater. In any case, nobody agrees with you. And I have zero interest in Cruz. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you made the Holocaust reference? I have no doubt that Goldwater had relatives who died in the Holocaust as well (it's extremely unlikely that he didn't). I suppose no one here agrees with me, but the media does, since they often mention Goldwater when talking about Sanders' victory. Also, the article uses "Jewish American" specifically, which sounds like an ethnic term more than a religious one (i.e. John F. Kennedy's article doesn't call him a "Catholic American" and Mitt Romney's doesn't call him a "Mormon American"). It's particularly this ethnic implication that bothers me. Three people of half Jewish heritage have won major party primaries (Goldwater, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark). Perhaps if it simply said "Jewish", as opposed to ethnic hyphenate "Jewish American", it would be less misleading. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I won't revert again if you add more original research, but please stop and try to get consensus here instead of making disruptive edits to the lead. Sanders is both a cultural and religious Jew; he's not comparable to Goldwater and countless articles don't mention Goldwater. Your original research is disruptive.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh, how is it original research? Many sources say Sanders is the "first Jew to win", etc. Do we absolutely have to use the phrase "Jewish American"? Why? It's not a common phrase anyway, and the headline of the source used calls him "Jewish", not a "Jewish American" (a term never used in that reference). Why is this "disruptive"? Who is "disturbed" in reading that Sanders is the first "Jewish candidate" to win a U.S. primary as opposed to the first "Jewish American" to win a U.S. primary (the "American" part here is also redundant)? And where was consensus reached to use the phrasing "Jewish American" as opposed to simply "Jewish"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders's Senate seat if he wins Presidential election or is appointed to Cabinet?

This article could use a mention of what happens to Sanders's Senate seat if he resigns from the Senate, especially in light of the fact that the current Democratic Governor (Shumlin) is retiring at the end of his current term sometime after November, and especially since Gov. Shumlin barely won re-election over his Republican opponent, and especially since there appears to be some question as to whether Sanders is technically a Democrat (he won re-election as an Independent, I believe it was, if not a "Socialist"). What are Vermont's rules about the appointment of a successor to a resigning Senator? BLZebubba (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The seat is filled by special election, the governor doesn't get involved. 3 months following vacancy, unless vacancy occurs within 6 months of the general election, in which case the vacancy is filled at the general election. See here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I don't think this belongs in the main article. Among other reasons, WP:CRYSTALBALL. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that if he gets the nomination, this should be dealt with somewhere, but not before. Neutron (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Apologies if this has already been recently discussed, but seeing as Hillary Clinton now has a more recent leading photo, perhaps this article could get a recent image also? Elzbenz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Admiration for Rabbi Menachem Schneerson

The Religion section says, "Sanders also expressed strong admiration for Rabbi Menachem Schneerson."

I don't think the sources support that statement.

The Jerusalem Post article says,

"The Chabad-Lubavitch research showed Sanders had expressed, back in the 1980s, strong admiration for Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, who died in 1994."

(There's also a more detailed story in http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/197636/bernie-sanders-the-rebbe-and-one-big-menorah-in-vermont The Tablet.)

Even the Chabad-Lubavitch's account doesn't use the word "admiration" or quote anything else that Sanders actually said to specifically indicate he admired Schneerson. http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3224239/jewish/Some-More-Info-on-Bernie-Sanders-and-Judaism-blog.htm The Tablet doesn't say anything about "admiration."

At best, that would support a statement something like, "The Chabad-Lubavitch organization said that Sanders had expressed strong admiration for Schneerson." But I don't think it belongs in the article. First, the Chabad-Lubavitch organization itself isn't a WP:RS. Second, they haven't put any documentation on their web site to demonstrate it. Third, the Jewish Press is the only WP:RS that makes that claim, so it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT which requires multiple sources. Finally, it sounds like WP:PEACOCK.

I propose we delete that claim. Any opinions?

Are there any other sources besides the Jerusalem Post which make that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I strongly agree and removed this information. Gandydancer (talk) 05:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Supporting that deletion. Info is not significant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If multiple sources note his support of the cause, if not his admiration, does it make sense to simply remove the word admiration and keep the rest? Mottel (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Remove it. It's not significant.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Employment between college and first paid elected office

We need detail and dates on his his working life between college and paid political office. Some of his employment is mushed into the personal section. Need more detail and dates. Bruriyah (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

More images

I came across an article with plenty of images of Mr. Sanders. Would they qualify for entry under fair use? Buffaboy ^talk 16:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

As an (almost) iron-clad rule, Wikipedia does not allow the use of non-free images of living people. See WP:NFCC, especially #1.

In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate to link to external images we can't upload using {{External media}}. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Commons has so many photos of Sanders that they are categorized by year, with 43 so far for 2016. All of them are free. There's no need to promote non-free ones. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders is dubiously Jewish??

Why is Sanders' religion marked as dubious in the infobox? Have we all gone nutso here? Does he have to go live on TV and eat a bagel with cream cheese and lox to get your approval? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Because eating a bagel with lox is a religious statement how exactly?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, I will take this as a serious question, incase you didn't catch it. Sir Joseph was being sarcastic. Eating bagels with cream cheese and lox is a culturally traditional Jewish thing to do, at least in American Jewish circles. He was basically asking how loudly and public someone needs to be about their religion in order to proove it to people or get their approval. Centerone (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a culturally Jewish thing to do. It is however clearly not a Religiously Jewish thing to do. Which is what is being discussed and which some people here insist on not distinguishing between. Cultural and ethnic Jews presumably do not stop eating bagels with lox spread if they convert to Christianity or buddhism, making the "sarcastic" question both irrelevant and demonstrating the mistaken nature of Sir Josephs conception about the question being discussed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

But the point is... how do you PROVE your religious belief to another person? What do the people who are arguing he 'isn't jewish' want? Does he have to grow a beard and payot? Put on a funny little hat? Put on tefillin? Drop his pants and show he's cut? Be seen davening at the western wall? Only attend and hold membership at a specific synagogue, temple, or shul? How religious does he need to be? Is he not Jewish enough if he only prays to G-d on occasion? Is he not Jewish enough if the one religious book in his house is gathering dust? Is he not Jewish enough if his upbringing simply informs and molds who he is as a person and how he acts and behaves? As I posted previously, WITH a link, even Orthodox Jews consider non-practicing Jews to still be Jewish. Heck, Obama attends church, celebrates the Christian holidays, and has openly and repeatedly stated he is Christian and yet STILL some people believe he's a Muslim. There is no satisfying people who think this way and there is no way to prove it NOR should anybody need to. While it may be necessary in other religions, it's simply not in Judaism. Centerone (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: "What do the people who are arguing he 'isn't jewish' want?" Name one. Go ahead. Name a single person anywhere on this page who ever even hinted that Bernie Sanders is not jewish. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Name a single person on this page who even hinted that he is not Jewish?? YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SERIOUS. You do. Repeatedly, and often try to claim he has no religion, when he has most clearly stated he does: he is spiritual, he believes in God, when he was raised in the religion, when he went through the coming of age rituals, when it informs his behaviour and beliefs. When we have plenty of references from reliable sources. I don't know what your issue is, but people have repeatedly tried to explain this to you. Yet you keep insisting he has no religion. You don't understand how Jews frame their identity, how they think about their religion, how they think about the practice of their religion, how they think about themselves when they are not as adherent to one practice or another, how those who are very adherent think about those who aren't adherent to the practices, how it's even reinforced in the religion and dates back ages to question these things, to view things from multiple viewpoints, to challenge oneself and one's belief. It is clearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you as others have clearly stated you don't want to listen to any of the information, examples, and references presented. Centerone (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Evasion noted. You have failed to name a single person on this page who even hinted that he is not Jewish, instead naming one of the many people who have pointed out that he is a Jew who is not a member of any religion. Please Google "Who is a Jew?" and read one of the high-quality references -- many by by Jewish organizations -- explaining the difference between Jewish culture, Jewish ethnicity, and Judaism the religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just projecting. Evasion? Did you seriously think in my quote above I was talking about cultural or ethnic judaism? You DON'T understand this and I fail to see why you refuse to try to comprehend what people are telling you, repeatedly. What is YOUR definition of being a member of a religion? [Note, that's irrelevant, but for point of discussion perhaps it is something you should think about and try to articulate.] As we've tried to point out several times, what those arguing that he doesn't practice Judaism are simply misunderstanding is how people in the religion view the practice of the religion, and even what some of the texts say. You don't need to be a member of any synagogue, temple, or shul to be a Jew religiously, you don't need to practice any particular rituals, etc.. I don't know why that needs to be repeated. You suggest that I look up one of these references, but you have clearly failed to make any attempt to do this yourself, or if you have you have simply misunderstood what you read or found bad references. I myself posted one of these references several times already. Here it is again: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm I keep thinking that I should quote some lines from it, but there are *SO MANY*. Let me try just to quote a few: "Can one still be Jewish without observing the edicts and ethos of Torah in one's daily life? Answer: Jews defy all conventional definitions of a "people" or "nation." We lack a common race, culture or historical experience." "Throughout our 3300-year history, what has defined us as Jews is a relationship and commitment. We are Jews because G‑d chose us to be" "This would seem to define our Jewishness as a "religion": we are Jews because we adhere to the beliefs and practices mandated by the Torah. But the Torah itself says that this is not so." "In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew." 'Nuff Said. Centerone (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, it *wasn't* a sarcastic QUESTION. It was a serious question with a sarcastic RESPONSE to the absurd situation and potentially offensive and definitely non-neutral claim of "dubious"-ness of his religion.Centerone (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted that WP:BLP violation. Some chochom forgot that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we should put our readers first. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Kerdooskis (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph:, I tagged it because of the ongoing RfC discussion above. Putting our readers first, @Malik Shabazz:, also means getting their input when a matter is under contention. Talk pages are not the Holy of Holies, and it shouldn't be considered a WP:BLP violation to invite readers into the discussion. Is there a better tag I could have used? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Kendrick7, if you wanted to inform readers that the issue was under discussion you could have used {{under discussion inline}}. Do you really think it's "dubious" (i.e., questionable or open to suspicion) whether Sanders is Jewish? The template's documentation says "Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact which is sourced but which nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely." Putting the word "dubious" next to a person's self-proclaimed religion is a BLP violation.

Why don't you try it at Donald J. Trump, someone whose self-proclaimed religion is widely regarded as dubious? Oh, I forgot. Wikipedia only has a double standard when it comes to Jews. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Malik. I suspected that there was a better tag out there, but to be perfectly honest, I have a hard time keeping too many of them in my head at one time (if you notice, I even used the wrong tag, which isn't an inline tag, {{disputed}}, to begin with[33]). I'm 100% on your side here.[34] Hands up, don't WP:SHOOT! -- Kendrick7^talk 13:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Surname

"Sanders" is an English surname, deriving from the French word for sandalwood. His family emigrated from Poland. Was his paternal family English expatriates living in Poland, or was the family name changed at some point? If the latter is the case, wouldn't the inclusion of the original family name be notable for inclusion in the paragraph on his family origin? fishhead64 (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

They were not English expatriates. It is probably a good guess that his father's last name while living in Poland was not "Sanders" but I looked around the Internet and see nothing on this one way or the other. Neutron (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

According to this genealogy site, Eli Sanders' original name was Eliasz Sander. Gaius Solstius (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion started at WP:No original research/Noticeboard

I've started a discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?. Some editors are feeling empowered by a parenthetical comment in a section of examples to engage in original research, and that's just ridiculous. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you had to start that discussion because of the Wiki-illiteracy displayed by so many on this page. While I wish it were not necessary, Kudos for doing so.Kerdooskis (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Washington post: Why Bernie Sanders doesn’t participate in organized religion
• Chicago Tribune: Bernie Sanders not "involved with organized religion"
• CNN: Bernie Sanders not "actively involved with organized religion"
• Washington post: Bernie Sanders: Our first non-religious president?

No original research is needed. Just follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

There are none so blind as Wikipedia editors who will not see. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Except perhaps those who think they already saw and therefore refuse to open their eyes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

CS Monitor: Bernie Sanders "I'm proud to be Jewish." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0611/Bernie-Sanders-I-m-proud-to-be-Jewish. , BTW, how "ACTIVE" is Donald Trump in his religion? He said he hasn't been in church in years, are you editing his page?Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

1. "He says he's Jewish"
2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
3. GOTO: #1

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yawn, at what point do things get through your head? The question is not if he's religious. The question is what is his religion and that has been answered a dozen or so times. Why is it so hard to get through? Bernie says it, his press kit says it. I know you're going to post your stupid goto thing again, but you need to stop singling out the Jews, it is not cool, it is disgusting. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 07:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If he isn't religious, then his religion is "none". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

How about you let people who are part of that faith determine if that person is part of that faith, and Bernie says he is part of that faith, so you can take your CIR and shove it. He says he is Jewish. He doesn't need to be a practicing Jew to be part of the religion. That is not how the Jewish religion operates. Just because YOUR religion may operate that way, doesn't mean HIS religion has to operate that way. Saying his religion is none is a violation of BLP considering that he says I'm proud to be Jewish in respect to his religion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Guy Macon, he isn't religious, and his religion is Jewish. "He is not religious" means that he does not attend synagogue, observe Jewish holidays, engage in Jewish rituals, etc. It means that and that only. You are misconstruing what sources are saying. Had sources wanted to say that "his religion is none", they could very easily say that. Similarly a source could very easily say, for instance, that Sanders' ethnicity is Jewish, but that his religion is not. Could not a source have said that? That is your core argument, is it not? Sources are not shy and sources have a good command of the English language. They are not expressing what you are purporting that they are expressing. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to keep things WP:CIVIL please. Now if he said he was Christian that would be a different story since it is *only* a religious identity. However, "Jewish" is a religious identity, but it can also be an ethnic identity. For example, I am Atheist when it comes to religion and don't practice Judaism, but I am ethnically Jewish and therefore identify as "Jewish". The same may be the case for Sanders. Unlike with other religions, there is the question of Who is a Jew? and in what ways are Jewish people Jewish i.e. religion, ethnicity, etc. Since Sanders is not involved in organized religion according to the reliable sources, I don't think we have enough evidence that he is Jewish with respect to religion. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

that may be how you identify, but his press kit states, religion: Jewish. And Wikipedia policy says we go by that. Simple as that.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Still too ambiguous. Since he's not religious and since the press kit says "religion: Jewish" (a term that can also refer to ethnicity) rather than "religion: Judaism" (a term that can only refer to religion) there just is not enough evidence that his religion is Judaism. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• it says religion, not ethnicity. How much more unambiguous can you get? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The answer is "Judaism" would be more unambiguous which I just mentioned. An ambiguous term was used to refer to Sanders's "religion", but he has also said that he is not religious. If it would have said his religion was Judaism despite him saying he isn't religious then it would be easier to say that his religion is Judaism (unless he became non-religious after that source was released). Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what religion people are, or to decide what terminology may be used to describe a religious belief. He says his religion is "Jewish". So should we. Neutron (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27—Sanders says "I’m proud to be Jewish" and Sanders lists his religion as "Religion: Jewish". This satisfies our policy requirement for Infobox inclusion of religion as per self-identification. Sources could easily say that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but that his religion is not. But they do not say that. Sources do not say that because sources are aware of the lengthy history of secularism in Judaism. The Jewish religion is never negated by failure to be religiously observant, and sources are aware of that. Wikipedia editors can hold all the opinions they want concerning comparative religion but those opinions don't replace sources. Judaism and Christianity for instance don't match up completely. There may be a strand of secularism in Christianity but I don't think it is as pronounced as in Judaism. We avoid introducing bias into our articles by adhering as closely as possible to the wording found in sources. By doing so we let sources sort out the differences between various religions. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders also says he would be the best president. Should we put "Best candidate for president" in the info-box? TFD (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Article in today's New York Times calls him a "non-Jewish Jew". --Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Uh, no it doesn't. It quotes somebody else referring to him as a non-Jewish Jew. I hope you can see the difference. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Quote: Rabbi Paley, who worked with Jews in central Vermont when he was a Dartmouth College chaplain, recalled once talking with Mr. Sanders about “non-Jewish Jews,” a term coined by a Polish biographer, Isaac Deutscher, to describe those who express Jewish values through their “solidarity with the persecuted.” Mr. Sanders seemed to acknowledge that the term described him, Rabbi Paley said. --Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If that isn't a reason to not put an inaccurate one-word description in the infobox but instead to put a longer, nuanced explanation with references in the body of the article, I don't know what is. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the article then. It further RS'ed the fact that he's Jewish even according to your holiness, Guy Macon's severe guidelines and restrictions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Your comments above violate WP:NPA. Knock it off or you will be blocked. Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy Macon—it is important that editors not misconstrue sources. Bernie Sanders is sourced as being Jewish. That is the only reason for the Jewish designation in the Infobox. Additionally no source has been presented even remotely calling into question his Jewishness. It is time to drop the stick and back away from the horse. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the above NYTimes piece, and this CNN interview, wherein he states, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world , I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That’s my religion. That’s what I believe in", it is clear that the infobox field labeled |Religion= requires a much more nuanced explanation than what space allows. We're not going to find a convenient single-word factoid for that infobox field which accurately conveys the various, complicated and sometimes conflicting reliably sourced explanations of what Mr. Sanders' religion is. (And before someone screams "He's Jewish!", of course he is, but quit changing the subject. This is about Sanders' religion.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—isn't Jewish a religion? Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Jewish" is a religion, and being "gay" is a state of happiness; both words have more than one meaning. An eye is something through which thread passes, but it may also be something that sees. We hold these truths to be self-evident.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I dunno, Bus stop. When I plugged "Jewish" into Wikipedia to find out, it redirected me to Jews, the people, and the disambig note further informed me: This article is about the Jewish people. For their religion, see Judaism. But I've heard Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so who knows? In reality, if just one person, any person, declares "______" to be a religion, then it is a religion - so the question really has no bearing on this matter. Now back to the actual issue: Sanders' religion. Even if you contend that his |Religion= Jewishishnessism, you must also agree that there is at least some disagreement among reliable sources; those describing his non-religiousness, not-very religiousness, secularist, humanist, non-practicing-ism. As such, putting a single word in the infobox does not convey what the totality of reliable sources convey about the subject's religion (or lack thereof). It risks misinforming readers who might only read the lead and the infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Xenophrenic, "...Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Thus you need to look to sources other than our Jews article or our Judaism article. It is hard to take much of the rest of your comment seriously because you seem to be implying that for instance being a secular Jew would disqualify his Jewish designation in the Infobox. Is there any basis for that? There is none that I am aware of. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame that you don't want to take my comment seriously. Specifically the most relevant part, you must also agree that there is at least some disagreement among reliable sources [about his religion] ... As such, putting a single word in the infobox does not convey what the totality of reliable sources convey. Perhaps you will have a change of heart. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen the disagreement among reliable sources to which you refer. Perhaps you can present for instance a bullet list of such disagreements found in sources thus allowing for the possibility of refutation. You are referring to a "change of heart" but there are no subjective feelings involved. Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not seen the disagreement...

Then I must apologize; I must have you confused with another editor who has been very involved with this issue, and has repeatedly addressed almost all of the disagreements across multiple venues. I've heard several of the disagreements, and seen the edit warring. "Jewish is a cultural description → no it isn't, it's a religion"; "He said his Religion = Jewish → no, a flunkie staffer did in a press kit"; "He said he's proud to be Jewish → No, he was responding to a question about Jewish Heritage"; "But he says he is Jewish → But he says he isn't religious → But then he says he is religions and spiritual, but it's a form of empathy/collectivism, and adds 'this is not Judaism'". I really don't need to know who's arguments and personal interpretations of the sources are "more right"; it is enough to know that the level of disagreement in what the sources are saying precludes us from filling that infobox field with the required unambiguous accuracy. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You say "...the level of disagreement in what the sources are saying precludes us from filling that infobox field with the required unambiguous accuracy" but you refuse to itemize these supposed "disagreement[s]". Normal varying descriptions are to be expected. His religion remains Jewish. Any darn fool knows that. You are apparently unwilling to contest that Sanders' religion is Jewish. You previously say "It risks misinforming readers who might only read the lead and the infobox."[35] The real fact of the matter is that you are "misinforming" the reader by omitting the fact of Sanders' religion from the Infobox. We are here to provide correct information and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we know that the correct religion of Sanders is Jewish. The sources tell us that and he explicitly tells us that. What do you think "Religion: Jewish" means when he presents that in his press packet? We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason. That reason concerns self-identification. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

you refuse to itemize these supposed "disagreement[s]"

Incorrect: I've issued no such refusal. The disagreements have already been laid out for you, with sources, in multiple locations on Talk pages (see above), on noticeboards, in RfCs — and you have argued your positions at every turn. The simple fact that you are still arguing today should alert you to the reality that your proposed use of that specific infobox field is inadequate. And yes, misleading. And now you are requesting that I repeat all the same concerns yet again so that you can argue against them yet again? You've just clearly demonstrated why your simplistic proposal for what should go into the |Religion= field is not a solution. Infobox fields are for brief, unambiguous, uncontroversial factoids — and are to be left blank otherwise, lest we risk misinforming readers.

it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we know that the correct religion of Sanders is Jewish

Reliable sources disagree. Some reliable sources convey instead that he is not religious. Sanders himself makes it a point to follow almost every utterance about his Jewish heritage with a disclaimer that he isn't religious. When asked directly, "is there a higher power, what do you believe in?", he specifically avoided mentioning God, he specifically avoided saying his religion is Judaism, and instead spoke about "how we are all in this together", concluding with "That is my religion." That is self-identification. And yes, I've heard your pronouncement that "Jewish religion is never negated by failure to be religiously observant", but I'm fairly certain that for the purposes of an infobox field on Wikipedia, a person's religion is whatever they say it is, and your proposal does not comprehensively convey Sanders' religion.

he explicitly tells us that. What do you think "Religion: Jewish" means

That has already been explained to you. A political press kit ≠ explicit Bernie Sanders declaration. "Jewish" does not always = Religion. Other reliable sources conflict, saying he is actually not religious. You are welcome to disagree, but we are not welcome to pretend the disagreements do not exist by using the infobox to convey incomplete/inaccurate content.

We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason.

We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' religion is Jewish. The religion of this secular Jew is Jewish because he says it is. You are the one displaying a reluctance to abide by sources. Yes, he says he is not religious. He does not overly involve himself in ritual functions. His religion remains Jewish. You would like us to believe that there is some unclarity of the fact that his religion is Jewish but there is not. It could certainly well be the case that a person could be only ethnically Jewish. But sources have to tell us that. There is no source saying anything remotely like that. When sources wish to communicate that merely a person's ethnicity is Jewish, they articulate that. For instance, is the religion of the father of Barry Goldwater Jewish? To answer that question you must look at sources. You do not engage in original research if you wish to properly edit Wikipedia. "Although his father was ethnically Jewish, however, Goldwater himself had been raised as an Episcopalian by a devoutly religious mother." We have support in this source for the religion of the father of Goldwater not being Jewish. Where is the comparable source concerning Bernie Sanders? It does not exist? Then we are obligated to abide by the findings of the relevant and applicable sources. Sources must be particular to Bernie Sanders. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Sources are perfectly capable of deploying the English language to express any thought they wish to express. A source could easily express that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but his religion is not. On your part there is a conspicuous absence of any source articulating anything remotely like that. Why is that? Sources have a good command of the English language. Yet they don't in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. You are reading into sources to find implications that are not there. Please see WP:OR. Alternatively please show us a source supportive of your argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me out here. Please quote back to me my "argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish." Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

they don't in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Jewish
They also do not in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Scientology. This does not make Sanders a Scientologist. What reliable sources DO say is that Sanders isn't religious — he avoids being pinned down on matters of religion — he could potentially be the rare "nonreligious President" of the US. His religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are simply not a significant part of his public life and notability. And as such, trying to shoehorn Sanders' "religion" into a single word to be showcased against Wikipedia policy in an infobox is ...suspect. Which reminds me of a thought I just had...
We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason.
We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie has publicly selfidentified as being Jewish and in RS has proudly said he is Jewish. This is just a vendetta of sorts by a few editors, I guess. When every news source is reporting Bernie Sanders first Jewish candidate, yet on Wikipedia, he's not Jewish, you might want to take a step back and ask why. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. "He says he's Jewish"
2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
3. GOTO: #1

Here we go around the loop again... :(

Free clue: Nobody, not a single person, disputes "Jewish" or "Candidate". "First" is in question, and the consensus is clearly against "Religion = Jewish". So please, for the love of YHVH, break out of the loop and stop saying "He says he's Jewish" over and over. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, we go by RS, and all the RS say he is the first Jewish candidate to win a primary and that is indeed something that should go in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:RS is not the policy which determines what goes in the WP:LEAD. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you are having a difficult time understanding some simple facts. Sanders' not being religious does not mean that he is not Jewish, and I do mean "by religion". Had sources wished to say that he was not Jewish, they could say that. Sources have a good command of the English language. It is merely your original research that Sanders' not being overly involved in ritual activities somehow renders him not Jewish by religion. That is your stumbling block. You are placing that stumbling block in front of yourself. It is causing you to reach the farfetched and patently incorrect conclusion that Sanders' religion is somehow not 100% Jewish, and you are making our article pay the price for your fundamental misunderstanding and failure to abide by the findings of sources. When you say "What reliable sources DO say is that Sanders isn't religious — he avoids being pinned down on matters of religion..." you are speaking gibberish as concerns your argument that Sanders' religion is not entirely and clearly Jewish. Reliable sources happen to comment enlighteningly on this: "Rabbi Joshua Chasan, the rabbi emeritus of Burlington’s Conservative synagogue, Ohavi Zedek, who has known Mr. Sanders since he was Burlington’s mayor, said Mr. Sanders 'does not have to wear his Judaism on his sleeve in Vermont or anywhere else to be a Jew.'"[36] Is there some reason that you don't bring sources? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of that above paragraph appears to be referring to an editor other than me. Getting back on track...

please show us a source supportive of your argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish --Bus stop

Help me out here. Please quote back to me my "argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish."

We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason. --Bus stop

We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you have to stay on topic. You are saying, are you not, that "Sanders isn't religious". And you are saying, are you not, that "when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy". This does not translate into his not being Jewish. As for why it matters that our article note in the Infobox that he is Jewish (and I mean by religion)—there are numerous reasons. Reliable sources make much of his being Jewish. Reliable sources in general don't fail to note the religion of presidential candidates in general. Reliable sources are also concerned with the "firsts" involved. Or "seconds" or "thirds". It is a rarity for a Jew, again by religion, to achieve such a high office. It is not that it is unheard of. There are precedents. But this is a novelty and sources are concerned with this. I don't think I would be exaggerating to say that sources obsess over this. Your argument strikes me as odd. Are you not concerned that our article would be marked by the conspicuous absence of "religion" in the Infobox? The other thing, that I started this post on, concerns your apparent concern with Sanders' lack of religiosity. That is a basic misunderstanding that you are laboring under. That he is a secular Jew does not render him not Jewish, and let me quickly add—by religion. You say "Sanders isn't religious". That is not your concern in the least bit, and that is not Wikipedia's concern—as pertains to any question as to whether or not the Infobox should take note of his religion. Not being religious merely indicates the type of Jew he is. Wikipedia doesn't have grades for Jews that allow for some high-scoring individuals to be granted a "Religion" field in the Infobox. Many Jews are not religious. Actually all Jews are different, with religious observance falling along differing points on a spectrum. This particular individual, Bernie Sanders, is noted for activities and attainments in the political sphere. The onus is on you to tell us why in the instance of Bernie Sanders the religion should be omitted from the Infobox. Sources certainly don't overlook his religion. And our corresponding articles on individuals hailing from other religions do not omit information pertaining to religion. Why are you opposed to completing the "Religion" field in the Bernie Sanders article? Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are saying, are you not, that "Sanders isn't religious"

Incorrect. Reliable sources, and Sanders himself, say that and paraphrased equivalents. Those that even bother to mention religion at all. I don't personally know the man, so I am not qualified to say that myself. Perhaps a little more care in reading on your part?

you are saying, are you not, that "when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy".

Incorrect again. I didn't say that. That is a reasonable paraphrase of what reliable sources have said about Sanders.

This does not translate into his not being Jewish.

I wouldn't know. Again, you're speaking to the wrong person; those descriptions were from reliable sources, not me, and I certainly didn't "translate" anything for you.

note in the Infobox that he is Jewish (and I mean by religion)—there are numerous reasons

Great! Let's hear them.

Reliable sources make much of his being Jewish

I disagree; in fact, I've observed the opposite. Most reliable sources discussing Sanders don't mention religion at all, and only mention his Jewish heritage in passing, if at all. And the scant minority of sources that do mention his religion at all only do so to mention that he isn't very religious, if at all; doesn't talk about it; doesn't "wear it on his sleeve"; doesn't attend synagogue; drifted away from cultural rituals as he got older; doesn't observe... in a nutshell: it isn't relevant to his public life or notability. Try again?

Reliable sources in general don't fail to note the religion of presidential candidates in general

That sounds like the same faulty reason, reworded — and I disagree for the same reasons. Of the fraction of sources that cover candidate's religion, the ones mentioning Sanders all appear to shrug it off as simply "Jewish upbringing, but not religious now" and nothing more. There are more sources exclaiming "oldest president ever" and "first socialist president ever". Try again?

Reliable sources are also concerned with the "firsts" involved. Or "seconds" or "thirds"

Yeah, a small fraction are - I mentioned that. And should he become the "first Jewish president", I doubt anyone is going to argue to keep that information out of the Wikipedia article. But we're not talking about that; we're discussing specifically the |Religion= field in the infobox, and you are supposed to be showing how Sanders' religion is relevant to his notability now. Try again?

It is a rarity for a Jew, again by religion, to achieve such a high office

Senator? At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I disagree. Certainly not a rarity. Now should he manage to become president, and his religion becomes a significant and relevant part of his public life and notability, we can certainly revisit that.

I don't think I would be exaggerating to say that sources obsess over this.

And I am seeing the complete opposite. On what metric are you basing your opinion? Sanders' religion, or lack thereof, gets minimal coverage in media and sources, and the coverage it does get usually ends up painting it as inconsequential to his candidacy, and certainly to his overall bio.

your apparent concern with Sanders' lack of religiosity. That is a basic misunderstanding that you are laboring under

There you go again, confusing me with someone else. Sanders' religion, or lack thereof, is his business and no concern of mine.

You say "Sanders isn't religious".

I call bullshit. I've never said that; you know it, I know it, everyone else reading this knows it -- but instead of calling a troll a troll, I'll give my standard socially acceptable canned response: You must have me confused with someone else. Please read more carefully?

Many Jews are not religious.

I'll take your word for it, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to showcase a person's religion in the |Religion= field of the infobox, that person's religion must be relevant to that person's public life and notability. Sanders is notable because of his political career; activist, mayor, senator, presidential candidate. He's not notable because his religion, or lack thereof, and unless he starts his own religion, builds a synagogue or starts performing miracles, it likely never will be.

The onus is on you to tell us why in the instance of Bernie Sanders the religion should be omitted from the Infobox.

Uh, no. That is incorrect. By default, the field is left blank. The living person's religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, *AND* the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. According to reliable sources, Sanders' religion isn't significantly relevant, and the only reason it is appearing now in any sources at all is because Sanders is a presidential candidate (FYI: there is a good example of a fact that is relevant to his notability) and the media is trying to get as much information as possible to the public. There is, however, one very good question you asked:

Are you not concerned that our article would be marked by the conspicuous absence of "religion" in the Infobox?

That is a thought-provoking question. Short answer: No, all infoboxes in Wikipedia articles are in various states of completeness, if they exist at all. Not a big concern. The body of the article is where the information is. But, if that is indeed a concern of yours, how would you feel about this: Have the infobox field say |Religion = (See [hyperlink to Religion section]). That way our readers will instantly know there is information about Sanders' religion instantly available, in all of its detailed glory, and we get the added bonus of avoiding all of the above drama. Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you can "call bullshit" all you want. "Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy." Didn't you write that? What you are failing to grasp is that it would not matter whether Sanders were religious or not. If he were an Orthodox Jew, would you feel that the religion designation in the Infobox would be more justified? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you are catching on, Bus stop! Was that so hard? You wrongly claimed that I said "Sanders isn't religious". When I called you on your bullshit, you corrected yourself. Yes, I can call bullshit all I want - every time it is necessary. Moving on to your question:

What you are failing to grasp is that it would not matter whether Sanders were religious or not. If he were an Orthodox Jew, would you feel that the religion designation in the Infobox would be more justified?

Here is what justifies using a religious designation in the |Religion= field: religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, *AND* the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Now a question for you, how would you feel about this: Have the infobox field say |Religion = (See [hyperlink to Religion section]). That way our readers will instantly know there is information about Sanders' religion instantly available, in all of its detailed glory, and we get the added bonus of avoiding all of the above drama. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX says Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. That is vague enough that it could be used to support either |religion= or |religion=Jewish, but it rules out |religion=See #Religion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the growth of the section, looks like we're getting close to spinning off an analogue of Religious views of Abraham Lincoln. By the way, some articles have "Ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox, and that might be a decent compromise here if we can do it (see, e.g., Saul Katz).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, darn, Scott - that rather throws a wet towel on that idea. That puts us back to the default of leaving the field empty. Thank you for finding that MOS link, by the way. As for Anythingyouwant's compromise measure, that should be less problematic, but I still have this urge to form a pool and take bets on how long it will last. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

As a foreign observer of the USA election process, I find it difficult to understand how people like Xenophrenic and Guy Macon can expend so much time and energy arguing that Sanders' religion is not relevant/important. If it was not important, you would not be putting so much effort into trying to keep it out of the infobox. Guy went to the effort of an RfC at template talk:Infobox to ensure that longer explanations beyond a simple religion or denomination could not be put in |religion=, yet hasn't gone back through other US presidents to "correct" the value in infoboxes such as the one on Abraham Lincoln. As I have observed parts of these discussions, it appears to me that the Jewish measures of "Is so-and-so really a Jew?" (by religion) are not the same measures that a Christian might use to answer "Is so-and-so really a Christian?", yet many of us have heard people say "I can be a Christian even though I don't go to church", and that appears to have been accepted at the infobox on the Donald trump article.

As a candidate for election to high office (albeit indirectly under the US electoral system), it is highly likely that many voters will browse the Wikipedia articles of the candidates. I would imagine that some of them will be interested to see things like voting history, relationship history, religion, age, ethnic heritage, attitude to abortion or capital punishment, US state of birth/upbringing as well as current and previous offices held. Some will skim infoboxes and some will read deeper into the articles. For some, "Jewish" (religion, ethnicity or both) will mean they read further, and for some it will instantly turn them to another candidate. Some voters will look for someone who has demonstrated that they act in accordance with their principles even if the voter disagrees with the principle, others will look for evidence that the candidate's stated principles align with the voter, even if the candidate does not appear to adhere to their statements. It appears that Sanders claims to adhere to the Jewish faith (it is OR to hypothesise that his official press kit was written by someone else and not endorsed by him personally), and is accepted as a member of that community, despite not regularly participating in the rituals, so it is appropriate to summarise in the infobox with |religion=Jewish, and give more depth in the article, just like in the Trump and Cruz articles for example. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Scott. You said you were having difficulty understanding, and I can see that, so perhaps I can clear things up a little. I've certainly never argued that information about any person's religion is not important. I can't say for certain about Guy Macon, but I doubt he has either. The Wikipedia article should give information which is as comprehensive as available reliable sources will allow, agreed? But, the infobox fields are not designed to convey comprehensive information. Infoboxes are designed only for unambiguous, non-controversial factoids. Therein lies the root of the issue here. As you have noted, there is some additional ambiguity in the "Jewish/Judaism" terms that we don't run into with, say, "Christian/Christianity". That causes a problem at the infobox. Also, there is disagreement on what, if anything, should go in the Wikipedia infobox field when a candidate says they are "Jewish", but then also says they are not religious; or after explaining his religious beliefs, concludes by saying "This is not Judaism." (Yeah, that happened - see Kimmel interview.) Or even more confusing, when asked to discuss his religion and beliefs in a higher power, completely avoids mentioning Judaism, God or anything Jewish, and states "This is my religion." (Yeah, that happened, too - see CNN interview.) That causes a problem at the infobox. Not only is there a contradiction between reliable sources, but there is also disagreement between editors on terminology. You made a key observation: "Some will skim infoboxes and some will read deeper into the articles." Exactly; and its because some people only "skim" that many Wikipedia editors have expressed concern over what, if anything, should appear in that field. (By the way, it is OR to state that "Sanders claims to adhere to the Jewish faith", or to hypothesize that the press kit was written by Sanders, or by a staffer, or was endorsed, or wasn't endorsed, or has even been seen by Sanders - all we can say in Wikipedia's voice is "the press page says XXX", and leave the reader with that. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned by the recent fiasco caused by the campaign ad endorsed by Ted Cruz, until it wasn't endorsed, after it was discovered it featured a porn star.) With all of the afore-mentioned problems, and with the purpose of the infobox being the summarizing of key facts, there has been a tussle over just what constitutes an accurate summation of the facts about Sanders' religion.

Also at issue is whether we should even be using the |Religion= field at all. As other editors have pointed out, there is/was stigma associated with matters of sexual orientation and religious affiliations (e.g.; Jewish religion) — enough so that special Wikipedia guidelines were established requiring a higher degree of relevance and significance to subject notability before the information could appear in categories or infoboxes. Guidelines also also require unambiguous self-identification of such information. There still exists disagreement as to whether all these requirements have been met. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ScottDavis seems to be confused about Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes (which was approved with a consensus of over 75%). That RfC only deals with nonreligions in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox. You know, like the entry that the Bernie Sanders page currently has. Abraham Lincoln contains something in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox, but it is not a nonreligion as explained in the RfC's section on "examples of nonreligions". Thus Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes does not apply. I was very careful in the wording of that RfC. I purposely wrote "nonreligions should not be listed" (and provided a list of example nonreligions) instead of writing "only religions should be listed" so as not to inadvertently forbid things like links to sections in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—Bernie Sanders has the level of religious observance that he has. He does not have a lower level of observance and he does not have a higher level of observance. His level of observance is not what matters here. Sources are telling us that his religion is Jewish and he is telling us that his religion is Jewish. While it is true that sources are not telling us that he is Orthodox, this has no bearing on the question of whether or not our Infobox should contain the designation for "religion". What matters here is whether sources support that he is of the Jewish religion, whether or not he has self-identified as being of the Jewish religion, and whether his being of the Jewish religion is "relevant to his public life or notability." This last requirement does not mean that his notability is tied to his membership in the Jewish religion, otherwise Donald Trump would not have "Presbyterianism" in the "religion" field in that article's Infobox. It is sufficient that sources take note of Sanders' religion, and indeed many sources have taken note of Sanders' religion. Why would Wikipedia omit mentioning in this article's Infobox that Sanders' religion is Jewish? You concern yourself with the possibility that Bernie Sanders might not be religious. But even if this were the case, it would not matter. A person who is more religious does not qualify any more than a person who is less religious, for having the religion field filled in in the Infobox. We (Wikipedia) has no mechanism in place for evaluating how religious a person is. For our purposes, it simply doesn't matter how religious a person is. Finally, you are misconstruing sources. You may want to keep Bernie Sanders' religion out of the Infobox but in an effort to accomplish that you should not be misconstruing sources. When Bernie Sanders utters, in a Kimmel interview, that "This is my religion", he is merely using a figure of speech that transitions from the question asked to the point he wishes to make—that his sympathies are with the downtrodden. And he cites a member of another religion who shares his views—the Pope. You construe this to mean that his Jewish religion is called into question? Such argumentation is nonsensical. Despite your argumentation to the contrary there is absolutely 100% agreement in all sources (that weigh in on the question) that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish, and his level of observance is not a factor that Wikipedia weights, as concerns inclusion of "religion" in the Infobox parameter. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Skipping past your first five sentences, which don't appear to relate to our discussion and may have been intended for another person, let's jump to what you think the issue here is:

What matters here is whether sources support that he is of the Jewish religion, whether or not he has self-identified as being of the Jewish religion, and whether his being of the Jewish religion is "relevant to his public life or notability."

Not exactly; allow me to make a sleight correction so that we are both on the same page in this discussion. I prefer to use verbiage direct from our Wikipedia policies, I hope you don't mind: What matters here is whether reliable sources support that he has has self-identified as having a specific religious belief, and whether his having that religious belief is "relevant to his public life or notability." With that clear, let's continue with your arguments...

This last requirement does not mean that his notability is tied to his membership...

Membership? No. Religious beliefs? Yes. More specifically, what that last requirement means is that we are not to put a person's religious beliefs into Categories and Infoboxes unless those beliefs are relevant to the subject's notability. "But why is 'Presbyterianism' in Trump's infobox", you ask? Because Wikipedia will never be perfect; pointing out flaws in other parts of Wikipedia doesn't give a person license to replicate those flaws elsewhere in our encyclopedia. If you need help arguing for its removal from the Trump article, ping me. Next argument?

It is sufficient that sources take note of Sanders' religion...

No, it really isn't. See: WP:BLPCAT. It really is required, policy in fact, that his religious beliefs are relevant to his notability. And then there's the additional complicating fact that according to some reliable sources, he isn't religious, or doesn't hold the beliefs you ascribe to him - but we'll get to that.

You concern yourself with the possibility that Bernie Sanders might not be religious.

No, I really don't. In fact, the man's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not my concern in the least. Accurate Wikipedia articles, however, are indeed my concern - and to that end, you might see me citing reliable sources on the matter.

it simply doesn't matter how religious a person is.

You'll get no argument from me. But, of course, since a person's religious beliefs must be relevant to a person's notability in order to be listed in an infobox, a non- (or hardly) religious person would likely have an empty field.

Finally, you are misconstruing sources.

No, you. You are confusing the Kimmel interview with the CNN interview. But to your larger point, when you see Sanders say "This is my religion" or after he explains his beliefs, says "This is not Judaism", you waive those off as merely "figures of speech". Of course you are entitled to your own personal interpretation; I prefer to listen to what he actually says in context, rather than pretend he didn't say what he said and waive his words away as figures of speech.

his level of observance is not a factor that Wikipedia weights, as concerns inclusion of "religion" in the Infobox parameter.

False. When it comes to including his religious beliefs in the info box, Wikipedia policy requires that the subject's religious beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. If his observance of religious beliefs is non-existent or so minimal that they have no relevance to his notability, the infobox field is not used. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

there is absolutely 100% agreement in all sources (that weigh in on the question) that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish,

Patently and blatantly untrue. This source surveys the whole controversy and concludes that this is indeterminate. He's not forthcoming either way, and there is absolutely no way, in Wikipedia's system, that one can assert as a fact something the person in question prefers to leave unknown to the public domain.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani—you are citing a source that does not call into question whether his religion is Jewish. The source only points out his laxity in observance. This is not a factor that is brought into consideration when weighing whether or not to note his religion in the relevant Infobox parameter. Consider for a moment, if you will, if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew. Would there be a stronger argument for including his religion in the Infobox parameter? There would not. Level of observance is not a factor that our policy takes into consideration for purposes of deciding whether or not to include "religion" in that Infobox parameter. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, Nishidani, you say "prefers to leave unknown to the public domain". Is that why he issues a press packet reading "Religion: Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You made a confident statement. I gave a source that shows it is incorrect, the only 'religion' he can be accredited with, it concludes, was that regarding the welfare of the working man. The article's drift is obvious. Reread it. This is a highly provincial thing. Tp be elected in the US requires normally some bizarre profession of religion by people who, if elected, show no trace of it. Sanders is the only guy out there who refuses to play that cheap trick. Editors who want to inject certainty are playing the kind of politics he abhors. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani—you are having difficulty grasping what should be an easy-to-understand concept: level of religious observance is not an inclusion criteria concerning the religion parameter in the Infobox. Wikipedia has no policy pertaining to level of religious observance. The question, at least in this instance, is whether the religion of Bernie Sanders is Jewish. You brought a source that does not at all say that Bernie Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Your source explains that Bernie Sanders is lax in his observance. But laxity in observance or strictness in observance don't happen to be criteria that Wikipedia's policy takes into consideration when weighing whether or not to include a person's religion in the Infobox. Consider if you will, for a moment, that Bernie Sanders was Orthodox. By what Wikipedia policy would there be a stronger argument for including his religion in the Infobox? There is no policy that speaks to this. For all intents and purposes Wikipedia is unconcerned with how observant a person might be. Were this not the case the Donald Trump article would not read "Religion: Presbyterianism" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

level of religious observance is not an inclusion criteria concerning the religion parameter in the Infobox

False. When it comes to including his religious beliefs in the infobox, Wikipedia policy requires that the subject's religious beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. If his observance of religious beliefs is non-existent or so minimal that they have no relevance to his notability, the infobox field is not used. See WP:BLPCAT.

For all intents and purposes Wikipedia is unconcerned with how observant a person might be. Were this not the case the Donald Trump article would not read "Religion: Presbyterianism" in the Infobox.

Absolutely incorrect. Wikipedia is very concerned, and has even established guidelines stating that a person's religious beliefs must not only be self-identified, but also must be relevant to the person's notability. As for Trump, it appears you've located a problem which needs attention. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you seem to be confusing Judaism with Christianity. (I'm responding to both of your last two posts above.) These religions are comparable and there are often corresponding points on one religion that are found on the other religion. But there are also discontinuities and points on one religion that do not have corresponding points on the other religion. As an editor, you should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the material you're editing, or you should be very careful to use only the highest quality sources and you should be careful about the wording you are reading. Jewish beliefs do not play the same role as Christian beliefs. You are treating Judaism as if it were Christianity when you speak of Jewish religious beliefs. Notice that I am often talking about levels of observance pertaining to Bernie Sanders. These are not beliefs, in the Christian sense. Even if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew, his beliefs would not necessarily be any different than they are as a barely observant Jew. When you point to policy and say that Bernie Sanders' religious beliefs [should be] relevant to their public life or notability one can only chuckle at the notion of this. Are you misunderstanding for instance maintaining a kosher diet for a belief? It is a practice. It represents a level of Jewish observance. It is a Torah precept. It is not a belief. A Jew doesn't believe in kosher food. Kosher food can't be relevant to a presidential candidate's public life—unless we are contemplating kashrus in the White House. Whether you are deliberately or inadvertently overlooking the particularity of the subject matter you are discussing, you need to slow down and either learn about Judaism or pay strict attention to only the best quality sources. And you've got to be careful with hyperbole and figure of speech. A wine lover may say that wine is their religion. It would be silly to misconstrue that to mean that a previously applicable religion no longer applied. Bernie Sanders makes a religion of fighting social injustice. Therefore he is no longer a Jew? Therefore his otherwise applicable religion is rendered no longer applicable? Please. Give me a break. I'm sorry if I am getting exasperated responding to you. The idea is not to win an argument. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia. You are arguing that there is unclarity over whether or not Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish—but there is none. Any darn fool knows that Jewish, in common parlance, is the religion pertaining to Bernie Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop! I accept your apology. As for the rest of your paragraph above, I'm going to ignore your personal commentary about a fellow editor; I'm going to skip over your presumption to educate me on various religions, or aspects of the English language; I'm going to breeze right past your personal opinions on matters unrelated to the present issue; and, I'm going to warn you to cease attributing statements and arguments to me which I did not make. With that out of the way, let's please continue. I believe I last directed your attention to the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and you were going to try to make a case for why Sanders' religious beliefs meet that requirement and should therefore be reflected in the article's infobox. I look forward to your arguments based on reliable sources and grounded in Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You say "I believe I last directed your attention to the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and you were going to try to make a case for why Sanders' religious beliefs meet that requirement and should therefore be reflected in the article's Infobox." To tell you the truth, I don't recall what you "last directed your attention to" nor what I was "going to try to make a case for". I am not as fired up about including Sanders' religious designation in the Infobox as you are about keeping Sanders' religious designation out of the Infobox. This tempest in a teapot is an issue that could conceivably have passed unnoticed were it not for some who do not want the Infobox to indicate the religion of Bernie Sanders. There is no question that Sanders is Jewish. You are prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent the word "Jewish" from appearing in the Infobox. This discussion has reached the point that I am only running on fumes. I respond to you because I am gobsmacked that you will apparently go to such great lengths in an effort to not identify Bernie Sanders as Jewish in the Infobox. Having said that, I'm going to respond to you once again. You say "I look forward to your arguments based on reliable sources and grounded in Wikipedia policy." OK. Let us start with the language in WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." You're going to have a tough time with this but Judaism doesn't place a great deal of emphasis on "beliefs". Religious beliefs are not particularly important to Judaism. Not to the extent that they are in Christianity. I don't have to argue that beliefs are relevant to his public life or notability. But sources make that argument. Many articles explore in great depth the religion of Bernie Sanders, including such components of religion as beliefs and practices and tendencies. We have for instance a source with the title "Why Bernie Sanders’ Judaism is so important" and with the subtitle "Sanders considers himself secular, yet his overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is profoundly Jewish". I could quote from that source but in the interests of brevity I will refrain from doing so. WP:BLPCAT also requires self-identification. This requirement is easily satisfied. He issued a press packet reading Religion: Jewish. What more do you need to know? Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not as fired up ... as you are about keeping Sanders' religious designation out of the Infobox.

You are mistaken. I think it would be great to have Sanders' religious beliefs in the infobox. I'm just not willing to violate Wikipedia policy to do it. (And there is also the issue of space constraints...)

There is no question that Sanders is Jewish.

Agreed. And he's proud of that. And that is in the infobox already. Jewish.

You are prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent the word "Jewish" from appearing in the Infobox.

Lies. See above. (Don't worry, I have plenty of pixels and time to devote to correcting fabrication and misconceptions.)

I don't have to argue that beliefs are relevant to his public life or notability.

Of course; no one can force you. But you will have to if you want to put them in the infobox, per policy.

We have for instance a source ... I could quote from that source...

Ah, now we are getting somewhere! I understand you were trying to keep it brief, but could I impose upon you to quote specifically the parts of that article that support your position? The college student who wrote that opinion piece cites a few more substantive sources in the article, are those part of what I should be looking at? We can get to the various "religions" Sanders has self-identified to after this part. Small bites, as it were. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—we abide by sources. You don't get to decide what Sanders' religion is in the absence of sources to support your conclusions. The applicable policy here is WP:BLPCAT. Sanders' religion is Jewish because he says it is. Despite your argumentation to the contrary, Sanders does not say that his religion is anything but Jewish. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." His press package reads "Religion: Jewish". That takes care of self-identification. Here is where you seem to be having the most difficulty. His being Jewish is relevant to this biography. Does he have a "public life"? Does he have "notability"? All of the articles, which for Wikipedia purposes, we call sources, are written about his "public life" and his "notability". Therefore, to satisfy the requirement for relevance found at WP:BLPCAT we merely need to show that good quality reliable sources take notice of his religion. It is as simple as that. I do not have to prove to your exacting standards that indeed his religion has bearing on for instance his candidacy for president. I'm not going to engage in original research to satisfy your demands. It goes against my sensibilities as a Wikipedia editor to pontificate about for instance the intersection of religion and politics or any of the other subjects addressed by good quality reliable sources. Doing so is not really my responsibility. Whatever they say satisfies the requirement for "relevance". They don't have to say any particular thing. Whatever they say is A-ok. It is sufficient that reliable sources address themselves to this topic. There is no shortage of reliable sources written about Sanders' religion. Every editor here is aware of that. How do I know that? Because every editor up and down this page as well as at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard has been posting links to such articles. Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish and a multitude of sources writing about that provide affirmation of the "relevance" of his religion. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't get to make anti-Semitic insults about a presidential candidate, Bus stop. Wikipedia has policies against that.

Sanders does not say that his religion is anything but Jewish.

Incorrect. Sanders has frequently said he is not religious. In one instance, he even stated, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world , I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That’s my religion." Direct speech. In yet another instance, in a direct response to a request to explain his religious beliefs, he did so, and concluded immediately thereafter: "That is not Judaism." His biographer has stated, "Bernie Sanders might not believe in God, but he does have a steadfast and long-standing belief in the rights of the working class. That's his religion."

[a press kit .PDF file written by someone] takes care of self-identification

Incorrect. I'll remind you that "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." Please indicate the exact direct speech (please include date and venue) where Sanders self-identified.

I do not have to prove to your exacting standards...

Correct. You do, however, have to meet Wikipedia's requirements. (Sorry to have to break that to you.)

Doing so is not really my responsibility.

No one can force you, of course. But if you wish your contributions to Wikipedia articles to stand, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's policies, and meet Wikipedia's requirements. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic—you say "You don't get to make anti-Semitic insults about a presidential candidate, Bus stop. Wikipedia has policies against that." What is that a reference to? Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Howdy, Bus stop. You said, "You don't get to decide what Sanders' religion is in the absence of sources to support your conclusions." I replied in kind. Did I misunderstand the game? We're only giving each other advice on what we don't get to do, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Xenophrenic—are you accusing me of using this Talk page to "make anti-Semitic insults" about anyone? Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would you ask such a thing? Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Besides, if you had, I wouldn't accuse you - I would have redacted it (and asked for a revdel if it was serious enough). Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not okay, and that violates WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The sad part is he was warned that it isn't okay. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"First Jew to win a primary"

The lead says that Sanders is "the first Jew to win a major party's primary". Barry Goldwater, however, was also of Jewish heritage and won multiple primaries for the Republican Party's nomination. I changed the lead to "second Jew to win a major party's primary, after Barry Goldwater in 1964." These edits were quickly reverted saying that Goldwater was not a religious Jew. Goldwater, indeed, was not of Jewish religion. So I changed it to a less "diminishing" sentence: "first Jew by religion to win a major party's primary." That was then reverted with an edit summary saying that Sanders is not a religious Jew. Is there any allowed way to word this? SirLagsalott (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

WOw, complex issue here considering the discussion we've seen on this issue on this page. (Jewish or not Jewish).. there is not much information on Goldwater's page about this. It says he's an episcopalian but gives little to no info apart from stating he occasionally referred to himself as Jewish. I would say a reasonable text that would not be a problem would be "the first Jew to win a major party's primary since Barry Goldwater in 1964." That way it's not _specifically_ about religion, because for us to go into religion on this question, we'd have to know more about Goldwater. (When did he convert? Was it just for public perception or ... was it a sincere conversion? etc. I'm actually surprised that's not in the article. That's a rather important personal detail.) Centerone (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The only "Jewish or not Jewish" discussion here has been by those who falsely claim that others are saying that Sanders is not Jewish. Nobody has actually said that. It is a red herring to distract the reader from the fact that Sanders says he is not religious. BTW the Barry Goldwater page says "Religion = Episcopalian" in the infobox, which of course does not preclude him being Jewish. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You're really making it hard here for people to respond to you in a civil manner. Quit being a jerk, please. Yes, you SPECIFICALLY have stated NUMEROUS TIMES that sanders is not religiously Jewish which I SPECIFICALLY was responding to in previous discussions. You have been repeatedly proven wrong on this by not only the cited and referenced information and quotes, but the rules of the very religion. Considering that you and others have gone on and on and on in regards to Jewish identity across the spectrum I was suggesting some language which I felt could accurately represent the situation in regards to Jewish identity in relation to Barry Goldwater without delving deeper into investigating his personal, familial, cultural or spiritual journey considering that information is not in the Barry Goldwater article. Did you REALLY need to cast aspersions on my TRUE statements that YOU specifically have stated that Bernie Sanders is not religiously Jewish, which is patently false, which is not really specific to the solution I was suggesting here in relation to Goldwater? Seriously, get over it. Centerone (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Before making any changes to the lead, please look at these two sources, which are cited in the article in support of the statement that Sanders is the first Jew to win a major-party primary.

"the first self-identified Jew to win a primary. Though Barry Goldwater, who garnered the Republican nomination in 1964, had a Jewish father, he was raised and considered himself to be Episcopalian."

"the first Jewish candidate—and the first non-Christian—to win a presidential primary"

Nobody has provided a source that says Goldwater was considered the first Jewish candidate to win a primary, so you can't write that. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater also referred to himself as Jewish (see this). BTW, Sanders is the fourth candidate of Jewish heritage to win a primary. The other three were Goldwater, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark. I think the article should at least mention Goldwater, the way many news articles about Sanders' win did. It's complete without that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but it seems like original research. - MrX 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that the article should mention Goldwater. He was, by heritage, half-Jewish. His family surname was actually Goldwasser and his grandfather changed it when immigrating from Poland to the United States. [37] [38] [39]. One need not be practicing the Jewish religion to be considered Jewish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All Hallow's Wraith and Winkelvi, where are the sources that describe those candidates, and not Sanders, as the first Jewish candidate to win a primary? Original research if ever I saw it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Was that the point? I thought the point in reverting that edit was that Goldwater wasn't Jewish. Which he was. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say the article should say that Goldwater was the first Jew to win a primary. I just said that Goldwater and his heritage should be mentioned here, the way they were mentioned in many news articles about Sanders being the first Jew to win. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between Jewish heritage and being Jewish. The lead says first Jew. It doesn't say first person with Jewish heritage, so I don't see a reason to include Goldwater, and certainly not in the lead. If you want to include him in the article, maybe, but I still see no reason. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater considered himself Jewish and plenty of reliable sources support it. That's what counts. As Wikipedia editors, we don't decide who is and isn't Jewish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your link clearly says Goldwater was Episcopalian. Read the first ref you provided. "The Senator was raised as an Episcopalian" and more importantly as per the rules and WP:SELFIDENTIFY, "Columnists could write that the Senator was half-Jewish, but by the matrilineal line of descent in Judaism, Barry is not Jewish because his mother was a practicing Episcopalian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) 01:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: There's already a discussion about Goldwater here. I am on record as opposing any mention of Goldwater in the article.- MrX 01:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Every link says he was Jewish by heritage. At least one says he was so proud to be Jewish that he went on a quest to find his Jewish ancestors who may have died in or were part of the camps. Another says they were Episcopalian because his mother took them to an Episcopal church. Another link is from an online Jewish archive. Not one link says he denied his Jewish heritage. Again, WE don't decide who is Jewish. Every source I provided (and I will happily provide more, if you'd like) says he was half-Jewish. End of story. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Half-jewish and Jewish heritage again, is not the same as being the first FULL Jew to win the primary. It most certainly should not warrant a mention in the lead. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz is not a "FULL" Hispanic, yet he is called "the first Hispanic" repeatedly in his article without any asteriks. The article should state, as it did before: "Previous winner Barry Goldwater had a Jewish father, though was raised an Episcopalian". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Barack Obama is not a "FULL" Black man, yet he is called the first Black U.S. president. And the rest of what All Hallow's Wraith said. Plus I'm going to add once again: WE, as editors, don't decide who is what. Sources do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Winkelvi, so WHERE ARE THE SOURCES THAT SAY GOLDWATER WAS THE FIRST JEW TO WIN A PRIMARY or that SANDERS WAS NOT THE FIRST JEW TO DO SO? Put up or shut up already. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are you screaming? Your point is not the point All Hallow's and I are making, so yelling isn't doing anything other than showing you are missing that point because you're pushing yourself so aggressively. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x6 Please look, once again, at the two sources cited by our article (quoted in relevant portion above). Both state unequivocably that Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win a primary. If you have a source that either says he wasn't, or that Goldwater was, please produce it. Otherwise, please stop engaging in original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the sources need to be RS, Wikipedia also goes by verifiable edits, not truth which can sometimes seem odd, even though in this case it makes perfect sense. You need to find sources from the Goldwater era showing "Goldwater first Jew to win primary." There aren't any. What we have in this article are sources that show "Sanders first Jew to win primary." That is RS. Anything else is RS and SYNTH. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

And many of those sources mention Goldwater, as we should also. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps as a sidenote or a an explanatory footnote, but not to remove what the reliable sources say: that Sanders is the first Jewish candidate to win a presidential primary. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

John Kerry is also Jewish so I don't know if being the fourth Jew to win a primary is as notable enough for inclusion as being the first or second Jew to win a primary. [40] Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Then it should be a sidenote, as it already was. People kept removing it, though. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That reference says John Kerry is at most ¼ Jewish blood (only that much if Mathilde Frankel was Jewish). Other references show he is neither Jewish religion (he's Catholic) nor Jewish ethnicity (inherited through the maternal line), and does not identify as "Jewish". "1st Jew" seems to be about religion. Let's not bring race into it too! --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I am ¼ Jewish too and identify as such. Do you have to inherit African American ethnicity through the maternal line to be considered ethnically African American? No, you don't. Same applies for Jewish ethnicity. It does not matter what side he gets his Jewish blood from from an ethnic standpoint. By the way, I'm pretty sure some sects of Judaism recognize Jews through the paternal line as well (not that it matters since we are talking about ethnicity, not religion). If "1st Jew" is about religion, then it needs to be clear about that in the article. By the way, "Jewish" is not a race; it's an ethnic group. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not American, so frankly cannot see why the issue of whether or not to describe Bernie Sanders as Jewish is worthy of anywhere near the amount of text that has been written on this and other talk pages. To me, a person is part of an ethnic group if they choose to be identified that way, and the group accepts them. From the sources quoted ad infinitum, Sanders is Jewish in cultural, racial and religious senses. The "maternal line" comment related to a source quoted somewhere above about Jewish lineage, I have no idea what is required to inherit "African American" as distinct from any other kind of African or American ethnicity. my wife has an American ancestor, but does not consider herself American any more than she considers herself English, Welsh, Scots, Irish or Prussian. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Pardon for not having entirely read the whole discussion. But in case if the detail in the title isn't mentioned, I believe it should be if notable. And if Barry Goldwater won multiple primaries for the Republican Party's nomination as SirLagsalott says, then it should be placed in the article. (N0n3up (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC))

Barry Goldwater was Episcopalian, but an ethnic Jew. We can say Bernie was the first "religious" Jew perhaps. ()

I had stated that earlier but it was reverted on the grounds that he was not Jewish by religion. A lot of the page editors appear to believe different things. SirLagsalott (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

John Kerry's paternal grandparents, Fritz Kohn and Ida Löwe, were both born Jewish. I have no idea where this weird idea comes from that he only had one Jewish grandparent. Why do so many people believe this? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do so many think religion is the only part of being Jewish that sets any of them apart? Sanders has said he's not religious, Goldwater was a practicing Episcopalian, and Kerry is a Catholic. Yet, all of them are ethnically Jewish. I'm not seeing why this is an argument, but that's me. Perhaps the "first Jew" thing needs to be either left out or qualified. Sanders is being referred to by the media as the first Jew to win, however, Kerry and Goldwater preceded him. Or something like that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. 'Semitic'-obsessive prejudice again. Why is it that people of mixed descent are always 'Jewish' ethnically if one or more of their forebears was Jewish, while others were not? For fuck's sake, this is precisely the sort of thing that led to the German classificatory system as it was worked out in the 30s.Nishidani (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani—please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. For instance "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like we need a WP:CRYSOAPBOX to go along with WP:CRYBLP... --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop. Alluding to Raul Hilberg,The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) 1973 pp.43-53., is not soap-boxing. If you can't see that, and confuse an allusion with a personal view, you don't know anything about the subject, and thus fail to understand the implications of what people appear unwittingly to be regurgitating here.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering this is the lead, weight is an issue. Certainly religion, ethnicity and gender provided barriers to election in the past and it is significant for subjects that have shattered the glass ceiling, such as Kennedy (Catholic), Obama (African American), Clinton (female.) Joe Lieberman was a serious candidate for president and ran as VP, which shows that ceiling was broken. I do not see it as significant, and certainly it has not received the same attention, therefore does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by verifiable and RS. The news sources all say Bernie is the first Jew to win a Presidential Primary and that should be in the lead. I do not know why it was removed. I would ask if his highness gives permission to put it back in, but I'm just a lowly Jew, so I would ask someone who is not of the Jewish ethnicity or religion or heritage or common ethnic background. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient reason for inclusion. The most relevant policy is neutrality. "Balancing aspects" says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." So for example the article Special theory of relativity does not mention that Einstein who developed the theory was Jewish. The article Jurassic Park does not mention that the creator of the series was Jewish. Facts should be presented in accordance with their significance in reliable sources, not what you happen to think is important. TFD (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what it is you're trying to say. Why the heck would a page about a theory or a page about a film mention the religion of the people involved in the creation of them? This is a page about an individual who is a politician and a Presidential candidate. Religion is usually held as quite an important aspect of the lives and public perception of people in these positions. Centerone (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

a politician and a Presidential candidate. Religion is usually held as quite an important aspect of the lives and public perception of people in these positions.

I know, right? How sad is that? It must be driving that kind of voter crazy when they look at Sanders and discover he isn't religious. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you say "he isn't religious". In point of fact he is religious to a limited degree. "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, “I know the blessings,” and recited them in Hebrew." Do you fail to see the admittedly limited Jewish religious observance displayed in this act of 1983? You seem to argue that sources point out that he is not religious. Yes, he is not observant of most Jewish ritual behavior. But sources are pointing out the connections between the Jewish religion and political positions he takes. The sources in fact are saying that his activity is broadly consistent with the Jewish religion. In particular many sources trace his exceptional concern with the downtrodden with his religion. Many sources connect his exceptional concern for righting social inequities with religion. In short, it is the religion that matters, not the ethnicity. And that is according to reliable sources. That is not merely my own opinion. I can present many sources connecting Sanders' working method to Jewish religious beliefs. Your personal opinion matters less in these considerations than the findings of reliable sources. Example: "...Sanders’ ideology no doubt springs from many sources, his overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is as Jewish as the poem that graces the Statue of Liberty..." Most of the sources that you are dismissing as merely saying that he is not religious are also making the point that religion informs the political positions of Sanders. This is of obvious interest to the reader therefore satisfying the requirement for "relevance" found in WP:BLPCAT. As concerns his admittedly spotty record of Jewish religious ritual observance, we can add to his Chanukah observance the observance of the Jewish ritual of Tashlich and the visitation to a friend on the occasion of the Yartzeit of the man's father. Are you failing to recognize in Chanukah, Taschlich, and Yartzeit the religious element? He never renounced his Jewish religion. It is his Jewish religion that matters here, not his Jewish ethnicity. Sources are specifically drawing connections between the Jewish religion and the political positions embodied by Sanders. It should not matter for Wikipedia purposes how observant he is, but Sanders participates in Jewish religious rituals to an admittedly limited degree. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Participation in religious ceremonies

I've added a little bit of detail regarding participation in three Jewish ceremonies.[41] I think this brief addition will clarify things, because the cited source does not suggest that he participates in the three ceremonies on a regular basis.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

if the cited source actually clarifies this, I think it's a fine idea. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant—here is a question for you to ponder. How can Bernie Sanders participate in these religious functions if his religion is not Jewish? Why are you arguing for the removal of the "Jewish" designation from the Infobox when you are making edits, such as this one, which presuppose that Bernie Sanders is a member of the Jewish religion? Do you think he participates in Tashlikh, Yahrzeit, and Hannukah as a non-Jew? "Rabbi Joshua Chasan, the rabbi emeritus of Burlington’s Conservative synagogue, Ohavi Zedek, who has known Mr. Sanders since he was Burlington’s mayor, said Mr. Sanders 'does not have to wear his Judaism on his sleeve in Vermont or anywhere else to be a Jew.'"[42] Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason someone like myself participates in Catholic funerals, though not a Catholic, indeed a known pagan. If a Catholic acquaintance dies, I attend the funeral. I am godfather to a girl, now a woman, from the moment of her baptism, where I undertook to ensure that I would look after her spiritual welfare, and be available whenever circumstances dictated the need of a helping presence. The girl's father was an atheist, raised a Catholic; her mother an Oriental who converted nominally. If my monkish com-panions in a nearby community invite me to dine as their guest, aand call on me, after the ritual prayer of grace has been said, (during which I remain silent) to bless the occasion with the Hebrew benediction, I do so. They like to be reminded of their deeper religious affinities. None of this makes me a Catholic, or a Protestant or a Jew. In the modern world, fellowship does not ply the worry beads over possible implications in the otherwise sympathetic courtesies of ritual respect and observance (as it once, noxiously, did).Nishidani (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

We are not discussing a Nishidani article, are we? Your comments are irrelevant. You've brought no sources. Furthermore this is not a forum for the gratuitous expression of your opinions. You are out of place expressing that "In the modern world, fellowship does not ply the worry beads over possible implications in the otherwise sympathetic courtesies of ritual respect and observance (as it once, noxiously, did)."[43] Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

He responded to your original research with original research. Regardless, you've made your position on this issue absolutely clear - consensus is against it. In time or with sufficient new sources consensus may change. Until then, no sense rehashing it. D.Creish (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

My original research? What don't you understand about the sourced statement that "Rabbi Joshua Chasan, the rabbi emeritus of Burlington’s Conservative synagogue, Ohavi Zedek, who has known Mr. Sanders since he was Burlington’s mayor, said Mr. Sanders 'does not have to wear his Judaism on his sleeve in Vermont or anywhere else to be a Jew'"? Clearly Sanders' religion is Jewish. This is sourced multiple times. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

When others opinionize, regarding the interpretation of sources, I comment, with my opinion. Your attempt to try to single me out as a soap-boxer expresses personal animus, not equanimity. As I said earlier, identity is one's own business, and no external sources, even from friends, are relevant to what a living person is. The only thing that counts is an explicit testimony from the subject. The rest is silence (that's a quote, not my opinion).Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop, count how many responses you have posted. Count how many of them repeat -- often word-for-word -- arguments that did not change anyone's mind the last three time you posted them. Post the totals, then try to tell us with a straight face that you honestly don't believe you are soapboxing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Position on the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act?

Since the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act has come up as a campaign issue, should the position Sanders took on it while in Congress be mentioned in that section? bd2412 T 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Sanders criticized Uber, but his campaign used it for 100% of its taxi rides

I recently added the following to the "Political positions" section of the article:

After Sanders criticized Uber for not having the same government regulations and employee benefits as regular taxi companies, conservatives accused Sanders of hypocrisy, pointing to public campaign records which showed that his campaign actually used Uber for 100% of its taxi rides.

References

User:C.J. Griffin deleted it, and commented, "This is a broad overview of his positions, therefore undue weight is given to this Uber controversy, and from a highly questionable source I might add..."

Since the article already has numerous mentions about Sanders' claim to care about workers' well being, I think this hypocrisy on his part is highly notable, and should be included in the article. Otherwise, the article is just a puff piece for Sanders, which is against Wikipedia:NPOV.

What do other editors think about including or not including this information in the article?

Unbreakable 427 (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

If anything, I think it should be included in his presidential campaign article, or at least his political positions page. It just feels like it would be kind out out of place in here. But for that matter, is his use of the free market hypocritical to the point that it should be included - I mean, he's criticized Comcast, Verizon, etc for overcharging their customer, but it's more than likely he's still using them because they're the "best" available. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked both of those cited sources, neither of which gave substantive explanations of a political position(s) of Sanders. What information about Sanders' policy positions were you hoping to convey to readers? All I saw was that Sanders reportedly made some criticisms of Uber, and his campaign used Uber. I didn't even see an actual "accusation of hypocrisy". I'm guessing the other editor was referring to the American Spectator opinion piece as questionable (it's definitely not a reliable source for assertions of fact). On behalf of people who criticize pollution and lax EPA regulations, yet still drive cars to work; on behalf of people who criticize WalMart labor practices, yet still shop; on behalf of residents of Flint, Michigan who criticize lax water safety regulations, yet still take showers — I'm not seeing how your proposed sentence improves that section of the article on Sanders' politics. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's to show he's a hypocrite, I guess? Political opinions aside, it doesn't come off as encyclopedic and doesn't seem to have much relevance. Buffaboy ^talk 05:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You would need to show that these views had obtained traction in mainstream sources. TFD (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are currently in violation of an RfC that had over 75% support.

Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes, (which was approved with a consensus of over 75%), clearly forbids nonreligions in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox. Per WP:LOCALCON we cannot override Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes with a local RfC, and besides, there is a strong consensus that putting "Religion = Jewish" in the infobox violates WP:BLPCAT, which clearly states:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. [...] These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements."

In my opinion, we should remove the entry now because it clearly violates the overwhelming community consensus at WP:BLPCAT and Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes. We are a few days away from a major primary here in the US, and the infobox of Bernie Sanders page should not say something that is demonstrably not true.

Note, as an experiment in this section only, I would ask everyone to completely ignore any response that contains phrases like "are you saying he isn't Jewish?", "But he says he is Jewish", "Stop claiming that he isn't Jewish" or any variation of those phrases. Don't respond at all (any response just encourages more of the disruptive behavior) and instead talk about whether we should or should not immediately delete the entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It says his ethnicity is Jewish which I don't disagree with at all. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is Guy Macon's section, he makes the rules. Apparently when you are dealing with Jews there are special rules that we must follow. Even though as per his bolded part, Bernie has indeed self-identified, even just last-night he said as such, but I guess it will never be good enough for him. I will just let Malik Shabazz deal with you. I have had enough. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bernie Sanders campaign literature stating "Religion: Jewish" means that we are not in "violation" of the RfC. Interpretations and arguments on both side of this content dispute have valid points. This is not a black and white issue that can be solved with appeals to authority.- MrX 17:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• If it is not black and white, then we should not include the description in the info-box. TFD (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• (ec) Gosh, where have I heard that before? Perhaps MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose of an infobox?

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

Or perhaps it was Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain?:

"In general, data in infobox templates should be concise (Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts), materially relevant to the subject, and already cited elsewhere in the article."

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I couldn't care less. It matters very little. These discussions are a monumental waste of time and energy.- MrX 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest not reading things that you find to be a waste of time. If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a Talk:Bernie Sander feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Bernie is ethnically Jewish, that is not disputed by anyone so we should move on! Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

(In response to the comment that @Bus stop: has since deleted): "Jewish" isn't a religion, nor is "Christian", "Muslim", etc. I understand why it doesn't say "Religion: Judaism" in the infobox, because that would violate WP:OR. But Jewish isn't a religion; it's an ethnic, religious, and cultural *identity*. For the record, I made my first comment in this section before the infobox read "Religion: Jewish" to point out that at the time Sanders's religion wasn't even in the infobox despite Guy Macon claiming that it was. But now it *is* in the infobox, and I didn't come to this section to argue what Sanders's religion is. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Holy crap, how is this still going on? Should we put a little note in the infobox - maybe request permanent protection for the article? This is such a non-issue. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK. I don't look at this for a day or so, and discover that now the article does not have a religion in the infobox at all, but it has a religious interpretation of Jewish in a hand-coded "Ethnicity" field. I'm also stumped how it can be considered to be OR to conclude that the subject's utterances are consistent with Judaism as his religion, but it's not OR to imagine that Sanders had nothing to do with a press pack issued by his office about him. If you were writing a full citation for that press kit, who would be in the |author= field? Most of the examples in the Infobox RfC are adjectives, so arguing that "Jewish" is a non-religion is poor form. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Guy Macon on this point. It's not essential to have it in the infobox, the field is "Religion" and Sanders has said numerous times that he is ethnically Jewish not religiously Jewish. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, that's not actually what he said. He never said he's ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish, what he said is that he's "not particularly religious". There is a significant difference between being non-religious and not particularly religious, particularly when it comes to the Jewish religion and American Jewry in particular; much of this has already been discussed. Guy Macon is simply misinterpreting what that statement means, and continuously repeating it ad nauseum. Centerone (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually Sanders says his religion is Jewish. He explicitly says "Religion: Jewish". From where are you deriving that his religion is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders HIMSELF (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify. This has been explained to you multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

What has happened in these absurd threats was well diagnosed in this article. J. J. Goldberg, 'Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About Being Jewish. Why Won't We Listen?,' The Forward 26 February 2016. So drop it. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

That article makes a good point. Here on the Bernie Sanders Wikipedia page, we are being bludgeoned by a small minority pushing an unsourced claim concerning Bernie Sanders' religion, but in the process of repeatedly pointing out the total lack of sources where Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) publicly self-identifies as belonging to a particular religion, we must not lose sight of something very significant and notable, which is Bernie Sanders' strong and well-sourced identification of his Jewish heritage and ethnicity as being something that has made him the person that he is and has led him to hold the positions he holds. Explaining and sourcing this properly is an important part of making this a good article. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your responses are somewhat puzzling to me. As it is you're the one pushing the unsourced claim, you're the one who is bludgeoning the process yet you try to make it sound as if it's other people doing so. Nowhere does he state he does not belong to a religion, nowhere does he state he is an atheist. How many times does it have to be discussed and pointed out that you are simply misinterpreting what has been said? He openly states that he is spiritual and believes in God. His literature and bio openly declares his religion. There is a difference between being "not particularly religious" and being not religious at all. When people disprove your claims you move the goal line, choose to ignore the people who have disproven you, or you make attempts to wordsmith things and play games with semantics. A key point in this article is towards the end: "Part of our problem is that most of our understanding of what Judaism consists of in America today — and what it is that American Jews experience in their Jewish lives — is gathered by and filtered through people who don’t get the average American Jewish psyche — and don’t particularly want to get it, unless it’s to fix it." Centerone (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but "Nowhere does he state he does not belong to a religion" doesn't cut it. Nowhere does he state that he isn't a Scientologist either. Do you have a source where he himself states that he belongs to a particular religion? No. You do not. Per WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify as belonging to a religion. If you think that BLPCAT is "filtered through people who don’t get the average American Jewish psyche" go to the BLPCAT talk page and suggest that it be modified. Until you succeed at getting it changed, I plan on following the clear instructions in BLPCAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in arguing about whether or not Sanders practices Judaism or not. What matters is that we follow Wikipedia policy. Since WP:BLPCAT requires that Sanders self-identifies with the religion, we should not reflect that he practices Judaism until he says so himself. Prcc27💋 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And he HAS said so himself! He's just not going to say so in a way simply to satisfy a wikipedia editor's word games. He's openly stated he believes in God, that he's spiritual, he approved the press packet / bio it where it says Religion: Jewish (editor of the press packet notwithstanding, he still had to approve of it's contents!), that he's proud of being Jewish, etc.. All he's said that has been repeatedly misunderstood is that he's "not particularly religious" which means he's not terribly observant of ritual and ceremony, that he's not involved with a temple or synagogue; this is very common amongst Jews and infact it's supported by religious scholarship that one doesn't need to be terribly observant to still be a Jew by religion. Centerone (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Although it may be hard to believe, there is actually a Wikipedia editor whose religion seems to be repeatedly denying that Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism, despite his own press packet self identification, and reports in reliable sources that he recited Hanukkah blessings, observes yahrzeit and practiced tashlikh in 2015. That editor is dogmatically religious in arguing that Bernie just isn't Jewish enough to pass that editor's personally stringent test of Jewish religious observance. Quite amazing, actually. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but when I point it out I get warned that I risk getting blocked for some reason and then Guy Macon posts his stupid step 1 and step 2 thing again. I guess some people don't like having a Jewish presidential candidate for some reason then need to come up with all sorts of bogus reasons and logical fallacies to distort and all it does it make Wikipedia look stupid. Look at his infobox now, it says Ethnicity, and every other 534 members of Congress has Religion, his presskit says Religion, the only difference between him and all the others members of congress and other candidates? He's Jewish. Something smells rotten. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The latest edit, in the infobox, has the ref, "I am proud to be Jewish" with the press kit ref. BTW, Guy Macon and others are wrong when they say it has to be in his own words. They are erroneously quoting a policy that applies to a cat, that is a generalization. Even that "guideline" says the guideline has exceptions and a presskit written by a Senator should obviously be viewed as coming out of his own mouth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have started edit warring over the infobox (appropriate warning left on your talk page), ignored the fact that there is a discussion on this still occurring, and that consensus has not been reached. You also ignored the admonition from an administrator regarding WP:DS. PLease note that edit warring doesn't have to equate violating 3RR. You wasted no time in putting things back to your preferred version all on your own right after the full protection of the article was lifted. And no, Guy Macon is not wrong and has not misinterpreted policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Which policy would that be? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been told several times that per WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify as belonging to a religion. Obvious feigned ignorance is obvious. You say that I am "erroneously quoting a policy that applies to a cat" but WP:BLPCAT clearly states "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements." Obvious pretending to not have read the policy being discussed is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Gutman"

Someone added that his father "was born Eliasz Gutman". Aside from the fact that this is not necessarily a reliable source, I'm not sure it's even saying "Gutman" was the original surname. Eliasz Gutman was the son of Leib / Leon Sander. "Gutman" may have been a stepfather's surname. Can someone take this out of the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

So adding in a note about Barry Goldwater and changing "Jewish American" to "Jewish" was "disruptive" and "original research", but no one will take out the inaccurate and poorly sourced information about Sanders' father's original last name? Keep up the good work, guys. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Well, I guess not... To lock this article till the 29th because of the never-ending "Jewish" problem is not a very good idea, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed that info and a sentence from an editorial source that gave info about an uncle. This is Sanders's very short bio and he has led a long life filled with interesting information - there really is not room for something that happened years ago to a relative. Gandydancer (talk) 14:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protection (editing dispute)

With the page about to go live again in just a few hours, I hope that you all will be able to act like mature adults and not continue the ridiculous edit war that caused me to protect the page. But, just in case you were planning on continuing to battle on this extremely visible article, let it be known that I will not protect the page again if those involved continue that behavior. Instead, I will enforce the permitted arbitration enforcement sanctions on any and all editors that do not abide by WP:EW regarding the "Jewish" matter, from here on out. This article has already come under media scrutiny once before, so I won't have a few of you make us all look like jackasses. - Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Coffee, Sir Joseph has already started edit warring over the issue and changed it back to his preferred version almost as soon as the article was unlocked. When that was reverted and he was reminded there is no consensus yet, he reverted my reversion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems you were already taking care of this with the editor in question while I was writing the above comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Arbitration enforcement sanctions have been applied to the user in question. log — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the contentious edit here. If that wasn't appropriate please let me know and I'll self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)