Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:42, 3 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernie Sanders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

	Bernie Sanders was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 26, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed August 28, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government / Vermont Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Mid-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bernie Sanders article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Brad Jones (10 December 2015). "Beneath every presidential candidate's Misplaced Pages page lies a vicious tug-of-war". Digital Trends. Retrieved 10 December 2015. With some four thousand edits in the history of the Sanders entry alone, it can be difficult to understand exactly why individuals are sitting down at a computer to perfect Misplaced Pages's presentation of the man himself.

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)

Other Quotes from Senators

What does it matter what other Senators think of his presidential run? And can you pick and choose? Can I add in quotes from Ernst, Heitkamp, Pat Roberts, McConnell, Rand Paul? For fairness, I would remove the Warren quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.142.160 (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments -- religion in infobox

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? — MShabazz /_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 /_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 14:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Guy Macon—Why do you feel the need to delve into other Misplaced Pages articles? Do we seriously have to examine other Misplaced Pages articles in this discussion? I find that obfuscatory. The reliable sources found externally to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages policy addressing exactly this. Sanders self identifies. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages is not a source for itself. For support we look to sources outside Misplaced Pages. Yet up and down this Talk page you are citing Misplaced Pages articles for arguments you wish to make. I am openminded and flexible concerning entertaining novel arguments. But the sources external to Misplaced Pages do not cease to exist while we examine other Misplaced Pages articles. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sanders has indeed self-identified. As not part of organized religion,

• There is no requirement that a person whose religion is Judaism be part of organized religion. This is a misunderstanding that you are laboring under. Bus stop (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Sanders has self-identified as not part any organized religion, and has further insisted that he is not very religious, and that his religious beliefs are personal and he doesn't talk about them. WP:BLPCAT requires that a person's religion be a relevant part of their notability and public life before Misplaced Pages can trumpet it as "Religion = whatever" in the infobox, and Sanders has made clear that it is anything but a major part of his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 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)

  The general requirement is self-identification as religiously Jewish, not the ethnicity to which you note he has self-identified. He has self-identified, in direct speech, that he is not part of organized religion, doesn't attend synagogue, and isn't very religious in general. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 1 March 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 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Press kits are not reliable secondary sources under Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages selfidentify and[REDACTED] common. Again, are you saying he's not Jewish? Sir Joseph 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 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 17:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sanders does indeed identify as culturally Jewish, and he's proud of that, but he also self-identifies as not part of organized religion. (As for practice and belief, he constantly reminds us that he isn't very religious, doesn't attend synagogue, and drifted away from religious ritual after he grew up.) As for you assertion, "If someone is Jewish, their religion is Jewish", that's rich. I can't wait to tell Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Sam Harris, et al, what their religion is. If I am quick, maybe I can still catch them at temple... Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 1 March 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editor thinks they are better able to deternine Sanders' religion than Sanders himself. That is classic original research. Cullen Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Incorrect. I believe you are referring to a .PDF file (which contains other errors) linked to his Official Senate Bio, which notably does not' mention religion, correct? The .PDF file doesn't represent the required direct speech for self-identification, and we don't know who wrote that. I agree that we should go with what Sanders says himself, like his self-identification that he is not a part of organized religion, isn't very religious at all, that he has drifted away from Jewish ritual as he grew up, and that his religion is private and he doesn't talk about it, rather than being relevant to his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 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)

• He is proud to be Jewish, and he has said multiple times how proud he is of that heritage. But this discussion is about the |Religion= field, and he has also made clear that he is not a member of any organized religion. The religion field is appropriately blank, but the infobox still notes that he is Jewish, per his self-identification. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• You say "He is proud to be Jewish, and he has said multiple times how proud he is of that heritage" but I don't think you understand how the word "heritage" is being used. Note the following: "A rabbi at a temple in South Burlington, Vermont, complained that although Sanders 'knows he’s Jewish' and 'has a good heart,' the community would benefit from him openly embracing his heritage." In that quote the word "heritage" more closely approximates the word "religion" than it does the word "ethnicity". It is true that "heritage" in a wider usage refers to "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth", much like "ethnicity" does. But we are talking about Judaism. As you probably are aware the traditional means by which Judaism is transmitted is by way of birth. This is a source of a lot of the flaws in arguments on this page. Good quality sources are not only using the word "heritage" correctly as it pertains to Jews, and some editors are incorrectly understanding the meaning of "heritage" as it applies to Jews, but additionally many of the other arguments made by some editors—misconstruing sources and overlaying them with original research—stem from failing to recognize the place of birth in the acquisition of Judaism. This is not like Christianity, and sources, unlike some editors, are aware of this. When a source is saying, for instance, that he is not observant, or not religious, or not involved with organized religion, that source is not saying that his religion is not Jewish. Sources are reporting on the kind of Jew he is; not whether or not his religion is Jewish. Good quality sources can be understood to know the role "birth" or "heritage" plays in the assignation of religion to a Jew. This is not to say that for Misplaced Pages every subject of a biography that is born to Jewish parents is considered a Jew, especially for purposes of the religion designation appearing in the Infobox. But we have to understand what sources are saying in order not to misconstrue what they are saying. Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with your personal opinion of what the definition of "heritage" is in the above context, or the completely subjective suggestions as to how closely one word might "more closely approximate" another word. I even more strongly disagree with the notion that you know how a random reporter defines "heritage" when that reporter asks Sanders, "Do you think your Jewish heritage will impact your campaign?", or "Will your Jewish heritage have an influence on your Presidency?" The point is, if you feel the need to spend a whole paragraph explaining how various sources are "reporting on the kind of Jew he is", sticking the descriptor "Jewish" in the |Religion= field is anything but clear and unambiguous, after distancing himself from organized religions and religious beliefs. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Let us not forget the lengthy detour through the Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard. Misconstruing sources is related to original research. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "Sanders has indeed self-identified. As not part of organized religion". One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally, from where are you deriving that not being a part of organized religion has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not? And of course we know, due to the existence of reliable sources, that Sanders sporadically does participate in organized religion. We have examples, supported by sources, of Sanders' participation in Chanukah, Tashlikh, and Yahrzeit. I find you saying mere hours ago that "he is not part of organized religion, doesn't attend synagogue, and isn't very religious in general". One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally, from where are you deriving that for instance not attending a synagogue has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not? Our question is not whether he is Orthodox. When you say he "isn't very religious in general" you are inadvertently presenting an argument for him not being Orthodox. But we are not entertaining a question as to whether he is Orthodox or not. We are all in complete agreement that he is not Orthodox. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "He is proud to be Jewish, and he has said multiple times how proud he is of that heritage." One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally you are failing to grasp the connection between "heritage" and "religion", within the Jewish tradition. I share your interest in following Misplaced Pages policy but we have to be mindful of the subject matter under discussion. We are not discussing whether Bernie Sanders is Christian or not. We are discussing whether his religion is Jewish or not. "Heritage" is the traditional means by which a Jew acquires the religion of Judaism. You are just about hanging your argument on the word "heritage". But in doing so you are misconstruing its meaning in a Jewish context. I did not introduce the word and the concept of "heritage" to this discussion. You introduced the term to this discussion and you built an argument upon its use. Your argument based on heritage is faulty because traditionally a Jew acquires the Jewish religion by means of heritage. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "he has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew up". One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally I have to wonder from where you are deriving that "religious ritual" is a factor in whether or not a person's religion is Judaism. Even if his life was devoid of participation in such rituals—would that translate into his religion not being Jewish? No source is saying that. Furthermore his nonobservance is not complete nonobservance. Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish organization. They had Sanders light the light of the second night of Chanukah in Burlington, Vermont in 1983. Sanders recited the blessing (Berakhah) over the second night's light. In case you don't know it, he could not possibly do that if he were not a Jew—by religion, at least not under the auspices of Chabad. And we know that despite how nonobservant he is, he is observant to a degree. But we are not debating whether or not he is Orthodox. We are debating whether his religion is Jewish or not. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. You have apparently misdirected your comment. You've ask the following questions, but I know for a fact they weren't intended for me:

from where are you deriving that not being a part of organized religion has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not?

from where are you deriving that for instance not attending a synagogue has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not??

We are discussing whether his religion is Jewish or not.

from where you are deriving that "religious ritual" is a factor in whether or not a person's religion is Judaism.

We are debating whether his religion is Jewish or not.

As I've never "derived" such things, and as I am not part of the discussions or debates you just mentioned, you have the wrong person. Our discussion (the one between you and I specifically) left off here: If you feel the need to spend a whole paragraph explaining how various sources are "reporting on the kind of Jew he is", sticking the descriptor "Jewish" in the |Religion= field is anything but clear and unambiguous, after distancing himself from organized religions and religious beliefs. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—it is you who is obsessing over "the kind of Jew he is". In my opinion he is approximately an average Jew. I am not impressed that he is unusual or anything like that. Of course he is a candidate for the presidency so he is under additional scrutiny. You say "If you feel the need to spend a whole paragraph explaining how various sources are 'reporting on the kind of Jew he is', sticking the descriptor 'Jewish' in the Religion field is anything but clear and unambiguous". But it is you who is arguing that he is not a part of organized religion, that he does not attend synagogue, and that he does not engage in religious rituals. I am relatively unimpressed by those facts. I can take those facts in stride. But you are obsessing over these facts. Am I to blame for responding to you? The "religion" field in the Infobox should indicate that he is a Jew because that is a relevant fact. Indeed he is a Jew, therefore the designation for "religion" should be filled in, in the Infobox. Incidentally Jewish Law would only have a Jew lighting the lights of a menorah on the second night of Chanukah on the steps of City Hall in 1983 in Burlington, Vermont. And that Jew happened to have been Bernie Sanders. Yes, the same one who is the subject of this article. The lighting of those lights, including the recitation of relevant blessings, was done under the auspices of Chabad, an organization stringently observant of Jewish Law. Only one individual effectuated the fulfillment of the Jewish requirements for lighting lights and reciting the relevant berakhot. From this we know that he is Jewish, not to mention the numerous times he says that he is "proud to be Jewish". You can stop obsessing over the "kind of Jew he is" and simply follow Misplaced Pages's standard operating procedures. Those procedures involve indicating "religion" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

it is you who is obsessing over "the kind of Jew he is"...

Incorrect. Those were your words of 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC). That is your obsession, and I have not engaged with you in that discussion because it is not relevant here.

But it is you who is arguing that he is not a part of organized religion, that he does not attend synagogue, and that he does not engage in religious rituals.

Incorrect again. It is Bernie Sanders who argues those things. You should read the reliable sources.

The "religion" field in the Infobox should indicate that he is a Jew because that is a relevant fact.

Incorrect yet again. He is 74 years old and was born in Brooklyn, but those relevant facts don't belong in the |Religion= field either. That field is reserved for his religious beliefs and only if they are a significant component of his public life and notability, and as he has said, he is not part of organized religion and isn't very religious, something he thinks "people should hold generally hold to themselves so it’s not something that I talk about a whole lot." But you want to use the field anyway? How curious. Suspicious, in fact.

Incidentally Jewish Law... yada yada lights of a menorah... yada yada on the second night of Chanukah ... relevant blessings etc., auspices of Chabad yada yada Template:Jewish Law ... relevant berakhot etc., etc.

I'm sure that's all very interesting to someone, and forgive me for breezing past it, but the issue we're discussing is the |Religion= field in this article's infobox.

You can stop obsessing over the "kind of Jew he is"...

Once again, those were your words. See your comments of 21:17, 1 March 2016 just above where you introduce that tangent. Sucks to be you when your own words are still recorded on the page and reveal your misrepresentation, eh? I'm not interested in discussing the intricacies of Jewish culture here, that is your obsession, and your attempted projection is noted. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:19, 2 March 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 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)

• He is definitely culturally Jewish, and he is certainly proud of that heritage. This discussion is about his religion, however, and he has not professed in direct speech that his religion is Judaism. To the contrary, he has self-identified in direct speech that he is not part of organized religion, that he has drifted away from Jewish ritual as he grew older, and that he isn't very religious at all. There is a reason that Misplaced Pages policy demands that before a person's religious beliefs can appear in an infobox, they must not only be reliably sourced like all other infobox data, but additionally must be relevant to the person's notability and public life. Sanders has specifically told us that his religious beliefs are a personal matter which he prefers not to talk about, as opposed to being a defining part of his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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)

• You can't pick and choose which facts to highlight and which to ignore. Yes he is proud of his Jewish ethnicity, but has self-identified as not part of any organized religion, and told us that he has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew up. As for "he never recanted his religion", I'm impressed that you would assume to know such a personal fact about him. Source? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 1 March 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 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. Misplaced Pages should just report the facts, and not takes sides here. -- Kendrick7 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 07:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting information in the body of a Misplaced Pages 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'" . 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 , . 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) . 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages does not have policy relating to minimally acceptable levels of religiosity. He may not be particularly religious, but that is acceptable as far as Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.--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)

Oppose After more thought and further discussion, am changing my previous !Vote from support to oppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 1 March 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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
• 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. Misplaced Pages doesn't define Judaism, except insofar as reliable sources define Judaism. And Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 /_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 Misplaced Pages policy says we take his word for it. WP:SELFIDENTIFY. Note the part that begins, RELIGION: Sir Joseph 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 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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"? 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages rules are verifiability and self-identification, both of which are satisfied. —Lowellian (reply) 18:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Where does he "He self-identify being religiously Jewish"? Nobody else has been able to provide a source for that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

One of many places: "Says Sanders: “Spirituality is one thing I feel individuals ought to maintain usually maintain to themselves so it’s not one thing that I speak about an entire lot. However I’m proud to be Jewish and being Jewish is an important a part of my life.” "Centerone (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"I’m proud to be Jewish" and "Religion: Jewish" constitute self-identification. Additionally "I’m proud to be Jewish" is direct speech. If you are going to say he doesn't say "I'm proud to be Jewish, religiously", people don't speak that way. "I’m proud to be Jewish" is common parlance. This is the way people speak. We don't set the bar at a level that precludes self-identification in common, normal, everyday speech. Bus stop (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• He has a dialogue with Anderson Cooper which goes like this: COOPER: You know, I want to follow up, because Jason also mentioned faith, which is something you've spoken a little bit about. You're Jewish, but you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion. What do you say to a voter out there who says -- and that who sees faith as a guiding principle in their lives, and wants it to be a guiding principle for this country? SANDERS: It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is. You know, everybody practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings." Centerone (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The sum total of not only the things he says but the actions that he takes clearly places him as Jewish by religion. "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." "But he appeared later that day with Lynchburg’s mayor for the Rosh Hashana ritual of tashlikh, the symbolic casting of sins into a stream." "Today, Senator Sanders does not regularly attend any synagogue in Washington or Vermont, though he does show up for rituals like the yahrzeit — the anniversary of a death — of the father of a close friend, Richard Sugarman, who teaches philosophy in the religion department at the University of Vermont." Chanukah, Tashlikh, and Yahrzeit are clearly religious in nature. Bus stop (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Support - He was born to Jewish parents, consistently self-identifies as Jewish, and no major reliable source says he isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - He consistently self-identifies as culturally Jewish, and is proud of that heritage, but he also self-identifies as not part of organized religion, and he frequently reminds us that he doesn't attend synagogue and has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew up. He tells us he is not very religious at all; instead today his spirituality and religion is a collective empathy toward all people, "we're all in this together". I don't oppose having the infobox display Ethnicity=Jewish, but after hearing Sanders' own self-identification (in his own direct speech as required) as not being part of organized religion, and not being very religious, I oppose misleading readers by using the |Religion= field. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I find the oppose arguments to be stronger. While he talks about spirituality and commonalities of religions, he says he doesn't practice organized religion. Prioritizing statements by the subject of a BLP over statements about the subject of a BLP, the case to include a "religion" parameter in his infobox is insufficient. Culturally, ethnically, etc. Jewish, but not someone who practices Judaism (which is what would be implied). This proposal is not a question of whether to say he's Jewish or whether to say he's atheist/agnostic, nor is "Religion: none" a possible outcome. The question is whether to say his religion is Judaism/Jewish or whether to exclude that parameter (i.e. not define him in that way). Our default should be to exclude that parameter except when sourcing is totally clear -- and it's not. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The claim that Sanders acknowledges Jewish faith is based on the common mistaking of Jewish ethnicity and practitioners of Judaism. Of course this misunderstanding is reinforced by lazy journalism, and as an exercise in confirmation bias we can find any number of sources that repeat it, but the question is categorical and Sanders is on record as explicitly secular. He is ethnically and culturally Jewish, but states quite openly, to the annoyance of many fellow Jewish Americans, that he does not practice Judaism. It only takes one authoritative repudiation to refute the claim of religion, and actually we have several. Is he Jewish? Yes, and proud of it. Is his religion Judaism? According to him, emphatically not, he very clearly states that he does not participate in any organised religion. The idea that everybody surely must have a religion seems to me to be peculierly American: I rarely find this assumption in play elsewhere. So: omit the parameter. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The Infobox parameter is "Religion," not "Ethnicity." Bernie Sanders has said many times that he's Jewish, but saying "I'm Jewish" is very often a statement of cultural identity, not religion. We frankly have no idea what Bernie Sanders' religion is. In the interviews I've seen and read, Bernie Sanders' has been very ambiguous about what his religious beliefs are, but not at all ambiguous about his Jewish cultural background. Unless someone can point to a source where Sanders says he follows the Jewish religion, this is a fairly open-and-shut case. We shouldn't be making up facts about his religious beliefs that we don't know. For all we know, Sanders could be an atheist. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - per arguments made by Guy and Xenophrenic. Nucas (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sanders has self-identified as Jewish. Material issued by him indicates he is Jewish. Reliable sources say he is Jewish. I cannot see on what grounds that would be ignored. Do we have a "Jewishness test" now? AusLondonder (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  Judaism isn't only a religion. It's also a cultural/ethnic identity. Many, many people who are culturally or ethnically Jewish and who consider themselves Jewish do not follow the religion of Judaism, and would not claim to be religiously Jewish. The question is about how to list Sanders' religion, not his ethnicity or cultural background. Sanders has said that he's culturally Jewish, but not, to my knowledge, that he's religiously Jewish. If Sanders were to say, "I believe in Judaism," I don't think anyone would be disputing the "Religion=Judaism" label here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  AusLondonder: The fact that the article body goes to great length to make clear Sanders' Jewishness makes nonsense of your comment. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—every Jew is different, or at least there is considerable variation among Jews. You say "The fact that the article body goes to great length to make clear Sanders' Jewishness makes nonsense of your comment." Since when does a Misplaced Pages article negate a person's religion? AusLondonder correctly summarizes Bernie Sanders' religion. You seem to have an exaggerated sense of the powers of a Misplaced Pages article. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've tried, but I honestly can't for the life of me work out what it is you're even trying to say, Bus stop. AusLondoner is accusing us of obliterating Sanders' Jewishness from the article. That is jaw-droppingly false. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see on what grounds...

Open eyes, please. As explained in the religion & heritage section of his article, Bernie Sanders himself has said he is not part of organized religion and isn't very religious. As further explained by Sanders himself, he feels such matters of spirituality are best kept private, and he prefers not to speak of them. They are not a significant part of his public life. Since when does a crew of determined Misplaced Pages editors negate a living person's self-identification with secularism and non-religion? They don't; Misplaced Pages policy prohibits it. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: MShabazz;s support !vote and Kingsindian's support !vote both contain a logical fallacy, and thus might be subject to being discarded per Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 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 /_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, 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 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 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 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 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 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
          • That's a valid definition of "consensus," but it's not what it means here on Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages process, including a closer approximation of absolutely neutrality as a result of distributing that decision-making process. Snow 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. In context he surely means "this is not Judaism" or perhaps "this is not 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 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 Misplaced Pages does not have to follow your personal interpretation of the most straightforward way of constructing an article according to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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.

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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages's role to evaluate Jews in this way. We should simply be adhering to the findings of reliable sources. There is something ridiculous about Misplaced Pages 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. (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. Misplaced Pages adheres to the findings of sources. Misplaced Pages 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 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.' " 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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" ; ; . 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 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Support per Bernie Sanders. Not only do sources describe him as not religious, but Sanders has also confirmed many times that he is not part of any organized religion, doesn't attend synagogue, has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew older. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Not religious means not observant of Jewish ritual. Not religious does not mean that the person's religion is not Jewish. Furthermore he participated in the ritual of tashlikh in 2015. You are saying he "...drifted away from religious ritual as he grew older". Clearly tashlikh constitutes ritualistic Judaism. Of equally recent vintage is his attendance at the yahrzeit of a friend's father. And in 1983, on the occasion of Chanukah, Sanders publicly recited the Hebrew blessings for the lighting of a menorah in Burlington, Vermont. Only a person whose religion is Judaism has the capacity, from a religious perspective, of carrying out the recitation of berakhot pertaining to the lighting of a menorah on Chanukah. Misplaced Pages does not require reliable sources for every instance that an ostensibly nonobservant Jew participates in Jewish ritual. You may not be aware of it, but it is utterly unthinkable that Chabad, a religious organization, would entrust Bernie Sanders to light a Chanukah menorah and recite the blessings bringing that about, if they did not consider Bernie Sanders' religion to be Judaism. There is no need for participation in Jewish ritual at all. But the above three instances document that some degree of such participation can be reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the 3 times he has taken part in Judaism rituals in the past 4 decades, but I don't see what your point is. I've also seen him lighting a Christmas tree, wearing a Santa suit, throwing Christmas parties and hiding Easter eggs. I think you are confusing two things: people aren't arguing that Sanders isn't "religious enough" or "observant enough", the argument is that his religious beliefs aren't a significant part of his public life and notability. He attended Hebrew school as a child, so I would certainly expect him to be familiar with related ritual, and as he was raised in a Jewish environment and has ties to the Jewish community, I've no doubt he might on occasion attend or participate in such ritual, especially when a close relation is involved. I've done the same, and I would wager most people have. So I guess I fail to see your point. If the man publically explains that he isn't part of organized religion, isn't very religious and has drifted away from such things when he grew up, then why is there such a concerted push by a select few editors to ignore that and instead stick a bumper-sticker on his article stating that he is unequivocally religiously Jewish? Please don't misunderstand — I've no objection to having his Jewish upbringing and participation in those rituals being detailed in the body of the article, along with all the other information on his religious beliefs or lack thereof. My objection is against using the special-case neon-lit billboards of an article (the Infobox, the Categories, and the LEAD - you know, the sections busy readers might glance at while ignoring everything else) to post a bit of information as if it were unambiguously accurate and without qualification. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons I've already given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 3 March 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)

UPDATE: As discussed in this talk page section, "Ethnicity: Jewish" has now been removed from the infobox. I incorporate that talk page section herein by reference, so that the closer can have plenty more to read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 3 March 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 (, , , etc.) do? Remember that "Roll Call" is a media company that is anything but official (they might even have copied from Misplaced Pages), 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 (, , , 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Yes, all of those are fields in the infobox. No, none of those fields are as potentially contentious and complicated as a person's sexual/gender identity and religious beliefs, so special additional requirements were made for them, and the fields are left blank until those are met. In this case, the several additional requirements have not been met. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You ignored my main point which was a direct response to your statement. You stated that "In a nutshell: Sanders is not notable for being Jewish." My point is that all the tons and tons of other people who might have their religion in their infobox are also 'not notable for being _ReligionX_'. If the requirement for including religion in the infobox is that they are notable FOR their religion, then clearly we must remove religion from all of their infoboxes too. Centerone (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ignore your point, but I apologize for not seeing the second half of your sentence. You are correct that there are other problematic articles which do not adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you understand then why it is somewhat disturbing that such vehement fervor is directed at analysis of Bernie Sanders' personal religious practice but not other (more mainstream) religious claims of other candidates? You yourself use bring up mention of their senate bios as evidence of their religion, but when it's Bernie Sanders' own campaign bio, it for some strange reason is discounted and denied as being legitimate when similar statements from other candidates and politicians are not so questioned? It comes across as a specific attack on a minority religion that is frequently the target of negative attacks. There exists here a double standard. I can accept the policy that you bring up in the previous comment, but when you use those problematic claims as support for reasoning against the current claim without applying the same level of scrutiny to them, then it makes one question the situation. Centerone (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders' own Official Senate Bio conspicuously does not mention religion, while the bios of his colleagues do mention religion. The part of the puzzle you leave out is that those colleagues who prominently announce their religious beliefs haven't then also exclaimed they aren't part of organized religion, aren't very religious, don't attend synagogue/church/temple/mosque, and have drifted away from it once they grew older. I suspect the conspiracy you are alluding to (comes across?) doesn't exist. And before you lump me in with your conspiracy, please recall that this was my edit, back before I more thoroughly educated myself on Mr. Sanders' (IMO) very fine, well-considered, extremely nuanced religious beliefs and spiritual values. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

just marking separation from stuff above here

• If folks haven't seen these three sources exactly on this issue (they both were cited above, but not called out):
  • this New York Times article from Feb 24, 2016 called '"Bernie Sanders Is Jewish, but He Doesn’t Like to Talk About It" is useful (except that it doesn't carefully between the distinction between ethnicity and religion). Key label out of that source for me, is "“non-Jewish Jews".
  • this from Religion News, January 31, 2016, "5 faith facts about Bernie Sanders: Unabashedly irreligious" with the key quote from there being: "He’s Jewish — sort of."
  • this from the AP via PBS News hour, February 29, 2016 "Sanders keeps his Judaism in the background, irking U.S. Jews. It points out that Pew Research Center defines a category of Jewish people, “Jews of no religion.”

Bottom line from these sources for me, is that this is not a simple yes/no kind of thing. The RfC question is unfortunately yes/no. Folks should be rejecting the question, in my view. If Bernie has affirmed anything in his several statements, it is that religious identity is not what is important to him, but rather a motivation to work for social justice. Both of those sources make that clear. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sanders' biographer would seem to agree with you (and the sources you just mentioned). He says, "Bernie's Religion is the Revolution", and concludes, "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." Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—you have to distinguish between the figurative and the literal. Failure to do so, for our purposes, in these discussions, amounts to the misconstruing of sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I recommend you distinguish between the figurative and the literal. You should also look both ways before crossing a street. Failure to do so is an act of carelessness, and could result in serious injury. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 3 March 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 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've not made up any rules. Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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)

A press kit might be generally considered a reliable source, depending. But what the Misplaced Pages rules require for identification of his religious beliefs in the infobox is not just a reliable source, but one in which Sanders self-identifies WP:CAT/R in his own direct speech. (Religion, not heritage, ethnicity or culture.) Also, a reliable source becomes no longer reliable if contradictory reliable sources exist. Like if Sanders were to self-identify in his own direct speech that he is not religious. (He has.) Or if he were to self-identify with a completely different set of beliefs, and declare "this is my religion". (He did that, too.) Also, the reliable source is no longer reliable if it 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). The "press kit" you keep referring to is actually just a .PDF file, while his actual published Official Senate Bio at the same site conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God at all, while many of his Senate colleagues (, , , etc.) do. Yes, he is proud of his Jewish heritage, and yes he has self-identified as not religious. As for which Misplaced Pages rules you think you can apply or ignore against common sense, you'll need to take that up at the appropriate noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—What would constitute self-identifying in "direct speech"? You mean, "I am religiously Jewish" or "I am Jewish by religion"? People don't speak that way. In common parlance a statement "I am proud to be Jewish" constitutes self-identification. You say "Religion, not heritage". "Heritage" can mean almost the same thing as "religion". You say "Also, a reliable source becomes no longer reliable if contradictory reliable sources exist. Like if Sanders were to self-identify in his own direct speech that he is not religious. (He has.)" No, he has not. Unless of course you are mixing up not being particularly observant of rituals and not being of the Jewish religion. You say "Or if he were to self-identify with a completely different set of beliefs, and declare "this is my religion". (He did that, too.)" No, he did not. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

By "direct speech", the way I read it (but you are certainly welcome to ask at BLPN for clarification), is directly spoken by the living person -- as in, you can cite the time, date and location wherein the self-identifying took place (and in a perfect world, provide a video clip with full context). When you say "No, he did not", you do so with the realization that repeatedly saying something doesn't magically make it true, right? Are you saying it was someone else who said, "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 is my religion."? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—what do you think "heritage" means. You say "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." I think you are equating "heritage" with "ethnicity". But heritage does not necessarily mean ethnicity. Note the use of the word heritage, by a rabbi, and in relation to Bernie Sanders: "A rabbi at a temple in South Burlington, Vermont, complained that although Sanders 'knows he’s Jewish' and 'has a good heart,' the community would benefit from him openly embracing his heritage." In another of your posts of today I find you quoting Sanders as saying "this is not Judaism". Here is a more full version of the quote: "In October, Mr. Sanders was asked on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' whether he believed in God.'What my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together and it’s not a good thing to believe that as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,' he responded. 'This is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more money.'" From that you are deriving what? His "spirituality" can be about anything he pleases. He can pontificate freely about his sympathies for the downtrodden without in any way negating the abiding fact that he is a Jew. He changed the subject, something he is known for doing. He was asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he believed in God. He prefaced what he was about to say by pointing out that what he was about to say was not about Judaism. He did so by saying "This is not Judaism". Then he continued. He went on to describe his spirituality which includes sympathies for the downtrodden. Does this in any way cloud the fact that his religion is Jewish? He can speak from any perspective he chooses to speak from at any time. He chose to not speak from a Jewish perspective, which is his prerogative. He probably wanted to seize the opportunity to say something that would appeal to a wider audience. He probably doesn't want to be pigeonholed as only espousing Jewish sentiments. That is probably why he points out that "This is what Pope Francis is talking about". He is probably taking the opportunity to connect with people from a wider audience. Bernie Sanders does not have to be asserting his Jewishness with every word out of his mouth in fact it would probably be counterproductive for a politician to do so. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What do I think "heritage" means? Haven't given it much thought. What do you think it means in the specific context as presented by the questioner? (The latter one, not the one who was mistaken about dual-citizenship.) I appreciate that you are spending a lot of time explaining your take on the nuances between Jewish heritage and the Jewish religion of Judaism, and the overlaying and intermingling of concepts, etc., but I'm the wrong target audience for your explanations. The mere fact that you feel it necessary to spend time on such nuanced defining is just one more proof that stuffing a single word in the religion field is not going to give the required "clear summary of facts" concerning Sanders' religion, or lack thereof. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"he has self-identified as not religious." Er, no, he hasn't. What he said is that he's "not particularly religious"; this is different from being not religious or having no religion, or not being a member of a religion. This is the crux of the argument. People are totally misinterpreting and miscategorizing this statement as one thing when it means another. Jews frame their practice of religion differently, and in this context it simply means he is not a terribly stringent practictioner of the religion. He doesn't belong to a synagogue or temple, and doesn't observe many of the standard rituals. However as has repeatedly been pointed out he clearly and quite openly declares his religion as Jewish, he openly states his belief in God and references his strong religious and spiritual feelings, as well as occasionally attends, practices, and partakes in some of the rituals and traditions. Furthermore, besides his own personal actions and beliefs, the religion's texts themselves, both the Torah and the Talmud state that a non-practicing Jew is still a Jew. In addition, I recently posted two more on his statements about religion in a new section as I hadn't seen them mentioned before as far as I know. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Sanders#ANother_article_referencing_his_Religion Centerone (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Centerone. Where you say he has clearly and quite openly declared his religion as Jewish, I've heard such declarations as relating to heritage and culture instead of religion. So could you give me what you feel is the strongest reliably sourced clear declaration of specifically religion? Where you say he openly states his belief in God, I've only heard him mention God in the same breath where he stipulates that he thinks "everyone" believes in God (news to some atheists, I reckon), and his belief is different from other peoples. Or he avoids mentioning a belief in God altogether, even when directly asked (See Kimmel). Can you give me what you feel is your strongest reliable source of Sanders declaring a belief in God without the qualifiers, prevarication and evasion? I've seen the 3 times he has taken part in Judaism rituals in the past 4 decades, but I don't see what your point is. I've also seen him lighting a Christmas tree, wearing a Santa suit, throwing Christmas parties and hiding Easter eggs. I think you are confusing two things: people aren't arguing that Sanders isn't "religious enough", the argument is that his religious beliefs aren't a significant part of his public life and notability. (I've seen your new source purportedly from People Mag? The Sanders quotes appear to be spoken by a 6-yr old. Is it possible to get a reliable source for that content?) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I hatted the above, as it is unproductive continuation of the main show. The close will be very hard, but my sense is that it will be "no consensus" and folks should be thinking about next steps. There is bridge-burning going on in the discussion and that is going to make it harder yet to figure out the next steps. Jytdog (talk)

There is indeed a lot of repetition, but there were also two points and a source reference not conveyed elsewhere, so I've disabled the hatting. A close of "No consensus" is the functional equivalent of "Consensus to leave blank", as the default state of the |Religion= field is "unused". I've seen no objection to covering the same subject matter in the body of the article. I don't think there is a "next step" in this process, so it should be a return to editing as normal. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 1 March 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 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 16:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I read them again. It says it applies both to Categories and Infoboxes. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. As of this post, there are 27 "supports" and 21 "opposes". The majority of editors support filling in the field, so your heading is false. If any consensus exists, it is for the opposite, filling in the field as "Jewish". —Lowellian (reply) 11:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Consensus has nothing to do with counting. If 5 editors provide arguments that the world is round, based on reliable sources and policy compliance, yet 25 editors provide faulty arguments (or "ME TOO!"s) that the world is flat, with unreliable sources and against Misplaced Pages policy, the consensus is clearly with the 5 editors. You should review WP:CONSENSUS. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting both consensus and my argument. My argument was not that the majority of votes indicates a consensus, hence why I used the phrasing "if any consensus exists" (note the boldface emphasis), but rather that there is clearly no consensus for your position when a majority of editors have presented arguments well-supported by Misplaced Pages policy against the position that you falsely claim has consensus. —Lowellian (reply) 00:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect again. Here is your "argument", in full, exactly as it was when I responded to it: Quite the contrary. As of this post, there are 27 "supports" and 21 "opposes". The majority of editors support filling in the field, so your heading is false. If any consensus exists, it is for the opposite, filling in the field as "Jewish". — Your argument is that there are 27 supports to 21 opposed, therefore my heading (consensus = blank) is wrong. It sucks trying to deny what you said when your very words are still right there on the page, eh? We don't determine consensus (or what consensus is not) by counting votes. And to your other charge that I misrepresented consensus, incorrect again: I just checked again to be certain, and the strongest argument backed by the soundest reasoning and Misplaced Pages policy is still to leave the field blank. If you'd like to disagree with me assessment through reasoned argument, please do, but starting with ...27 agreeing with me beats 21 agreeing with you... is not a winning argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand that in this situation that your argument is the flat earther one? We have: 1) a clear statement from his campaign which he most certainly personally approved that states very clearly his religion is Jewish. This statement is for some strange reason being ignored and flat-out argued against based on the faulty logic that because he didn't type the bio up himself it is somehow suspect. 2) Repeated statements by the man himself that he is Jewish and proud to be, many within the clear and distinct context of discussions about religion and spirituality. Yet these statements are discounted based on the fact that he didn't distinctly say 'Jewish, religiously' inspite of the fact that nobody talks that way. 3) Repeated statements that he is spiritual, religious, and believes in God. Yet somehow these aren't good enough because they weren't tied directly to the Jewish religion in the same sentence. 4) Examples of his public or publicly known practice of Jewish ritual. Yet somehow these are not good enough because he did not practice his religion publicly enough in as frequent enough time to satisfy someone else's requirements. 5) The misinterpretation of his statements regarding being "not particularly religious" and not being involved with 'organized religion' as meaning he is not religious at all, or an atheist, or not affiliated in any way with Judaism, when that is not what these statements mean. This is repeatedly pointed out. People try to have a discussion regarding these quotes to explain the cultural and historical context to these statements, the way that Jews think about religion and their personal practice thereof, and the way that infact the very texts of the religion support lax practitioners, support unaffiliated Jews, etc. All these things which can bring a brighter and more informative light to the context of this discussion but they're blown off because they don't fit the world view of the flat earthers, even when these very topics are discussed by referenced articles. It is decidedly puzzling, maddening, and frustrating to see the flat-earthers stick their head on the sand and ignore every referenced and logical claim to only be blown off by repeated statements of things that were not actually said claiming that he is not religious at all and not affiliated with the religion he clearly claims as his own. Centerone (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. My argument was that WP:CONSENSUS is determined based on the strength of the arguments, sources and policies presented - and not on the number of people voting one way or another, as Lowellian wrongly presumed. I hope you agree. Regarding your numbered assertions about this RfC, briefly: (1) Unclear statement of unclear origin in a document which also has other factual errors, which has been qualified or even contradicted by Sanders' own actually spoken words. (2) Yes, he speaks often about being culturally Jewish, and he is indeed proud of his heritage. As for your assertion that he has spoken many times "within the clear and distinct context of discussions about religion and spirituality", questioners have certainly phrased their questions that way hoping for a response exclusively on religion, but Sanders has repeatedly and consistently deflected and steered his responses toward a less exclusive, more general and non-Judaism specific response. We can discuss that further, including your most recently introduced sources, if you'd like. (3) Oh, he's definitely spiritual, which is totally unrelated. His statements about God and religion always come with detailed qualification and caveats, and even separation from Judaism, when he doesn't avoid making such statements altogether. (4) I've seen the 3 times he has taken part in Judaism rituals in the past 4 decades, but I don't see what your point is. I've also seen him lighting a Christmas tree, wearing a Santa suit, throwing Christmas parties and hiding Easter eggs. I think you are confusing two things: people aren't arguing that Sanders isn't "religious enough" or "observant enough", the argument is that his religious beliefs aren't a significant part of his public life and notability. (5) The fact is that he self-identifies as not part of organized religion, and he frequently reminds us that he doesn't attend synagogue and has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew up. He also tells us he is not very religious at all; instead today his spirituality and religion is a collective empathy toward all people, "we're all in this together" (paraphrased only slightly differently each time depending on date and venue as he refines his canned talking point). And according to a source you recently introduced near the bottom of this page, he also considers his religion and spiritually to be highly personal, private and something he doesn't talk about, certainly in direct contradiction to the requirement that a person's religious beliefs be a significant component of their public life and notability if it is to be presented as an unambiguous, self-explanatory fact in an infobox religion field. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you wrongly misrepresent my argument as having being "majority is consensus" when my argument was nothing of the sort, but rather that the position you were falsely claiming as consensus cannot be consensus when a majority of editors have presented arguments supported by Misplaced Pages policy against your position. —Lowellian (reply) 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect again. Here is your "argument", in full, exactly as it was when I responded to it: Quite the contrary. As of this post, there are 27 "supports" and 21 "opposes". The majority of editors support filling in the field, so your heading is false. If any consensus exists, it is for the opposite, filling in the field as "Jewish". — Your argument is that there are 27 supports to 21 opposed, therefore my heading (consensus = blank) is wrong. It sucks trying to deny what you said when your very words are still right there on the page, eh? We don't determine consensus (or what consensus is not) by counting votes. And to your other charge that I misrepresented consensus, incorrect again: I just checked again to be certain, and the strongest argument backed by the soundest reasoning and Misplaced Pages policy is still to leave the field blank. If you'd like to disagree with me assessment through reasoned argument, please do, but starting with ...27 agreeing with me beats 21 agreeing with you... is not a winning argument. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note. The actual RfC question is "Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"?" A closer who is wise will probably limit their close to the actual question and not go beyond that as the close will likely be put up for review on something this contentious. It is a yes/no question. I don't see any consensus on the answer among the policy-based !votes. If the question had been made open like "What should the "Religion" field in the infobox say?" there would have been different !votes and a different close like "leave it blank" would be more reasonable and easy to defend at the inevitable close review, should it have been the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• A close of "No consensus" is the functional equivalent of "Consensus to leave blank", as the default state of the |Religion= field is "unused", or blank. I've seen no objection to covering the same subject matter in the body of the article, which I'm sure will continue. I don't think there is a "next step" in this process, so it should be a return to editing as normal. Of course, it's possible that Sanders might make unequivocal statements in the future, which would force us to revisit this issue. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

You've made it clear that you think that. The reality would be that community would not know what to put there, and the discussion would continue. It would not be a "win" for the "no" votes. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages policy Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Misplaced Pages page) that are based on religious beliefs...), so I guess Misplaced Pages policy and I will just have to agree to disagree with you. I've no doubt there will be more discussion, I was just observing that in the meantime, the field will be blank. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

"No Consensus" could be viewed just as validly to retain the status quo. I looked at the article history back a thousand edits, which at the time I looked was to last October, and the status quo was |religion=Jewish with a reference (I think the press pack, but I have seen three different citations for that clause through this discussion). --Scott Davis 22:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the fine points of selecting an appropriate time period for determining the status quo. Certainly the field has been blank for quite a few days now. WP:BLP says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." So it looks like a lack of consensus would result in exclusion for that reason too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The status quo argument has one major flaw. Prior to Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion passing with overwhelming support, there was no Misplaced Pages-wide attempt to determine consensus on putting nonreligions in the religion field of infoboxes, and thus each page could arrive at a local consensus on the question. After those two RfCs passed, the fact that this page previously had a nonreligion in the religion field became irrelevant. The new status quo, for all articles on Misplaced Pages, is that nonreligions shall not be listed as religions in any infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The RfC at Template talk:Infobox is very badly flawed because it contains the 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 language should be discarded. A person cannot self-identify as being Jewish and at the same time comply with that language. That is because people don't speak in a way that can satisfy the requirements of that language. They don't say "I am Jewish by religion". They are even unlikely to say for instance "My religion is Judaism". People don't speak that way. What is the point of creating requirements that are all but unattainable? Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All the more reason for the "|religion=" field to be left blank by default—in all cases. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with Joe Lieberman infobox

Joe Lieberman is the closest in office and situation that we have to Bernie Sanders, in terms of an ethnic Jew running for VP or POTUS. Notice how Lieberman's infobox is filled out and cited, and the citation directly confirms that "For Joseph Isadore Lieberman, unlike all those other Jews in public office, is by his own description 'an observant Jew.' It is an observance he takes seriously, one that he displays prominently and that puts him in sharp contrast not only to the other Jews who have held high national office ...." Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 3 March 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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...." 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". 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)

By 1932, that existed merely on paper. Because (a) the parties of the Reichstag weren't any longer able to agree on a majority government, making a motion of no confidence only a means of destruction, and (b) the president could dissolve the Reichstag at any time, preventing a no-confidence vote from happening. Which Hindenburg did 2 times in 1932. The Reichstag elected in July 1932 convened only once and was immediately dissolved, because the communists wanted to stage a no-confidence vote against the (v. Papen) government. In the meantime, the government could happily work without backing of the parliament (or without any parliament at all). --Mottenkiste (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Article 25 of the Weimar constitution allowed the president to dissolve the legislature, which is the same for most if not all parliamentary democracies. While it is unusual to have two elections in one year, the UK held general elections in Feb and Oct 1975. Canada held 2 elections in 1926. Hindenburg called the second election after the Reichstag supported the Communist non-confidence motion in a vote of 512-42. TFD (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do need sources for historical facts (if something is 'clear', it should be easy to find sources for it); but more importantly, you need secondary sources to apply analysis to someone's statements. You cannot say "I feel that Bernie Sanders was wrong when he said this, because " without providing a source that specifically says that -- not a source for the fact, but a source making the conclusion you're trying to make. This is necessary for a number of reasons (no matter how obvious it might seem to you, not everyone will necessarily agree with your interpretations; and beyond that, you need to show that the criticism is WP:DUE -- that it has coverage in reliable sources proportionate to the attention you want to focus on.) Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own personal criticisms of someone's statements, or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS regarding what you feel are common misconceptions. If Sanders (a high-profile candidate for president) genuinely made a serious error regarding history, and if that error matters enough to include in the article, then it should be easy to find a source saying so specifically; without that source, it is only your personal critique and interpretation, and cannot be put in the article. Again, read WP:SYNTH for the relevant policy. I know it's frustrating when it seems like something is just "obvious", but it's essential here because otherwise everyone would want to insert their own personal arguments into articles like these. --Aquillion (talk) 09:57, 1 March 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 /_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 Misplaced Pages editors who will not see. — Malik Shabazz /_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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages policy says we go by that. Simple as that.Sir Joseph 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 /_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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, "...Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages 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 ... 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". 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." 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"

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, he's not Jewish, you might want to take a step back and ask why. Sir Joseph 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 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.'" 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ). 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 ). 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 (Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages will never be perfect; pointing out flaws in other parts of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages weights, as concerns inclusion of "religion" in the Infobox parameter.

False. When it comes to including his religious beliefs in the info box, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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."

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages articles to stand, you'll need to follow Misplaced Pages's policies, and meet Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 /_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. . 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 /_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 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Goldwater considered himself Jewish and plenty of reliable sources support it. That's what counts. As Misplaced Pages 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)

1. http://swja.arizona.edu/content/goldwaters

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 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 /_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 /_Stalk 01:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the sources need to be RS, Misplaced Pages 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 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 /_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. 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 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 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Hi, Bus stop. You have (again) made statements which aren't true. So of course I will correct them (again), and await your amended response.

you say "he isn't religious".

No, I really did not. You make it sound as if I expressed a personal opinion, when I did not. What I did say is that "It must be driving that kind of voter crazy when they look at Sanders and discover he isn't religious." Reliable sources, not me, have described Sanders as not religious. Sanders has as well. Some even trumpet that he may become our first non-religious president. Bernie himself has waived off religion, and commented that he has drifted away from religious ritual and ceremony as he grew up. He'll clarify that he is still spiritual, but if he's "religious" about anything, it's that "we are all in this together" and he'll express his empathy for the downtrodden, and his insistence on righting social inequities, but then he reminds us that "this is not Judaism".

Your personal opinion matters less in these considerations than the findings of reliable sources.

There you go again. You see, Bus stop, when you make comments like that, it removes any remaining credibility from whatever arguments you are trying to present. It also poisons the discussion. You know that every argument I advance is one conveyed by reliable sources, and not from personal opinion, yet you still routinely attempt that tactic of distraction.

I can present many sources connecting Sanders' working method to Jewish religious beliefs.

I have no doubt that you can find a few (I've probably read them), but not "many" in relation to the far greater number of sources which distinguish his public works and positions from religion. The one you are fond of citing, the college student's essay on how Sanders' "empathy" for people is a Jewish trait that had to come from Judiasm, presents 'interesting' opinion. For every article like that, 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", it's separate from his public life. 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 own words and Salon opinion essays, I think we should defer to Sanders.

Are you failing to recognize in Chanukah, Taschlich, and Yartzeit the religious element?

Uh, no - why do you ask? He went to Hebrew school as a child and was raised in a Jewish environment, does it surprise you that he would be acquainted with certain customs? Or that a couple times over the span of many decades he might observe a ritual or custom to honor a close friend, or make a point about freedom of religion expression?

He never renounced his Jewish religion. It is his Jewish religion that matters here, not his Jewish ethnicity.

I've never read that "he never renounced his religion"; source citation, please? It is "likely" that he never had to; he already told us that that he has drifted away from that as he got older and isn't really religious anymore. In fact, he married outside of the religion - his wife is Catholic, and he has been quoting and praising the Pope a lot recently. I think I read that his wife said he has a Christmas party... Oops, "holiday" party every year. Hmmm...

It should not matter for Misplaced Pages purposes how observant he is

It doesn't, of course, unless he is so not religious and it has so little bearing on his public life and notability that it would be against policy to put an organized religion label in the |Religion= infobox field. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Rubio or Cruz could be the first hispanic to win a presidential nomination. The claim in the header does nothing to resolve the infobox question. "Jewish" is an ethnicity as well as a religion, as has been beat to death here already. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Participation in religious ceremonies

I've added a little bit of detail regarding participation in three Jewish ceremonies. 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 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.'" 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)." Misplaced Pages 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

1. Bernie Sanders Bashes Uber, Uses It For All His Taxi Ride, Daily Caller, November 3, 2015
2. Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Like Uber, Uses it Literally All The Time, American Spectator, November 4, 2015

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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)

Why do you assume it is some anonymous staffer? It is on his Senate website. It is his responsibility, let's not be overly stupid here. And he has publicaly self identified as being Jewish. You are the one feigning ignorance. What part of "I am proud of being Jewish" does not mean "I am proud of being Jewish?" Furthermore, read the top of the page you linked to, since you love to quote the BLPCAP, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Note how normally is hyperlinked to the page about USE COMMON SENSE, try it. AS PER GUY MACON's QUOTING WP:BLPCAT] USE COMMON SENSE That should be the end of the story. Why don't you read your own links? Sir Joseph 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Per User talk:Sir Joseph# Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction you have been topic banned from editing any article relating to Bernie Sanders for one week. Per WP:TBAN a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Please self revert the above comment now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Reliable Source to indicate that Bernie Sanders did not write his Press Kit that says his religion is Jewish? --Scott Davis 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a Reliable Source to indicate that Bernie Sanders did not murder and rape a young girl in 1990? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think there's a lot of confusion in this discussion about what it means to be Jewish. When someone says, "I'm Jewish," it's not equivalent to someone saying "I'm Christian." "I'm Jewish" does not necessarily say anything at all about a ones religion. It can just as easily mean, "I'm culturally or ethnically Jewish," the same way an American might say, "I'm Irish," "I'm Italian" or "I'm black." Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. What's the point of the "Religion" entry in the infobox? Is it to describe ethnicity or religion? I think the answer is obvious, and since we don't actually know what Sanders' religious beliefs are, we shouldn't claim his religion is Judaism. I know plenty of people who would unhesitatingly say, "I'm Jewish," but who would also tell you that they're atheist, Buddhist, merely spiritual and so on. Again, being Jewish has two different meanings, in a way that being Christian doesn't, and I think that's what's confusing so many people here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 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)

ANother article referencing his Religion

"As for the Jewish holidays on the Sanders aspect of the household, step-daughter Carina Driscoll remembers Sanders all the time being very personal about his faith.

“Bernie would observe his traditions in a means that we actually did not see very a lot of. The matzo crackers and gefilte fish would come out and we might be like, ‘Uh-huh. In order that’s occurring.”

Says Sanders: “Spirituality is one thing I feel individuals ought to maintain usually maintain to themselves so it’s not one thing that I speak about an entire lot. However I’m proud to be Jewish and being Jewish is an important a part of my life.” "

I believe this is from People Magazine, I'm not sure if it was on their website at a time because the article I found on their website suggests buying their magazine with the full article. I found it here: http://starsppl.com/enjoyable-grandpa-bernie-sanders-5-enjoyable-issues-we-discovered-hanging-out-on-the-candidates-home/ Is there any doubt that he's talking about religion in this quote? I didn't see this mentioned in the previous intense discussions, so I wanted to drop here here as a potential reference. Centerone (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the original source from People magazine: http://www.people.com/article/bernie-sanders-fun-grandpa Centerone (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• And here's a short video. One thing missing from the video is the specific question that anderson cooper asked, so it would be helpful if someone can dig that up for context: http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/nh-democratic-town-hall-bernie-sanders-spiritual-feelings-05.cnn/video/playlists/iowa-democratic-town-hall/ It goes "You know, everybody, uh, practices religion in a different way. To me, I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the united states if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings." Then he goes on to talk about caring for people.. Centerone (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the question and the transcript source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/politics/democratic-town-hall-transcript/index.html and here is the question Anderson Cooper asks: "COOPER: You know, I want to follow up, because Jason also mentioned faith, which is something you've spoken a little bit about. You're Jewish, but you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion. What do you say to a voter out there who says -- and that who sees faith as a guiding principle in their lives, and wants it to be a guiding principle for this country? " So Anderson Cooper 1) References Bernie Sanders being Jewish in a 2) Question about religion and faith and then Bernie Sanders responds that religion and faith are a guiding principle in his life: "It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is." then goes on to say that strong religious and spiritual feelings are the very reason he's there and doing what he's doing. "I would not be here tonight, I would not be running for president of the United States if I did not have very strong religious and spiritual feelings. " Centerone (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Self identifying as having very strong religious and spiritual feelings is not the same thing as self identifying as having a particular religion. Self identifying as having very strong religious and spiritual feelings in response to a question that contains the words "you've said that you're not actively involved with organized religion" strongly implies that Sanders is not a member of a particular religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Anderson Cooper DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY references Judaism. The question is basically 'you said X before, can you CLARIFY for someone who feels Y way?' Heck, we could substitute the name "Guy" for "Justin" in this question to get the answer you repeatedly seek! Bernie Sanders does not respond "No, I'm not Jewish". His response is to clarify: Religious practice is a very personal thing, "everybody practices religion in a different way". He goes on to say it's a "guiding principle in" his life and he's very religious and spiritual. Yes, he's not _ACTIVELY INVOLVED_ with 'organized religion' in that he doesn't go to a synagogue, shul, temple, that he is not a member. You can be NOT affiliated with 'organized religion' or a specific place of worship and still consider yourself OF that religion! Just like Jimmy Carter had disavowed any relationship with the Church, does anybody doubt that he is a good Christian? Through his words, deeds, and actions, Jimmy Carter is probably the best example of a good Christian we have seen in a recent President, yet he's blown off the Church. Would you suggest that he isn't a good Christian because he disagrees with the Church and has left it? Centerone (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Just show me a direct quote where Sanders himself self-identifies that his religion is Judaism as required by WP:BLPCAT without the WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR exhibited above. BTW, do you have a citation to the claim that Jimmy Carter has "blown off the Church"? If there is, we might want to remove the "Baptist" from his infobox per WP:V. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

It's neither synthesis nor original research. It's a direct question and an answer. One person asks a question, the second person answers it. The person answering the question does not need to restate the question. The question provides a context for the answer. Centerone (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

For everyone else, his Senate Press Pack is acceptable, but you seem to have determined that was written by someone else and can't be used as information about what he says about himself (what is the WP:RS that Sanders did not author it?), whereas I would cite it as " Bernie Sanders (6 June 2007). "Senator Bernie Sanders". United States Senate. Retrieved 2 March 2016. Religion: Jewish ". --Scott Davis 11:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ethnicity

I recently made this edit, and would like to open up a conversation about it. The ethnicity of Bernie Sanders seems pretty clear, and I don't think it has anything to do with skin color (as someone contended at my talk page).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that "ethnicity" isn't banned outright from all infoboxes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I get over 900 hits for Misplaced Pages articles that include "Ethnicity: Jewish".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt it, but that doesn't make it any more appropriate. What a can of worms that opens! Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oh, my god, Anythingyouwant—you're not seriously editwarring with people over this now, are you? Aren't enough people in shit over this stuff already? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring? No, I haven't sought to restore the information subsequent to opening this talk page section, nor do I plan to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Meaning you were editwarring before you opened this discussion. Okay, whatever. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I reverted an edit by an editor whom you just characterized as a "troll".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that was clearly "trolling", regardless whether the editor is a "troll". But whatever, you're not going to continue reverting people, right? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

At this article, I will be especially careful about it. G'night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would leave it out. Sanders, like all the other candidates, is an American. TFD (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How was I trolling? Jordandlee (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for User:Curly Turkey, but most everyone knows that ethnicity and skin color are separate concepts. Ethnicity refers to a social group that shares a distinctive culture or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"Ethnicity is skin color" is a preposterous statement. If it wasn't trolling then it was a level of ignorance you should hang your head in shame over. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

His ethnicity is completely irrelevant. I'd leave it out. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

I see a lot of evidence here of confirmation bias. If you are absolutely determined to find sources that say Bernie Sanders's religion is Judaism then you will find them. What happens if you instead ask your favourite search engine for an alternative term, say "Bernie Sanders secular Jew"? The answer, of course, is that you find them. Including PBS, New York Times, WaPo and others.

It is clear that Sanders does not consider Judaism a defining part of his character. He does not participate in organised religion. Therefore, according to the RfC on religion in userboxes, the religion parameter should be omitted.

As to why other sources identify his religion as Jewish, I suspect this is mere laziness: my experience is that many Americans simply cannot conceive of someone not having a religion, and there is a well known confusion in the public mind between Jewishness, the cultural phenomenon, and Judaism, the religion. Not everyone who is Jewish is observant, but even secular Jews will often celebrate Passover, for exactly the same reason that many non-Christians celebrate Christmas. It is a cultural identity thing. And yes, many Jews are annoyed that he refuses to identify as Jewish-as-in-religion, and that, too, is documented fact.

But that is an aside. The fundamental point here is that providing sources that identify his religion as Jewish - even when that does not involve obvious confusion of Jewish-as-in-race and Jewish-as-in-religion, which it often does - cannot validate a label which he himself has clearly and unambiguously rejected; finding such sources constitutes confirmation bias, the correct search is not one that supports your position but one that would refute it. Sanders states that he is not religious. That refutes the claim. Trying to nail a religious label on him that he himself has publicly rejected, is not just against policy, it is plain rude. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you stopped to consider whether this "evidence of confirmation bias" could apply to those arguing that bernie sanders is not Jewish (religiously)? They seem to see every mention of being Jewish as a statement regarding heritage, and not one regarding religion, even when the context of the statement and the article is one clearly discussing religion. Even when it says in simple black and white from an official and primary source "Religion: Jewish" they come up with excuses as to why that information is not correct.

You yourself state that you think that sources claim that he is Jewish simply because they are lazy. You believe that he is without religion. That Americans have a hard time concieving of people not having a religion. I wouldn't debate that point regarding how many Americans deal with atheists. However, he is religious and spiritual. He is not an atheist. He's not even agnostic. He's said numerous times that he believes in God, that he's religious, and he's spiritual. So, even if you don't make the connection specifically to Judaism, one can't possibly claim that he is without religion or belief in God altogether. You're coming up with excuses as to why the articles which support the idea that he is of the Jewish faith aren't true. You're showing your own bias.

One of the more puzzling things in your statement along these lines to me is this: "The fundamental point here is that providing sources that identify his religion as Jewish - even when that does not involve obvious confusion of Jewish-as-in-race and Jewish-as-in-religion, which it often does - cannot validate a label which he himself has clearly and unambiguously rejected; finding such sources constitutes confirmation bias, the correct search is not one that supports your position but one that would refute it." So, wait.. my claim is that IN BLACK AND WHITE a primary source from the horses mouth clearly states "Religion: Jewish", my claim is that the statements he made which dictate to the public his level of practice are being grossly misinterpreted. This is what I'm trying to clarify for people, to educate on, and to explain further with other statements of his own. Yet, you're suggesting that for some strange reason if I actually am able to FIND articles, interviews, and the like which SUPPORT my position, I am actually defeating my own position by presenting these facts and statements? I'm not even sure how to respond to such a thing.. it's kind of ridiculous logic. Centerone (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

...those arguing that bernie sanders is not Jewish (religiously)

I think that is a false premise to build your line of questioning upon. It is Bernie Sanders who is arguing that he is not part of organized religion; not very religious; has drifted from it as he grew older; doesn't speak about it and feels it should be a private matter. But Sanders feelings be damned, he's gonna get religion whether he likes it or not - at least in his infobox, if a few Wikipedians have anything to say about it.

He's said numerous times that he believes in God

Please show me just 3 of those numerous times. (I'm anxious to see if he also, in the same breath, qualified that by saying he thinks everyone believes in God ... and his belief isn't actually like anyone else's). I think I've only seen one reliable source (Washington Post) claim that he said he believes in God (they didn't quote him), but I've seen him avoid answering direct questions about it several times. And by the way, there are indeed sources which describe him as atheist. (Not sure I'm convinced of that, just sayin'...)

IN BLACK AND WHITE a primary source from the horses mouth

No. A .PDF file from an unknown author attached via a link to his actual Official Senate Bio, which conspicuously does not mention anything about his religion (while many of his colleague's Senate Bios do). The .PDF file even contains other errors and vagueness (Winning by 12 votes instead of 10 comes to mind). Common sense tells us that the document was generated by his staff (perhaps someone suffering the same ethnicity-religion confusion JzG correctly identified), but that he would have final approval over. If he even bothered to review it, is the awkwardly worded "Religion=Jewish" even something he would have taken issue with? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He says "I’m proud to be Jewish" but it would be "rude" of us to indicate that he is Jewish in the Infobox? Do I understand you correctly? Would you care to explain? What you are saying seems somewhat contradictory to me. You seem to be saying that he has "publicly rejected" being Jewish, but I think the opposite would be closer to the truth. Not only does he numerous times say he is proud to be Jewish but he issues a press kit at "sanders.senate.gov" reading "Religion: Jewish". He does not keep it a secret that he is Jewish. Would you expect him to say "I'm proud to be of the Jewish religion"? People don't speak that way. WP:BLPCAT should not be demanding that Jews "self-identify" in language that is apart from normal speech. In common parlance, saying that one is proud to be Jewish should suffice for the Misplaced Pages purpose of self-identification. If you are going to argue that he would have to say something like "I am Jewish, religiously", that is simply unrealistic, because people do not speak that way. He need not be a part of "organized religion", although to a limited extent he is. Do you note in that source that he participated in the lighting of a Chanukah menorah? He did so in the capacity of a Jew. Please note this source. "...he appeared later that day with Lynchburg’s mayor for the Rosh Hashana ritual of tashlikh, the symbolic casting of sins into a stream.". That happens to be religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Pure WP:OR. If you disagree with Misplaced Pages policy at WP:BLPCAT feel free to go to WT:BLP and suggest a version that is more to your liking. Until you get consensus to change BLPCAT you are required to follow it, just as you are required to follow all Misplaced Pages policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy Macon—what would satisfy you as far as self-identification is concerned as per WP:BLPCAT? Please suggest normal language that Bernie Sanders could be using that you might find satisfactory. Please give me an example. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't speak for Guy Macon, but what would satisfy me (and more importantly, Misplaced Pages requirement), would be an unambiguous self-identification in direct speech (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) as to what his religion is; preferably one that requires less interpretation than other self-identifications in direct speech elsewhere (like he did here: "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."). But remember that self-identification is just one of several requirements which must be satisfied before a living person can be labeled in the infobox with a religion designation. It must also be a significant component of their notability and public life, and the designation must be an unambiguous, non-contentious, accurate fact which clearly summarizes the sourced information on his religious beliefs in the body of his article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic—what would satisfy you as far as self-identification is concerned as per WP:BLPCAT? Please suggest normal language that Bernie Sanders could be using that you might find satisfactory. Please give me an example. I would think that if there is no language that is realistically possible by which Bernie Sanders can self-identify as being of the Jewish religion, then the whole purpose of self-identification is defeated. For example, a person does not normally make a statement such as "My religion is Jewish", or "My religion is Judaism". That is because people don't normally speak that way. It is much more common for a person to say for instance "I'm proud to be Jewish". That is common parlance, and that is what we should be looking for, or some approximation of that. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Bus stop. What would satisfy me (and more importantly, Misplaced Pages requirement), would be an unambiguous self-identification in direct speech (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) as to what his religion is; preferably one that requires less interpretation than other self-identifications in direct speech elsewhere (like he did here: "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."). I disagree with you that people do not normally say that their religion is Jewish, or "My religion is Judaism". And remember that self-identification is just one of several requirements which must be satisfied before a living person can be labeled in the infobox with a religion designation. It must also be a significant component of their notability and public life, and the designation must be an unambiguous, non-contentious, accurate fact which clearly summarizes the sourced information on his religious beliefs in the body of his article. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That is precisely the problem I identified with confusing Jewish-as-in-race with Jewish-as-in-religion. Nobody disputes that he's Jewish, but he himself has stated that he does not follow the Jewish religion. Rejecting the label of Jewish faith means we don't put it in the Religion parameter. Maybe we need a parameter for cultural identity, but religion is clearly tendentious in context. I addressed precisely the point of cultural Jewishness versus religious Judaism. A secular Jew may indeed celebrate the religious festivals without being in the least bit religious, especially if they are proud of their cultural identity. Many people who do not profess the Christian faith still celebrate Christmas, this does not confer Christianity on them. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

"he himself has stated that he does not follow the Jewish religion." Er, no. That's not at all what he said. He said that he is "not particularly religious." or "not actively involved with organized religion." That is not the same thing as not following the Jewish religion, or "Rejecting the label of Jewish faith". In particular, besides having his religion stated as Jewish in his official press bio, he's also responded to questions and statements specifically involving and referencing religion and spirituality by saying "being Jewish is an important part of my life." and "It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is." amongst discussing it numerous other ways and times. To understand the "not particularly religious" or not being actively involved quotes in context, besides just considering the words at their face value which don't decry Judaism, one should look at the hundreds of years of history and the spectrum in which Judaism is practiced and observed. Not only is his behaviour common and accepted, it is supported by the religious texts. Centerone (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy—you say "he does not follow the Jewish religion". Give me an example of what following the Jewish religion would mean, to you. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that is obvious: being religiously observant, and not making statements that repudiate organised religion. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy—a person does not have to meet your standards. We are not saying that he is Orthodox. You are (inadvertently) pointing out that he is not Orthodox. Every editor in this discussion agrees that he is not Orthodox. But is his religion Jewish? Yes—according to every source that addresses the question. He doesn't have to attend or be a member of a synagogue. Do you think a person whose religion previously was Judaism loses that religion as a consequence of not attending synagogue? No source is saying that. And certainly no source says that concerning Bernie Sanders. As editors we should not be taking stances based on mere personal opinions. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A person does not have to meet Guy's standards (and I don't see where he claimed so), but does have to meet Misplaced Pages's standards. With that firmly in mind, when you assert, is his religion Jewish? Yes—according to every source that addresses the question, please provide here "every source" wherein Sanders self-identifies in direct speech as required, "that his religion is Jewish ". And no, a .PDF file of unknown origin linked to his Senate website is not such a source. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't repudiate organized religion, he's just not actively involved with it. There is a difference. However, even if he did 'repudiate' organized Judaism, that's okay, questioning and challenging things is supported and encouraged in Judaism. Also, He doesn't need to be actively involved with it. He doesn't need to attend or be a member of a Temple or Synagogue. Jews don't need a Rabbi or a building or anything like that to be religious or commune with God. For some rituals, they only need 10 men - none of which need to be Rabbis, that's a minyan. He also can follow or not follow rituals, practices, and beliefs as he sees fit and still be considered a Jew, religiously. This is supported by the texts of the religion, and Jewish scholarship. You might also want to consider various movements and the spectrum of religious practice in Judaism from Reconstructionist, to Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox - these are just mainstream practices that are well known; there are others. I previously posted the following, but i see it's now been archived. Here it is again, note that this is text from an _Orthodox_ website: 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." Centerone (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Jews don't need a Rabbi or a building or anything like that to be religious or commune with God.

On behalf of people from all other faiths who claim the same — and I'll resist the urge to (using my best church lady voice) say, "Well, isn't that special!" — I'll merely note that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.

Your statement that a non-religious Jew can follow or not follow rituals, practices, and beliefs as he sees fit and still be considered a Jew, religiously reminds me of what attendees at AA meetings are told, "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" even if they swear off alcohol and never again touch another drink. A question for you, Centerone: If it takes a whole paragraph like that to even begin to try to convince Guy (who seems to already have a good grasp of Sanders' religion and ethnicity) that despite Sanders' words regarding organized religion and his own lack of religiousness he should still be labeled by Misplaced Pages as a religious Jew, how many more paragraphs will it take to explain that to an average reader? And how do you propose to get all that in the |Religion= field? Infobox fields are for simple, unambiguous key facts which summarize information already in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Guy: this thread seems to be redundant to #Request for comments -- religion in infobox. You probably want your voice (and possibly your !vote) heard there rather than have parallel discussions. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Every darn thread on this subject on this page is redundant. Centerone (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I will try to make points that haven't been discussed much. We all agree that Bernie Sanders is an ethnic Jew. There are countless ethnic Jews who have repudiated religion. They self-identify as atheist or agnostic, they state they do not believe in God, they state that they are not part of the Jewish religion, they avoid synagogues and religious observances like the plague. No one argues that such people should be called members of the Jewish religion. But Bernie Sanders is not such a person. It is clear to everyone that he is not highly observant religiously. But a high level of tradional religious observance is simply not required in order to be a member of the Jewish religion. Sanders is of Jewish ancestry, is ethnically Jewish, self identifies as "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet, says he believes (non traditionally) in God, and reliable sources report that he sometimes engages in Jewish religious rituals. That is good enough for normative Jews worldwide to accept him as a member of the Jewish religion. But it is not good enough for a handful of determined Misplaced Pages editors who function as self-appointed judges of Jewish religious identity. They propound their original research theories such as the notion that an identity as a "secular Jew" is somehow incompatible with membership in the Jewish religion. Such notions reflect a profound misunderstanding of the Jewish religion. I am a secular Jew who is a member of the Jewish religion. We are legion. There is no contradiction. Is there a single solitary reliable source that says "Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Jewish religion"? Of course not. Is any Misplaced Pages editor bold enough to state that Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Jewish religion? I certainly hope not but I fear that they would. Their obsessive editing behavior makes it difficult to achieve consensus on the infobox issue, creating a situation where every other member of Congress except one overtly non-religious member has the basic biographical fact of their religion listed in the infobox. Richard Nixon is called a Quaker in his infobox! And one of the deniers self identifies as a Quaker! A basic biographical religious identity is denied in the infobox to a progressive Jew, and speaking as a progressive Jew, it hurts deeply and I find it profoundly offensive. I can recognize a dogged and determined opponent, and instead of fighting, I will just say, "For shame!" Cullen Let's discuss it 04:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Per the Misplaced Pages article on secularity, "Secularity (adjective form secular, from Latin saecularis meaning 'worldly' or 'temporal') is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion." Per dictionary.com, "secular" means: "1. of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal....2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred )...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course you know that a Misplaced Pages article is not a reliable source but since you quoted from one article, then I will quote from another which is more applicable, Secular Judaism:

"In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ahad Ha'am contributed to the secular movement with his ideas on Jewish national identity, religion and religious practice. He saw Jewish religious cultural tradition as integral for the education of secular Jews."

There is nothing in Jewish tradition or practice that says that a person cannot simultaneously self-identify as both a secular Jew and as a member of the Jewish religion, and no reliable source makes such a claim. My synagogue has many such members and our community has other such members who like Sanders are not synagogue dues payers. These people exist. Secular in this context is not synonymous with complete rejection of a Jewish religious identity. It is just that the identity is not highly observant or "orthodox". Reliable sources are more important than quotes from Misplaced Pages articles, though those articles are useful in discussions like this to the extent that they accurately summarize the sources. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Since you selected a quote from Secularity, then in fairness, ponder another quote from the same articlle, which summarizes things nicely:

"This does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way (see "secularism", below); Martin Luther used to speak of "secular work" as a vocation from God for most Christians. According to cultural anthropologists such as Jack David Eller, secularity is best understood, not as being "anti-religious", but as being "religiously neutral" since many activities in religious bodies are secular themselves and most versions of secularity do not lead to irreligiosity." Cullen Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that you just deleted my comment? Are you aware that I quoted dictionary.com in my previous comment to you? I don't think it's shameful to resolve disputes about meaning by referring to a dictionary. Is there a dictionary definition of "secular" that supports your position? As to secular Jews benefitting from being educated about non-secular Jews, I entirely agree with that. I also entirely agree that religious Jews engage in many secular activities (including work), but the term "secular Jew" refers to people, not activities. I've never suggested that the BLP subject has any hostility to God or religion, by the way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean to delete your comment, and I apologize with the explanation that it is late at night and I did not notice. Of course, dictionary definitions are useful but not determinative. I will repeat my earlier assertion that there is no contradiction whatsover between being a "secular Jew" and a member of the Jewish religion. If you think that's the case, then I wonder if you (or the other editors who argue similarly) have done any serious study about Jewish identity. Again, there are plenty of ethnic Jews who have repudiated a Jewish religious identity, as is their right if they so choose. Bernie Sanders is not among them. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A "secular Jew" is not necessarily one who rejects the religion entirely. Instead, it means that businesses should not be forced to close on the Jewish Sabbath (or the Christian Sabbath as was common in the US only a few decades ago). Marriage and burial should not be under the exclusive control of the rabbinate or clergy, as is the case in Israel. Butchers should be free to sell (or not sell) pork or shellfish, or meats not slaughtered under rabbinic supervision. Governmental events should not include mandatory denominational prayers. The public sphere should be wide open to people of all faiths or no faith. Secular Jews do not reject religion but instead reject any mandatory imposition of religious observance in the public sphere. All reliable sources about secular Judaism that I have read agree on these principles. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Cullen328: This isn't a discussion forum on Bernie Sanders' religion and whether secular Jews can be religiously Jewish. If you have reliable sourcing to claim that Bernie Sanders is religiously Jewish, then just lay it out. If not - and as far as I can see, nobody here has pointed to any statements by Bernie Sanders about being religiously Jewish - then this discussion belongs on a chat forum, but not on this talk page. We can't put "Religion: Judaism" in the article if we don't actually know what Sanders' religious beliefs are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thucydides411, the problem with your comment is that we do know about his religious beliefs. He self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet. He says he believes in God and considers religion important. He has spoken repeatedly about how being Jewish has influenced his career as a politician. Reliable sources report that he has participated in various Jewish religious observances throughout his life, including in recent months. We know that he is not a synagogue member, that he is not highly observant, and that he expresses his Jewish values primarily (though not exclusively) in secular ways. So, we know quite a bit about his religious beliefs, and it is all referenced to reliable sources in the article, and I added several of those sources. I have studied them. And nothing we know indicates that he is not a member of the Jewish religion. Quite the contrary. We have far better sources showing that Sanders is actually religiously Jewish than we have sources showing that Donald Trump is actually Presbyterian. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Cullen328, no, we don't actually know Sanders' religious beliefs. My personal reading of him, based on how he's answered direct questions on national television about his religious beliefs, is that he's an atheist. Your personal reading of him, based on his attendance of some services, is that he's religiously Jewish. But our speculation is irrelevant here. I might be wrong, and Sanders might be avoiding saying "I believe in Judaism" because that's politically tricky, or you may be wrong, because many atheist Jews attend synagogue on occasion, especially on the high holidays. The press packet isn't compelling, because we don't know who compiled it or how careful they were being in distinguishing religion from ethnicity. Absent a clear statement from Sanders about being religiously Jewish, and I've searched but not found one, we shouldn't fill out the infobox with conjecture. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In Israel, there's a common distinction between hiloni versus dati, which mean secular versus religious. Jews who reject the Jewish religion are considered secular. This matches pretty well with the definition of "secular" in English dictionaries. So when a press packet (which is a primary source) says Sanders' religion is Jewish, but secondary sources say he's a secular Jew and self-identifies as such, then it's a bit ambiguous. In any event, over 900 biographies at Misplaced Pages say "Ethnicity: Jewish", and we know from reliable sources that Sanders' ethnicity is more of a key feature than any religion that he may believe. I'm getting kind of tired of this little controversy, and so will try to avoid it here on out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I’m reminded, reading Sanders, of the following passage:

For my Religion, though there be severall circumstances that might perswade the world Christian. I have none at all, as the general scandall of my profession, the naturall course of my studies, the indifferency of my behaviour and discourse in matters of religion (neither violently defending one, nor with that common ardour and contention opposing another), yet, in despight hereof, I dare without usurpation assume the honourable style of a Christian.( Sir Thomas Browne, ‘Religio Medici,’ in The Major Works, ed. C.A. Patrides Penguin 1977 p.61)

Cullen has given good arguments suggesting the word ‘religion’ means something different in Judaism to what it means for the generality of (American) Christians or secularists in that country (the prepossession of the ‘religious’ issue is, for many non-Americans like myself, somewhat bewildering), and that in this sense one community is being misread out of another community’s cultural misprisions. I’ve tried to review why I didn’t think it appropriate. For one or two who might be interested this is the reason.

I was once called in to arbitrate between 4 waiters in a backwood restaurant in Italy. Three were established there, one had just arrived. They were 'basically' Albanian, and all Muslims, but the longest serving one, a friend, had mixed parentage. He and the other two were being berated by the newcomer, from Kosovo, for not speaking Albanian and identifying with the new pan-Albanian movement. This took place near the kitchen, and the troublesome fellow was a butcher, handy with knives. My Macedonian Muslim friend called me over, but before entering the fray I asked him what version of Albanian the troublemaker spoke: it was Gheg. The point was, that he felt the other three who conversed among themselves in Macedonian or Italian, were betraying a group-national cause, in which all differences had to be submerged in a common affirmation of shared 'Albanian' identity. It emerged that the fellow thought this regional Macedonian resistance to being bundled up as 'Albanians' in an deeply ethnically-conflicted region was undermining pan-Albanian aspirations, which extended to northern Macedonia which, he said, would eventually form part of a large Albanian empire. The other 3 were apolitical, were refugees from the conflict, and primarily wanted to work anywhere, esp. Italy, where they could raise their respective families in peace. For them, being Albanian was obvious, but not the major part of their identities. There may also have been a certain fear that being passed off as only 'Albanians' might make things difficult for them, since Italian prejudices at the time associated that group with thieving and violence. The strongest part of their identity, outside of family, was their religion, but even that was not, as was the case with the newcomer, brandished publicly. It was a private matter. That is what I thought back on while watching the Bernie Sanders brouhaha. Sanders is Jewish ethnically, his website writes 'Jewish' for religion. But he has consistently held off from clarifying this, refusing to enter the fundamentally Christian-American obsession of making 'religion' a part of political discourse, and an electoral issue. And he has not expanded on what he means by 'Jewish' in a religious context, which for all we know, might be an atheist's intelligent recognition of the importance of Judaism in the formation of his humanitarian values, or subscribing, to honour one's forebears and their travails, to the specific experience of those raised under the umbrella of Judaism. It may be, in its minimalism, deliberately equivocal for reasons any scholar of Sir Thomas Browne would understand. In short, he refuses to be caught up in the "our guy" badgering of one side/the anti-Semitic flip side of which is the "their guy" snarking. If I understand him correctly, he is perhaps the most, (perhaps the only) passionate advocate of a general, inclusive, 'Graeco-Roman(pagan)-Judeo-Christian' outlook associated with Western civilization. His reticence comes from a sense that the constituency he wishes to woo is inclusive of all religious, ethnic, social and economic backgrounds.

The rigorists erased 'Jewish' because, apart from that one press release, he has not flaunted a self-identification with Judaism (and many indications suggest he is not 'religious' (in the Christian sense, where there is a sharp divide between faith and secularism). Two in particular of the defenders of its retention cited the entry as proof he is one of "us" also religiously (Judaism, at least in its Conservative and Reform branches, does not appear to mark off neatly religion as strict observance from religion as an ensemble of practices one occasionally enacts). The reason for the difference in the idea of religion is that Christianity tends to be more theo-ideological, whereas Judaism blurs the lines between cultural practices (what Christians call 'faith') and ethnicity so that the one implies familiarity with the other.

Given that Christians, or people from a general Christian (inclusive of Western secular) background, hail from a tradition that invented anti-Semitism, and made it virtually programmatic for millennia, it is not only natural, but a selective survival trait to be extremely wary of discourse about 'Jews' coming from outside the fold. This natural reflex was evident here, and, the swarming in of so many voices on a rather finicky issue, which invariably happens only if Jewishness is the topic, meant that antennae picked up and read a lot of what was being said in support of erasing the 'Jewish' religion entry, as an uncomfortable trace of this age old 'Western' (Christianocentric) obsession. At the same time, one can overread, or pick up the wrong signal from the noise. Cullen and Gamaliel saw it as Malik did, Number 47 implicitly disagreed. I think that Number 57 made the correct call technically, but I can understand why the others saw that humongous argument as, in part, not detached from an ominous rumbling.

J. J. Goldberg has put this eloquently in a fine identitarian psephological analysis.

It’s ironic, perhaps, that few will feel this sting. The Jewish voters most likely to support Sanders — younger, more liberal, less religious — are precisely the Jews least likely to feel the tug of ethnic pride at the success of “our guy.” The Jews most prone to that sort of ethnic loyalty are, for the most part, the ones least likely to feel the Bern.

For some editors on the other hand pushing adamantly for the ascription of his religion, what Goldberg earlier wrote is also relevant:

The Sanders campaign is providing the backdrop for a mass Jewish psychodrama of wrenching, deeply depressing proportions. Sanders is serving as a passive canvas onto which we are projecting a startling array of our saddest insecurities, neuroses and self-delusions.

One could say, mutatis mutandis that this applies equally with the obsessive kvetching by the press and Misplaced Pages editors on both sides of the issue.

Though it is not part of wiki practice to look into the larger context or extended thinking beyond the apparent meaning of relevant diffs, sometimes one wishes that all parties might comment less, and think more deeply into the sensitive hinterlands of a talk page controversy, particularly one like this. I think these sensitivities were ignored (as I think they are widely ignored by many editors at least in the past whose main interest in early Christianity is backdating the charge of antisemitism to that religion, showing a total insensitivity to current scholarship and the sensitivities of believers). I’m a pagan also because I think religions are intrinsically liable to incomprehension of others, reflecting the doctrinal disagreements that thrive within the folds themselves). I have no idea how Bernie Sanders stands in this densely intricate discursive muddle, and don’t care. Both possessiveness about someone else’s private identity and the converse, dispossessiveness by those who live beyond its cultural confines, disturb me, though I do think now that if a press release from his office he is familiar with does rate his religion as 'Jewish', it probably holds more weight than wiki's pettifogging. I don't believe it is representative of that man's history to be so specific, but I've no right to contradict what his own office puts out in his name.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What matters here are policies and sources. We should want to know that religion has relevance. We have sources saying "Why Bernie Sanders’ Judaism is so important" so we know his religion is relevant. Besides, almost all other similar articles consider religion to be relevant. Next we want to know if we have "self-identification". This is easily satisfied by the press kit reading "Religion: Jewish" and quite frankly reinforced by the numerous instances in which Sanders says that he is proud to be Jewish. Concerning the embrace of religion, we are not looking to see if he is an Orthodox Jew. He is not. But we find reliably sourced numerous instances of sporadic participation in Jewish ritual, and that easily satisfies an affirmative relationship to the Jewish religion. "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." "Today, Senator Sanders does not regularly attend any synagogue in Washington or Vermont, though he does show up for rituals like the yahrzeit — the anniversary of a death — of the father of a close friend, Richard Sugarman, who teaches philosophy in the religion department at the University of Vermont." We know that his religion is Jewish because the sources are telling us that this is the case. At most if not all other articles on candidates for the US presidency "religion" is listed in the Infobox, and this article should be no exception. Sources support that Sanders' religion is Jewish. Policy language most applicable can be found at WP:BLPCAT. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You've already said that dozens of times. It's bludgeoning the discussion. I stopped reading after your first link to Matthew Rozsa, whose opinion is not evidence. Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rozsa source was posted to attest to the relevance of Sanders' religion. But there are of course many other sources that can attest to the relevance of Sanders' religion. Here is one: "Sanders’s religious views, which he has rarely discussed, set him apart from the norm in modern American politics, in which voters have come to expect candidates from both parties to hold traditional views about God and to speak about their faith journeys." I think we would all agree that his politics is more important than his religion, but his religion is not so irrelevant that it should be omitted from the Infobox. And of course it is WP:BLPCAT that is requiring us to show "relevance" for religion. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rozsa opinion piece by a college student (self-proclaimed online "pundit" and blogger), doesn't state how Sanders' notability is because of his religion, or lack thereof. Neither does the WaPo piece, which actually confirms that religion isn't and hasn't been a significant component of Sanders' public life. I'm fairly certain that Sanders is notable for his public service and politics (Mayor, Representative, Senator), not his religion, and the only reason you are now seeing his religion (and everything else about him) mentioned in the media is because he is running for the highest office in the land. You are confusing "must be relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" (Misplaced Pages requirement) with "he's notable as a candidate, so now the media thinks his religion along with everything else about him is relevant enough to be published". Perhaps you should review the Misplaced Pages requirement a little more carefully? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you quite grasp that his religion is relevant because "the media" regards it as relevant. You are saying "...now the media thinks his religion along with everything else about him is relevant ..." Sources pay attention to his religion. That constitutes relevance for Misplaced Pages purposes. And by the way, the high degree of scrutiny that his religion has come under is the reason that you can claim that his religion is "ambiguous". Were his religion not under a microscope you would not be able to make the incorrect claim that the parts don't add up. What is missing from your far flung argument is the all-important source saying that his religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clearly demonstrating your confusion (again). I have not made the argument that "his religion is not Jewish". You can keep propping up that strawman and knocking it down, but I think everyone sees through that argument fallacy by now. Back to my actual argument (Misplaced Pages's argument, actually): "must be relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". And remember, just because you find a source or sources which mention his religion, that doesn't mean Sanders is notable because of his religious status (Sorry, but that isn't why he has a Misplaced Pages article). Show me the sources which explain that the reason knows the world knows about Bernie Sanders is because of his religious status. We'll go from there. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Archives Important to Religion / Infobox Jewish (Religion) or Not Discussion

I was personally surprised at how quickly discussions are being archived. Since several of them are pertinent and part of the current and ongoing discussion, I thought it important to highlight them. Centerone (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive 6 has information regarding the Barry Goldwater / 1st Jew discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_6

Archive 7 has a rather large discussion on religion in the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_7

Archive 8 has more on the religion in the infobox discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_8

Archive 5 has several pertinent sections about this topic too: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_5

I just thought it important to have quick links to this stuff since these are so recent in relation to the current and ongoing discussion. I'm surprised they're being archived within a month. Centerone (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing yet another perfect illustration as to why the use of the |Religion= field with just a single word or two is problematic. Infobox fields are to contain unambiguous, uncontentious summary of clear, key facts -- or remain unused. All of those lengthy arguments (to which you can also add multiple RfCs, and multiple Noticeboard discussions, and people even getting blocked over editwar disagreements on what should go in that field), show exactly why that field remains unused. (And yes, this applies even if - and especially if - you personally know beyond a doubt what true "key fact" should go in that field.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class socialism articles
• Mid-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• C-Class Chicago articles
• Mid-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• C-Class Vermont articles
• Mid-importance Vermont articles
• WikiProject Vermont articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment