Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Bernie Sanders. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Religion in infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago175 comments19 people in discussion

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

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

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

The RfC was specific in stating that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPCAT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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