User talk:Xenophrenic/sandbox2
Hello, I JethroBT. Thank you for taking the time to review and close this RfC at the Bernie Sanders article. I am contacting you because I am considering filing a request for a formal review of the closure, but I would rather not launch such a time-consuming process. If you could please review and address the specific concerns I have outlined below, perhaps we can avoid the bureaucratic headaches and additional drama.
Full disclosure: I have edited the 'Religion=' field in the Sanders article exactly twice. The first time, believing much the same way as you, I edited the field so that it displayed: Religion = Jewish. Then after reading more closely what the reliable sources were saying, and paying particular attention to the subject's direct statements of self-identification, I realized my error. That is when I made my second edit to the 'Religion=' field, blanking it to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy and also with the subject's self-identification. Wikipedia policy, as detailed below, instructs us to leave that field blank and unused except in very specific and restricted instances. Nowhere in your closure explanation, or in your responses to subsequent questions about it on your Talk page, have you explained your reasoning for using the highly restricted 'Religion=' field. You do link to the WP:BLPCAT restriction in your closing statement, so I know you are aware of it, but you only acknowledge the first half of it (must self-identify in direct speech with the religious beliefs) while completely ignoring the second requirement (relevance to Sanders' notability). Instead, the closing statement dwelled on the lesser tangential arguments (and even an argument that was never advanced), rather than the core dispute.
I've noted a half-dozen problems with the RfC closure below, but "Problem 1" is reason enough to invalidate the closure all by itself, and might be the only issue I raise in the review to keep it succinct. If you still disagree with this concern, it would be great if you could explain your position to me more fully, before a formal review is requested. As evidenced above, I am always open to changing and even reversing my position if new information and reasoning is made available. I also have a second motivation for pushing to remove the policy violations and contradictions from this RfC closure; editors have noted that many other BLP articles use the 'Religion=' field in similar violation of policy without all this commotion. I intend to address that problem in those articles, and would like to be able to confidently reference this RfC closure, among others, in the inevitable discussions that follow. I look forward to working with you on this matter. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging I JethroBT and Guy Macon. If one or both can convince me that a "Close Review" is not warranted in this situation, I would appreciate the input, in whatever venue is most convenient. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Although I have purposely chosen not the challenge the close (mainly because I am weary of being called anti-Semitic, threatened with having my reputation trashed in the press, etc.), I support it being challenged and will make a brief statement in favor of overturning the decision.
- I would suggest the following wording changes:
- OLD: "He is careful to insist he is spiritual, and says he believes in a higher power when pressed, because to do otherwise in the United States is political suicide"
- PROPOSED NEW: "He is careful to insist he is spiritual, and says he believes in a higher power when pressed. In the United States. doing otherwise is generality considered to be political suicide."
- Reason: I am trying to avoid assigning a motive, even though it is probable in this case.
- OLD: "The word "Jewish" was added to the 'Religion=' field but not cited as required"
- PROPOSED NEW: "The word "Jewish" was added to the 'Religion=' field but the religious meaning of "Jewish" is not cited in the body as required"
- Reason: I don't know of a requirement that the citation has to be in the infobox itself. The infobox needs to summarize a key facts found in the body, and the claims made in the body need to be verifiable. Also, we need to make it clear that an "I am Jewish" source (of which there are several) does not support a "Religion: Jewish" claim because "Jewish" can also be a description of culture or ethnicity. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Issues with the RfC close
editUndisputed, uncontroversial general facts:
- FACT - The RfC asked: Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"? You closed it, stating: Consensus supported inclusion of "Jewish" in the religion parameter of article infobox.
- FACT - Religious identification is considered by Wikipedia to be a sensitive and often contentious issue, and as such, Wikipedia has set additional specific requirements to be met before a living person's religious beliefs can be highlighted in Categories and Infoboxes.
- FACT - The terms "Jewish" and "Judaism" have multiple meanings, are sometimes used interchangeably, and are frequently the source of confusion for both our readers and our sources (and now, RfC closers).
- FACT - This is a controversial issue which has spawned many previous RfCs, noticeboard discussions, Talk page debates, and is already being revisited since the most recent RfC closure: "Placement in the Infobox is clearly inappropriate" — "Something needs to be done about this dispute ... And is this worth mentioning in an infobox?" — "Unsupported close; reverted" — "a person who also disagrees with this particular close". It would be a good idea to resolve any existing issues with this latest RfC, so that it can be referred to with confidence when the inevitable future disputes arise.
- FACT - This is not about reliably sourced information in the body of the article, which is allowed. This RfC is about taking that reliably sourced information and then accurately summarizing it and further highlighting it in the Infobox because it is a defining characteristic of the person's public notability.
Problem 1: You highlighted the subject's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, in an infobox when they are not a relevant part of Sanders' public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. In fact, to the contrary, reliable sources overwhelmingly convey that religion is not a defining part of Sanders' public life or notability. Putting something (or anything) in the 'Religion=' field for Sanders goes against:
- WP:BLPCAT: Categories and Infobox fields on religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
- WP:CATGRS: Avoid categorizing people by non-defining characteristics involving gender/ethnicity/sexuality/disability/religion.
- WP:NONDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose (as opposed to a tabular or list form), the subject as having. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a person should have their own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a person. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category or infobox field should be created for a particular attribute of a person. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the person. In cases where a particular attribute about a person is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, an alternative to the Infobox or Category is preferred.
- WP:OCEGRS: People should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.
Reliable sources, including Sanders himself, convey that while he is proud of his Jewish ethnicity, being religiously Jewish is not a defining characteristic of Sanders' public life or notability. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As reliable sources make abundantly clear, religious beliefs are not a relevant part of Sanders' public life; to the contrary, he keeps them private, and when forced to address them publicly, he speaks in generalities about faith and spirituality common to all major religions until he can steer the discussion back to political ideals. He is careful to insist he is spiritual, and says he believes in a higher power when pressed. In the United States. doing otherwise is generality considered to be political suicide.
Wikipedia demands that we use extraordinary care when handling sensitive issues such as describing a person's religious beliefs, and insists that we reflect the subject's self-identification over the characterizations of secondary sources. When a living person tells us in his own words that he is, "not actively involved with organized religion", and he is "not particularly religious", and he feels "Spirituality is something I think people should generally hold to themselves so it’s not something that I talk about a whole lot" - we, as Wikipedia editors, should respect that, rather than demand that he be publicly pigeonholed under an insufficient label which is then highlighted in our infobox as if his religious beliefs are a defining characteristic of his notability. I'm with Sanders and Wikipedia on this, and against the RfC close decision. When Sanders self-identifies in his public life, he doesn't mention religion as having a role in it; see his Official House of Reps Bio, or his Official Senate Bio, or his two autobiographical books he published -- religion plays no part. Why do you suppose Sanders doesn't trumpet his religious beliefs in his bios and books, while most of his colleagues do? The people who know him best confirm this. His daughter ("very private about his religion. Bernie would observe his traditions in a way that we really didn't see very much of"), his brother ("Bernard is not particularly religious. He doesn’t go to synagogue", "quite substantially not religious"), his wife ("I think, just like gender, I don't think [faith] matters, and I don't think it should matter in terms of determining who is the best person [in this campaign]", "neither of us are active in organized religion"), his long-time friend and advisor ("I would call him an uncertain agnostic"), his biographer ("Sanders is not a practicing Jew. He's never claimed to give much thought to the religion"). But at Wikipedia we know better, don't we; we're going to make him publicly, relevantly, religiously Jewish whether he likes it or not? We have policies which protect against that, when we abide by them.
Please help me to understand why the closure of this RfC shouldn't be challenged and overturned for this reason alone.
Problem 2: You added a Wiki-linked Jewish instead of just the word "Jewish" without the hyperlink, as specified in the RfC wording. The Wikipedia hyperlink to that word is a major point of contention. (See the many instances where the link was added and removed in the list of edits 'hatted' below.) Please be aware that the Wikilinked Jewish is problematic because it redirects our readers to the Jews article and states, This article is about the Jewish people. For their religion, see Judaism. The field is for religions, not people. Was consensus for the un-wiki-linked word "Jewish", as asked, or for the linked word "Jewish"? Please make the decision clear in the close statement.
Problem 3: The word "Jewish" does not accurately summarize a simple key fact about Sanders' religious beliefs, as conveyed in the body of the article. In addition, the meaning of the word "Jewish" in this instance is not consistent with its use in other infoboxes. The word "Jewish" as a religious belief is not supported in the body of the article as an assertion of fact; there is only an attributed mention (attributed to a press kit of unknown origin), and zero reliable sources saying he self-identifies as religiously 'Jewish'. This goes against the following rules:
- MOS:INFOBOX: The purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article.
- WP:INFOBOXUSE: The meaning given to each infobox part should be the same across instances of that type of infobox.
- H:IB: Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. The information should still be present in the main text.
The 'Religion=' field is for organized religions specifically, or religious beliefs more generally, according to Wikipedia convention. It is not for cultural ethnicity or "a people", as the RfC close appears to have implemented. Having "Judaism" in the field in most instances, while inserting "Jewish" in other instances goes against the requirement for consistent use across infoboxes. And neither "Judaism" nor "Jewish" correctly summarizes the nuanced religious beliefs, or lack thereof, of the article subject as conveyed by the "Religion and heritage" section of the article. Inserting 'Jewish' in the 'Religion=' field for Sanders tells our readers that such religious beliefs are as relevant to Sanders' public notability as they are to Samuel Schafler, for example. That is misleading.
Problem 4: Sanders has not unambiguously self-identified through direct speech as being religiously Jewish, as required by policy. Your closing statement concludes, "However, in this case, there are multiple sources, both primary and reliable independent ones, that very clearly refer to Sanders' religion as Jewish. Sources that merely "refer to Sanders' religion" do not meet policy requirements. Basic primary and secondary reliable sources are fine for factoids such as place of birth or what school is their alma mater, but for religious beliefs, we need self-identification in direct speech from the subject of the article. The RfC close does not acknowledge these additional policy requirements. Since you did not specify exactly which sources you claim support your close decision, we cannot verify the quotes wherein Sanders declares that he practices a "Jewish religion". This goes against our policies:
- WP:CAT/R: 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.
- WP:CATGRS: Avoid categorizing people by non-defining characteristics involving gender/ethnicity/sexuality/disability/religion.
- WP:NONDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose (as opposed to a tabular or list form), the subject as having. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining.
I am aware that some editors point to a .PDF file Press Kit of unknown origin (or the Roll Call CQ copy of it) as a potential source. That is not a valid source for Wikipedia. That source does not contain a self-identification in direct speech as required (see WP:CAT/R), and furthermore, it only has the words "Religion: Jewish" in tabular form instead of a description of his religious identification in the required descriptive prose (see WP:NONDEF).
Problem 5: The word "Jewish" was added to the 'Religion=' field but not cited anywhere in the article as required. It absolutely needs to be accompanied by a citation, since it has already been challenged many times. This goes against our core policies, and is a major violation:
- WP:V: any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.
- WP:BLP: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
- WP:MINREF: Wikipedia's content policies require an inline citation to a reliable source.
Problem 6: You said in your closing statement, "Many individuals also pointed out that some arguments opposed to inclusion ... simply asserted that he isn't really Jewish without any substantiation. Such views were, of course, discounted." There appears to be a misunderstanding here. Please cite just one such argument, along with the name of the editor who posted it. Please point to just one stated view of that type that you "discounted". That you weighed imaginary arguments that were never advanced, while completely ignoring the strongest policy-based arguments, demonstrates to me a possible lack of understanding of the core issue. Were comments "for the closer" completely ignored, like those (one by editor Anythingyouwant comes to mind) which pre-emptively warned closers against being distracted by nonexistent, fake arguments?
- OBSERVATIONS
- → On the matter of the Press Kit .PDF file (and the Roll Call -CQ profile copied from it) ←
I've seen Wikipedians point to this .PDF file of unknown origin as if it were the answer to all sourcing requirements for information regarding the religious beliefs of Bernie Sanders. Like a solitary life-raft in a tumultuous sea of contradictory sources claiming otherwise, editors have clung to this source. Since the .PDF file can be accessed through a link to Sanders' Senate biography page, it is arguably reliable enough for uncontroversial facts like occupation and date of birth. It does not, however, meet Wikipedia's additional requirements as a source for information on religious beliefs:
- it is not public self-identification in direct speech, as required
- the source presents the information in tabular form, instead of in prose as required
- the source does not say this religious belief is a defining characteristic of Sanders' public notability as required
- this source is contradicted by actual public, direct-speech self-identifications that Sanders is not a member of any organized religion and isn't particularly religious
- the source is of unknown origin, and was more likely to have been produced by a well-meaning campaign staffer than by Sanders
- this same .PDF file has other errors in it, reducing the expectation of reliability
- every word in the .PDF file is also in Sanders' Official Senate Bio, except for, suspiciously, the mention of religion
- → Motivations for editing the
|religion=
field ←
- → Motivations for editing the
The following motivations for adding a |religion=
field to the Sanders biography, against Wikipedia policy, have been expressed by one or more Wikipedia editors. The reasoning ranges from merely poor through very offensive. I predict many of these editors will be less motivated after the election season passes.
- Some editors who proudly share an ethnic identity with Sanders wish to shoehorn the word "Jewish" into the article wherever possible, even where inappropriate. Some passionate editors even suggest resistance to such efforts is anti-Semitism.
- Some detractors of Sanders (including anti-Semites) see a stigma associated with Jewish identity, and wish to shoehorn the word "Jewish" into the article wherever possible, even where inappropriate. See this edit summary.
- Some political supporters of Sanders add a
|religion=
parameter and religious references to deflect criticisms that he may be non-religious and therefore unelectable in the United States. - Some political detractors of Sanders add a
|religion=
"Jewish" to indicate that he is not "Christian", and therefore spur criticism that he is likely unelectable in the United States. (See this comment.)
- → Straw man, imaginary and irrelevant logical fallacy arguments introduced at the RfC ←
- Quit saying he's not Jewish! (No one argued that he wasn't. The discussion was about religion.)
- Show me a source which says he is not Jewish! (No need; no one ever suggested that be entered in the article.)
- You are trying to hide or minimize his Jewish affiliation! (No one did that. All of that information is perfectly allowable in the body of the article. No one proposed to hide or delete it.)
- You are trying to say he's not "Jewish enough" or "religious enough to be Jewish"! (No one did that. We must, however, determine if reliable sources say that a person is notable because of their religion. We're required to, in fact, before we can highlight that information in the neon-lighted billboard known as an Infobox.)
- → Interesting and astute assessments on the religion issue ←
Two Jewish commentators discuss Sanders - David Pakman show
A Secular Clinton supporter discusses Sanders' lack of religion
- → More questions for the RfC closer ←
Does "supported inclusion of 'Jewish' in the religion parameter" mean all other additions to that same field are to be excluded? Such as (secular), (non-religious), (inactive), (Universalist), (Revolution), all of which have been added or suggested in the past?