Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Request for comments -- religion in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• That is incorrect. Sanders has self-identified as not part any organized religion, and has further insisted that he is not very religious, and that his religious beliefs are personal and he doesn't talk about them. WP:BLPCAT requires that a person's religion be a relevant part of their notability and public life before Wikipedia can trumpet it as "Religion = whatever" in the infobox, and Sanders has made clear that it is anything but a major part of his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: The general requirement is self-identification as Jewish, which is present. Other outlets describe him as basically a secular Jew, which is a significant portion of Jews in the US and elsewhere. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support Sanders identifies as Jewish, his press kit has it as "Religion:Jewish." There was an RFC at Template_talk:Infobox#RfC:_Religion_in_infoboxes, and quite simply the infobox is RELIGION, not PRACTICE or BELIEF. I would be very interested to find one of the 535 members of Congress who is not an atheist without a religion mention in the infobox. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."

Related:

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?

Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Quote from the above without comment: "Sanders is in fact not religious. But his religion is Jewish" --Guy Macon (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Sanders self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" and that ought to be the end of the matter. The only problem here is that a Wikipedia editor thinks they are better able to deternine Sanders' religion than Sanders himself. That is classic original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Incorrect. I believe you are referring to a .PDF file (which contains other errors) linked to his Official Senate Bio, which notably does not mention religion, correct? The .PDF file doesn't represent the required direct speech for self-identification, and we don't know who wrote that. I agree that we should go with what Sanders says himself, like his self-identification that he is not a part of organized religion, isn't very religious at all, that he has drifted away from Jewish ritual as he grew up, and that his religion is private and he doesn't talk about it, rather than being relevant to his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I haven't been following this page, and I came here from seeing the RfC notice. Given that the page says that he has said that he is proud to be Jewish, the fact that he is not observant is not relevant to the short description of him as Jewish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• You say "He is proud to be Jewish, and he has said multiple times how proud he is of that heritage"[1] but I don't think you understand how the word "heritage" is being used. Note the following: "A rabbi at a temple in South Burlington, Vermont, complained that although Sanders 'knows he’s Jewish' and 'has a good heart,' the community would benefit from him openly embracing his heritage."[2] In that quote the word "heritage" more closely approximates the word "religion" than it does the word "ethnicity". It is true that "heritage" in a wider usage refers to "something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth",[3] much like "ethnicity" does. But we are talking about Judaism. As you probably are aware the traditional means by which Judaism is transmitted is by way of birth. This is a source of a lot of the flaws in arguments on this page. Good quality sources are not only using the word "heritage" correctly as it pertains to Jews, and some editors are incorrectly understanding the meaning of "heritage" as it applies to Jews, but additionally many of the other arguments made by some editors—misconstruing sources and overlaying them with original research—stem from failing to recognize the place of birth in the acquisition of Judaism. This is not like Christianity, and sources, unlike some editors, are aware of this. When a source is saying, for instance, that he is not observant, or not religious, or not involved with organized religion, that source is not saying that his religion is not Jewish. Sources are reporting on the kind of Jew he is; not whether or not his religion is Jewish. Good quality sources can be understood to know the role "birth" or "heritage" plays in the assignation of religion to a Jew. This is not to say that for Wikipedia every subject of a biography that is born to Jewish parents is considered a Jew, especially for purposes of the religion designation appearing in the Infobox. But we have to understand what sources are saying in order not to misconstrue what they are saying. Bus stop (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• Let us not forget the lengthy detour through the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Misconstruing sources is related to original research. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "Sanders has indeed self-identified. As not part of organized religion".[4] One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally, from where are you deriving that not being a part of organized religion has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not? And of course we know, due to the existence of reliable sources, that Sanders sporadically does participate in organized religion. We have examples, supported by sources, of Sanders' participation in Chanukah, Tashlikh, and Yahrzeit. I find you saying mere hours ago that "he is not part of organized religion, doesn't attend synagogue, and isn't very religious in general".[5] One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally, from where are you deriving that for instance not attending a synagogue has any bearing on whether his religion is Jewish or not? Our question is not whether he is Orthodox. When you say he "isn't very religious in general" you are inadvertently presenting an argument for him not being Orthodox. But we are not entertaining a question as to whether he is Orthodox or not. We are all in complete agreement that he is not Orthodox. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "He is proud to be Jewish, and he has said multiple times how proud he is of that heritage."[6] One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally you are failing to grasp the connection between "heritage" and "religion", within the Jewish tradition. I share your interest in following Wikipedia policy but we have to be mindful of the subject matter under discussion. We are not discussing whether Bernie Sanders is Christian or not. We are discussing whether his religion is Jewish or not. "Heritage" is the traditional means by which a Jew acquires the religion of Judaism. You are just about hanging your argument on the word "heritage". But in doing so you are misconstruing its meaning in a Jewish context. I did not introduce the word and the concept of "heritage" to this discussion. You introduced the term to this discussion and you built an argument upon its use. Your argument based on heritage is faulty because traditionally a Jew acquires the Jewish religion by means of heritage. I find you saying mere hours ago, that "he has drifted away from religious ritual as he grew up".[7] One problem is that you are not providing a source. But additionally I have to wonder from where you are deriving that "religious ritual" is a factor in whether or not a person's religion is Judaism. Even if his life was devoid of participation in such rituals—would that translate into his religion not being Jewish? No source is saying that. Furthermore his nonobservance is not complete nonobservance. Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish organization. They had Sanders light the light of the second night of Chanukah in Burlington, Vermont in 1983.[8] Sanders recited the blessing (Berakhah) over the second night's light. In case you don't know it, he could not possibly do that if he were not a Jew—by religion, at least not under the auspices of Chabad. And we know that despite how nonobservant he is, he is observant to a degree. But we are not debating whether or not he is Orthodox. We are debating whether his religion is Jewish or not. Bus stop (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

We are discussing whether his religion is Jewish or not.

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

We are debating whether his religion is Jewish or not.

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

Xenophrenic—it is you who is obsessing over "the kind of Jew he is".[9] In my opinion he is approximately an average Jew. I am not impressed that he is unusual or anything like that. Of course he is a candidate for the presidency so he is under additional scrutiny. You say "If you feel the need to spend a whole paragraph explaining how various sources are 'reporting on the kind of Jew he is', sticking the descriptor 'Jewish' in the Religion field is anything but clear and unambiguous".[10] But it is you who is arguing that he is not a part of organized religion, that he does not attend synagogue, and that he does not engage in religious rituals. I am relatively unimpressed by those facts. I can take those facts in stride. But you are obsessing over these facts. Am I to blame for responding to you? The "religion" field in the Infobox should indicate that he is a Jew because that is a relevant fact. Indeed he is a Jew, therefore the designation for "religion" should be filled in, in the Infobox. Incidentally Jewish Law would only have a Jew lighting the lights of a menorah on the second night of Chanukah on the steps of City Hall in 1983 in Burlington, Vermont. And that Jew happened to have been Bernie Sanders. Yes, the same one who is the subject of this article.[11] The lighting of those lights, including the recitation of relevant blessings, was done under the auspices of Chabad, an organization stringently observant of Jewish Law. Only one individual effectuated the fulfillment of the Jewish requirements for lighting lights and reciting the relevant berakhot. From this we know that he is Jewish, not to mention the numerous times he says that he is "proud to be Jewish". You can stop obsessing over the "kind of Jew he is" and simply follow Wikipedia's standard operating procedures. Those procedures involve indicating "religion" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose (or support with qualification) A number of reliable sources report he is non-religious. Spiritual belief in a nondescript higher power is not what users assume when we list "religion." I don't understand the number of support votes claiming he's Jewish - he's Jewish, that's not in question. The question is whether he's religious. Enough reliable sources say he's not to make the claim controversial and inappropriate without qualification. D.Creish (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Info-boxes should be used for clear, uncontested facts, not things that take sentences to explain. TFD (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I can find no source who says Sanders isn't Jewish, and he self-identifies as such. He even states it as a matter of personal pride. So unless leaders of the Jewish faith disavow him and say he is not Jewish, then his professed religion should be included in the infobox, just as religion is in all of his peers' (namely the other presidential candidates) boxes.Kerdooskis (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• He is definitely culturally Jewish, and he is certainly proud of that heritage. This discussion is about his religion, however, and he has not professed in direct speech that his religion is Judaism. To the contrary, he has self-identified in direct speech that he is not part of organized religion, that he has drifted away from Jewish ritual as he grew older, and that he isn't very religious at all. There is a reason that Wikipedia policy demands that before a person's religious beliefs can appear in an infobox, they must not only be reliably sourced like all other infobox data, but additionally must be relevant to the person's notability and public life. Sanders has specifically told us that his religious beliefs are a personal matter which he prefers not to talk about, as opposed to being a defining part of his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: (a) the "|religion=" field should not be filled in by default, but only when a person's religion plays a prominent role in their life (b) Sanders downplays his religion—the infobox would draw attention to it, thus violating WP:WEIGHT (c) whatever his beliefs are, they appear to be too nuanced for the infobox (d) if the body of the article doesn't make it clear Sanders is a Jew, then the body needs to be rectified. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Edit: Upgraded from "weak oppose" to "oppose" now that Sanders has publicly stated that what he believes "is not Judaism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose. Just putting "Jewish" or "Judaism" without a strong caveat is highly misleading and unnecessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support. He is both culturally and religiously Jewish. He went to a Hebrew School as a child and celebrated his bar mitzvah; he never recanted his religion; he even played the role of a rabbi in a 1999 film!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

• Strong Support I realize the question of Who is a Jew? has plenty of academic interest. But trying to minimize Senator Sander's minority status, such as it is, when he is currently running again a woman (whose agents constantly harp on her "minority status", and have coined the term Bernie Bro[12] to paint his supporters, women and all, as sexists) seems like a purely (inter-)partisan affair. It sounds a bit like the same people on the Left, who supported Clinton in 2008, trying to say Obama wasn't really Black, because he was half-White, and his ancestors never experienced slavery. Wikipedia should just report the facts, and not takes sides here. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, he's an ethnic Jew, and proud to be one. He has never articulated any "Jewish beliefs", whereas he has several times articulated beliefs that are completely ecumenical [13] [14], [15]. And yes, we do have guidelines of minimally acceptable levels of accuracy and importance and relevance for things that are entered into infobox fields as facts. He's not an observant Jew or a religious Jew; he's apparently not even a revolving-door Jew (one who goes to synagogue on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur) [16]. I'm not interested in discussing this further, particularly since this is the Survey section and not the Discussion section; I simply wanted to correct a misperception above. Softlavender (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose: He has described himself as Jewish by background, but secular in day to day life.[17]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Oppose After more thought and further discussion, am changing my previous !Vote from support to oppose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Supporting for the following reasons

Sanders Self Identifies as Religion:Jewish per Press Packet

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

-The material here is clearly not self serving nor exceptional

-The claim is not about third parties

-The claim is not about events

-The source is certainly authentic

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

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

He answered the senate Roll Call with Religion:Jewish

The Week refers to his Jewish Faith

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

My thoughts on the above arguments opposing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So someone hacked your computer, logged in pretending to be you, and wrote the words "He claims to be not particularly religious"?[18] If you have a source that has Bernie Sanders himself saying that he's religious, why haven't you produced it? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sum total of not only the things he says but the actions that he takes clearly places him as Jewish by religion. "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, “I know the blessings,” and recited them in Hebrew."[19] "But he appeared later that day with Lynchburg’s mayor for the Rosh Hashana ritual of tashlikh, the symbolic casting of sins into a stream."[20] "Today, Senator Sanders does not regularly attend any synagogue in Washington or Vermont, though he does show up for rituals like the yahrzeit — the anniversary of a death — of the father of a close friend, Richard Sugarman, who teaches philosophy in the religion department at the University of Vermont."[21] Chanukah, Tashlikh, and Yahrzeit are clearly religious in nature. Bus stop (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I cannot see on what grounds...

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

• Support: It is highly irregular for US politicians not to claim affiliation with one religion or another. In fact, of all members of Congress (Senate and House of Representatives), only three have no religion specified: Pete Stark, Barney Frank, and Kyrsten Sinema, all three of whom have emphasized their atheism on numerous occasions. Everyone else - including 24 additional Congresspersons who, according to the Secular Coalition for America, are agnostic but have preferred to keep the matter private - claims some religion or other. Since Sanders himself has repeatedly stated he is Jewish, and since the US press has extensively discussed the importance of his Jewishness to his political career (for example, Russell Berman, 'Bernie Sanders Bids for Jewish History,' The Atlantic 27 January 2016, or Ron Kampeas, 'Bernie Sanders Opens Up About Jewish Upbringing — at Last,' or any of a dozen other stories in the US press), one can't help but question why this is an issue at Wikipedia. It seems to me to be in very poor taste. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Could you please clarify: is your "Support" actually for the increasingly archaic convention that US politicians must "claim affiliation with one religion or another"? If I understand you correctly, you say that since so few say they eschew religious beliefs and organized religion, as Bernie Sanders has done, we should just lump him in with those claiming to be affiliated with religion, lest he be considered "irregular"? That, to me, seems to be in very poor taste. And as for Bernie's cultural heritage being Jewish, that is well documented, and as you point out, some sources in the media have indeed written about his heritage, and even contrasted it with his lack of religion. But did you bother to read the sources you just cited? See where it says in the Atlantic title you linked, "The Vermont senator isn’t religious, but a victory in Iowa or New Hampshire would be the first ever for a Jewish presidential candidate." Or, "Sanders talks so little about his faith" and "the lack of attention to Sanders’s Judaism that Jewish leaders find most exciting"? How about this contrast from your linked sources, "Lieberman’s Judaism was a major part of his political identity. He was closely associated with Jewish causes and his staunch support of Israel, talked openly about his faith, and didn’t campaign on the Sabbath. The same is not true of Sanders." On one hand, you seem to be claiming that his religion, or lack thereof, is somehow important to his political career (public life), but then you cite sources which explain just the opposite: that he isn't religious, he avoids talking about religious beliefs, and it isn't a part of his public life. Both of those two sources you linked explain that he is NOT religiously Jewish, but that he is culturally Jewish. You linked these as two examples of "a dozen other stories", so I must ask you: Do all of those dozen stories likewise contradict your assertions (and your 'Support !vote'), or just the two you linked? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is the clarification you ask for: I support inclusion of "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox. That is the subject of the RFP, so I thought my response would be clear to any normally intelligent editor of Wikipedia. I apologize if I erred.

On the one hand, I find your arguments so specious as to be genuinely offensive. On the other hand, I have no particular interest in this absurd argument, and can't get really excited about whether the religion parameter is included or excluded here. If it is excluded, Wikipedia will have the dubious distinction of being the only major source of information on the internet that does not prominently mention Sanders's religious affiliation. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted. The |Religion= field is unused by default, and is regarded by Wikipedia policy as a "sensitive" descriptor, requiring clear self-identification through direct speech and verification in reliable sources that the descriptor is a defining characteristic of the subject's notability, before it can be used. As I've not presented any arguments, and only conveyed Wikipedia policy to you, it must be Wikipedia's arguments you find specious. I don't concur, and consider Wikipedia's careful approach to labeling living people's gender, religion and ethnicity to be well-considered. It is unfortunate that you disagree. Sanders has self-identified as not part of any organized religion, and as not even very religious (and both sources you cited support this). As such, Wikipedia will join the major sources of information about Sanders: his Official Senate Bio, his Official Campaign site, and both of his autobiographies, in not labeling him as religiously Jewish. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Later: For those seeking a reliable third person source for Sanders' Jewish affiliation, I can suggest kurt Stone, The Jews of Capital Hill (2010: Scarecrow Press, ISBN 0810857316)' pp 483 - 486. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Kurt Stone has published the full Sanders entry at this link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Both of those, the book and the article by Kurt Stone, describe Sanders' cultural Jewish heritage. This RfC, however, is about labeling Sanders as religiously Jewish. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: MShabazz;s support !vote[22] and Kingsindian's support !vote[23] both contain a logical fallacy, and thus might be subject to being discarded per Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome:

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, @Curly Turkey, that's sort of a strange question to ask of a Catholic whose family has been in the United States since 1812. In short, not all minorities are based on ethnicity. Can I get a citeref on your "is not Judaism" part? Googling, I see the quote via a very right-wing site here[24]. In context he surely means "this is not [about] Judaism" or perhaps "this is not [only] Judaism" since he goes on to immediately mention Pope Francis. One muddled and unclear quote doesn't negate a person's religious faith. Not to mention the old Jewish saying, which I'm having trouble sourcing just now: "When your neighbor is ill, don't say 'there is a God and I hope He helps them'; say 'there is no God, and so I will help them.'" I reject the idea that we can't say Bernie Sanders is a Jew simply because he's humble. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have shown yourself to be not qualified to determine what the sources say.[25][26]

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

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

" 'I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we're all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,' said Sanders. 'And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.' In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion." Source: Bernie sanders, Quoted in an article in the International Business Times.[27]

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

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

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

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

In invoking Pope Francis, Sanders deftly and subtly made the point that caring for the less fortunate is not a value particular to any one religion.[28]

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

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

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

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

My apologies. I confused you with another editor.[29][30] (For the record, do you agree with or disagree with his position?) In your case, I have no idea why you You used a reference that says "at a Monitor breakfast Thursday, Bernie Sanders spoke of how his Jewish heritage informs his politics" and used it to support your claim about the Jewish religion. I only know that you did. I apologize for assuming that you made such a basic error for the same reason Sir Joseph keeps making it. You also quoted Sanders as saying "I’m proud to be Jewish…" as if that had something to do with his religion. If you could explain why you keep confusing "I am Jewish" with "My religion is Judaism" perhaps we can figure out together why you keep citing sources that support "I am Jewish" as if they supported "My religion is Judaism". At least a dozen editors have tried to explain your error to you without success, so could you please explain, in detail, why you keep citing Sanders saying "I am Jewish" as support for Sanders' religion being Judaism? Yes, I agree that you have that one source (the press kit) that backs up your position, but you don't have a second source, and those who oppose you have multiple high-quality sources that are direct quotes from Sanders. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

• Let Jews determine what "Jewish" means? Great idea! "In the most comprehensive study of American Jews in 12 years, a strong majority said being Jewish is mostly about ancestry or culture, not the religious practice of Judaism. 'A Portrait of Jewish Americans,' released by the Pew Research Center, shows strong secularist trends most clearly seen in one finding: 62% of U.S. Jews said Jewishness is largely about culture or ancestry; just 15% said it's about religious belief. 'Non-Jews may be stunned by it,' said Alan Cooperman, co-author of the study. 'Being Jewish to most Jews in America today is not a matter of religion.' "[31] It certainty isn't to Bernie Sanders, as he himself has said multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of any religion. Bald is not a hair color. Bald is the lack of any hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Off is the lack of any TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Barefoot is the lack of any shoe. Silence is not a sound. Silence is the lack of any sound. Never is not a date. Never is the lack of a date. Clear is not a color. Clear is the lack of a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. You had your chance to make your "atheism is a religion" argument at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes -- in fact you presented your case sixteen times -- and the Wikipedia community rejected your arguments with an overwhelming (over 75%) consensus. D.Creish is right; you have a grand total of one primary source, and no other source says that Sander's religion is Judaism. And no, I am not going to engage you in yet another long, pointless discussion, no matter how hard[32] you try to get me to do so. Both of us have made too many comments already, and others here are getting annoyed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Spiritual but not religious

Numerous credible sources describe Sanders as "spiritual but not religious" [33]; [34]; [35]. Therefore, I submit that per standard infobox inclusion criteria, the "Religion" parameter should not be filled out. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Not religious means not observant of Jewish ritual. Not religious does not mean that the person's religion is not Jewish. Furthermore he participated in the ritual of tashlikh in 2015. You are saying he "...drifted away from religious ritual as he grew older"[36]. Clearly tashlikh constitutes ritualistic Judaism. Of equally recent vintage is his attendance at the yahrzeit of a friend's father.[37] And in 1983, on the occasion of Chanukah, Sanders publicly recited the Hebrew blessings for the lighting of a menorah in Burlington, Vermont.[38] Only a person whose religion is Judaism has the capacity, from a religious perspective, of carrying out the recitation of berakhot pertaining to the lighting of a menorah on Chanukah. Wikipedia does not require reliable sources for every instance that an ostensibly nonobservant Jew participates in Jewish ritual. You may not be aware of it, but it is utterly unthinkable that Chabad, a religious organization, would entrust Bernie Sanders to light a Chanukah menorah and recite the blessings bringing that about, if they did not consider Bernie Sanders' religion to be Judaism. There is no need for participation in Jewish ritual at all. But the above three instances document that some degree of such participation can be reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support for all the reasons I've already given. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support i agree with Xenophrenic. i think this is being wrongly and emotionally framed as people "judging" Sanders "Jewishness". the truth looks very plain in this case. Nucas (talk) 10:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete RFC question

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

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

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

UPDATE: As discussed in this talk page section, "Ethnicity: Jewish" has now been removed from the infobox. I incorporate that talk page section herein by reference, so that the closer can have plenty more to read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

By "official documents where he was requested to identify his religion", did you mean his Official Senate Bio, wherein he conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God at all, while many of his Senate colleagues ([39], [40], [41], etc.) do? Remember that "Roll Call" is a media company that is anything but official (they might even have copied from Wikipedia), and the press .PDF file people keep pointing to has errors and vagueness (e.g.; saying he was elected mayor by 12 votes instead of 10, saying he was born in NY City instead of specifically in Brooklyn, mixing up Judaism and Jewish, etc). Whom do you suppose "requested" Sanders to identify his religion for that .PDF file? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Is Bernie Sanders Religion relevant to his public life?

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

Questions for you, SPACKlick, to help me understand:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

just marking separation from stuff above here

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

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

Sanders' biographer would seem to agree with you (and the sources you just mentioned). He says, "Bernie's Religion is the Revolution", and concludes, "Bernie Sanders might not believe in God, but he does have a steadfast and long-standing belief in the rights of the working class. That's his religion." Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

probably no consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

A press kit might be generally considered a reliable source, depending. But what the Wikipedia rules require for identification of his religious beliefs in the infobox is not just a reliable source, but one in which Sanders self-identifies WP:CAT/R in his own direct speech. (Religion, not heritage, ethnicity or culture.) Also, a reliable source becomes no longer reliable if contradictory reliable sources exist. Like if Sanders were to self-identify in his own direct speech that he is not religious. (He has.) Or if he were to self-identify with a completely different set of beliefs, and declare "this is my religion". (He did that, too.) Also, the reliable source is no longer reliable if it has errors and vagueness (e.g.; saying he was elected mayor by 12 votes instead of 10, saying he was born in NY City instead of specifically in Brooklyn, mixing up Judaism and Jewish, etc). The "press kit" you keep referring to is actually just a .PDF file, while his actual published Official Senate Bio at the same site conspicuously doesn't mention religion, church, or belief in God at all, while many of his Senate colleagues ([42], [43], [44], etc.) do. Yes, he is proud of his Jewish heritage, and yes he has self-identified as not religious. As for which Wikipedia rules you think you can apply or ignore against common sense, you'll need to take that up at the appropriate noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—What would constitute self-identifying in "direct speech"? You mean, "I am religiously Jewish" or "I am Jewish by religion"? People don't speak that way. In common parlance a statement "I am proud to be Jewish" constitutes self-identification. You say "Religion, not heritage"[45]. "Heritage" can mean almost the same thing as "religion". You say "Also, a reliable source becomes no longer reliable if contradictory reliable sources exist. Like if Sanders were to self-identify in his own direct speech that he is not religious. (He has.)"[46] No, he has not. Unless of course you are mixing up not being particularly observant of rituals and not being of the Jewish religion. You say "Or if he were to self-identify with a completely different set of beliefs, and declare "this is my religion". (He did that, too.)"[47] No, he did not. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

By "direct speech", the way I read it (but you are certainly welcome to ask at BLPN for clarification), is directly spoken by the living person -- as in, you can cite the time, date and location wherein the self-identifying took place (and in a perfect world, provide a video clip with full context). When you say "No, he did not", you do so with the realization that repeatedly saying something doesn't magically make it true, right? Are you saying it was someone else who said, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world , I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That is my religion."? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—what do you think "heritage" means. You say "When he said he is 'proud to be Jewish', we looked at the actual source and discovered that he was actually answering a question specifically about Jewish Heritage in the context of dual citizenship."[48] I think you are equating "heritage" with "ethnicity". But heritage does not necessarily mean ethnicity. Note the use of the word heritage, by a rabbi, and in relation to Bernie Sanders: "A rabbi at a temple in South Burlington, Vermont, complained that although Sanders 'knows he’s Jewish' and 'has a good heart,' the community would benefit from him openly embracing his heritage."[49] In another of your posts of today I find you quoting Sanders as saying "this is not Judaism". Here is a more full version of the quote: "In October, Mr. Sanders was asked on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' whether he believed in God.'What my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together and it’s not a good thing to believe that as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,' he responded. 'This is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more money.'"[50] From that you are deriving what? His "spirituality" can be about anything he pleases. He can pontificate freely about his sympathies for the downtrodden without in any way negating the abiding fact that he is a Jew. He changed the subject, something he is known for doing. He was asked by Jimmy Kimmel whether he believed in God. He prefaced what he was about to say by pointing out that what he was about to say was not about Judaism. He did so by saying "This is not Judaism". Then he continued. He went on to describe his spirituality which includes sympathies for the downtrodden. Does this in any way cloud the fact that his religion is Jewish? He can speak from any perspective he chooses to speak from at any time. He chose to not speak from a Jewish perspective, which is his prerogative. He probably wanted to seize the opportunity to say something that would appeal to a wider audience. He probably doesn't want to be pigeonholed as only espousing Jewish sentiments. That is probably why he points out that "This is what Pope Francis is talking about". He is probably taking the opportunity to connect with people from a wider audience. Bernie Sanders does not have to be asserting his Jewishness with every word out of his mouth in fact it would probably be counterproductive for a politician to do so. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like consensus is for leaving the field blank

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC at Template talk:Infobox is very badly flawed because it contains the language "('Jew/Jewish' is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)"[51] This language should be discarded. A person cannot self-identify as being Jewish and at the same time comply with that language. That is because people don't speak in a way that can satisfy the requirements of that language. They don't say "I am Jewish by religion". They are even unlikely to say for instance "My religion is Judaism". People don't speak that way. What is the point of creating requirements that are all but unattainable? Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Comparison with Joe Lieberman infobox

Joe Lieberman is the closest in office and situation that we have to Bernie Sanders, in terms of an ethnic Jew running for VP or POTUS. Notice how Lieberman's infobox is filled out and cited, and the citation [52] directly confirms that "For Joseph Isadore Lieberman, unlike all those other Jews in public office, is by his own description 'an observant Jew.' It is an observance he takes seriously, one that he displays prominently and that puts him in sharp contrast not only to the other Jews who have held high national office ...." Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Note: Please see revision of this close here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)