Talk:Bernie Sanders

main picture

can a 2007 date be appended in the text right below the picture. the picture is quite old and people should know they are looking at an old picture of the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.135.77 (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the photo should instead be amended to one that's available in the free use kit on his website? https://berniesanders.com/media-kit/ There's three here that are much better and have free use. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox photograph is also in the public domain. I would be a bit wary of using photos from his free use kit instead of his official senate portrait because the source, berniesanders.com, is a base for his political campaign. To me, that seems less neutral than his official senate portrait. Airplaneman ✈ 19:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to use a more recent photo regardless. Is there another public domain image from within the past couple years? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that a more recent photograph would be better for his main article. But besides getting one from his press kit (which I believe is a good idea), the Bernie Sanders sidebar recently changed to a more modern photo. What if we just swapped the two? Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 00:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just have the same picture for the sidebar and the main pic. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but at that point, I think you are getting a bit picky (or assuming that others would be that way). It's a picture. How is the official portrait "more neutral" in a literal sense? If you were talking about actual information, sure, but it's just an image. Dustin (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yea, it definitely is nitpicky. Airplaneman ✈ 03:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I suppose I am picky. I just think that the photo doesn't really match what he looks like and a more recent photo would do better. I don't see any issue about neutrality, though. I just think a more recent photo would accurately portray what Bernie Sanders looks like. 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Main problem would be using the same pic twice in the article...i like the option for the image used in the sidebar but its quite grainy (tried fixing it though), there is a really high quality image from September this year but people don't like it because Bernie is "looking serious" in that pic, they want a image of him smiling like the others candidates..--Stemoc 04:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not use the photo on his Twitter profile now? That's not on the BernieSanders.com webpage, and is part of that free-use kit anyway. Thoughts? 98.169.44.13 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Its still not free, "free-use" mediakit are not always free, thy are usually under the non-commercial licence which we cannot use, and twitter images are LQ so we cannot find the exif of the image used and find out if it has been taken by a government official or not...so no....we can't use those.--Stemoc 02:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I just took a couple of pictures at a rally. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237598081&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater and https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207516237638082&set=a.10207516263918739&type=3&theater. If folks think either of these is worth using, I'm happy to donate. Ma^t_chups 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Brooklyn College

Sanders is not an "alumnus" of Brooklyn College, since he transferred and graduated from another school. This keeps being re-added, but should not be, because it's inaccurate. Steeletrap (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition of alumnus includes former students who may not have graduated.[1] I do not know if non-graduates are eligible to join the College's alumni association. Have you looked it up? TFD (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

competitiveness

I have been wondering what Sanders has to do say about promoting the competitiveness of the American economy and i have found nothing anywhere (not in Wiki nor without). It is very clear that he thinks american government policies and law currently favors the rich over the poor and wants to use government to reduce economic inequality. but what does he say about growing the economy as a whole - about helping companies generate high-paying jobs - and keep high-paying jobs - here in the US? It would be useful to add this to the article... Maybe he never talks about it.... Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a question about improving the article. I am not interested in people telling me here on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Bernie Sanders did talk about improving the US economy and can be seen in the article itself. Although here are just some I've quickly picked up. Probably not the best but still something [2] [3] [4]. And Zero Serenity, I don't think this section is a forum as you implied but a way to improve the article by adding info regarding Bernie Sanders and the economy as a whole. (N0n3up (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Thanks. i looked at the huffpost piece and nothing there about competitiveness. the feel the bern says that his plan to spend $1T on infrastructure will throw off extra benefits, citing this study - but that study doesn't say anything about america being more competitive afterwards (I had hoped it would and I see how it could be - better transportation lowers costs which helps companies that employ people stay in business and even grow) but that study only talks about all the benefits of that are thrown off while the infrastructure money is spent (e.g building a bridge means steel has to trucked to the site and someone gets paid to do that and has to eat lunch so restaurants benefit) etc). The USuncut article comes the close to making a case, saying that increasing wages (which is durable, not just happening only while gov't infrastructure-building money is being spent) will increase income which will "increase consumer spending" (which means money for companies that sell the stuff that consumers buy, and workers of course need to create the stuff that is bought....but if they all go to Walmart and buy stuff made in China that doesn't help US workers).. and it says that reducing student loan debt will spur the housing market (and when the housing industry is doing well, it creates and sustains lots of local jobs). but none of these make those points directly. nothing about how he will (for example) help the few companies that still manufacture stuff in the US stay here - keep those jobs here - and still be competitive or even grow. i do wonder what his plans are. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

this goes there but is a blog and not something Sanders seems to be saying. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think we should search for Sanders' views on each issue and report them. Instead article structure should be determined by what reliable sources consider important. If you cannot easily find his views on this topic, then it lacks weight for inclusion. What's his position on U.S. relations with Tonga? Let's not turn this and articles about other candidates into battlegrounds in the U.S. election. TFD (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

TFD It ain't a political "battleground" but an aim to go into further detail in each category, this one being in regards to Sanders and the economy. (N0n3up (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

If we do not use the same weight in mentioning aspects of the subject, then we will present a different view than one finds in reliable sources. That is injecting our personal views about what is important and will present candidates in a different light from reliable sources, either better or worse. When you start defending and opposing candidates, it turns the article into a battleground. See Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. If Sanders wanted to make competitiveness of the American economy a major issue in his positions statements we would not need to go digging for it. We are not here to write an editorial article to discuss his positions and where they may fall short if we hold that opinion. Gandydancer (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Or at least until Sanders makes such statements. (N0n3up (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

• i found sources and added content first in the main article on his positions and then in this article Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent additions, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Gandydancer Although some might be news outlets (I've checked them), I think they'll do. BTW this question might seem out of the blue, but, do you support GMO? this is regarding this message left on my talk page left by TFD. (N0n3up (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC))

Yes he does and I rather hope that we find no need to bring this up here as I have seen several editors needlessly (IMO) hounded and threatened since the recent GMO AfD. This article has no connection to GMOs and Jytdog should be perfectly free to edit here with no mention of his feelings re GMOs. Gandydancer (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

well they were just reverted. I enjoyed learning about that stuff and adding it to the article. ya'all can do what you will. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a few minutes to look more closely at your edit that was deleted I have no argument with that either as it is true that we can only cover his positions in a very broad fashion here or it will be so lengthy and boring that people will just skim over it. I see that most of your addition was covered in one way or another elsewhere. However, I note that you deleted his opposition the the TPP and replaced it with "He has opposed free trade agreements" Why is that? Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

He has opposed every free trade agreement since NAFTA. I was summarizing very much with an eye to staying high level. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of NAFTA and CAFTA of course, and a China trade act, but what are all the other notable agreements that he opposed? Gandydancer (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On the Issues reports that he has opposed all the agreements.[5] However, we would need reliable secondary sources to analyze his views and that would go into too much detail. Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood. And we seem to be moving beyond the topic of the discussion thread which was "competitiveness." TFD (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) see this editorial by him from last spring for his overarching view. here is the list of such agreements: United States free trade agreements. you can see his voting record on them here. position on trade agreements is completely related to competitiveness. free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers; protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, mention of the TPP should be included and I agree with TFD where he says, "Also, if we mention these agreements, we should not link to free trade, because it implies they are free trade in the way it is normally understood." These are the ways that careful ways of using wording in an article can tilt the meaning in a certain direction. We don't need that here. It was a mistake for me to call this addition good before I'd had a chance to go over it better. Gandydancer (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You provide no reason for mentioning only TPP but hey if it makes sense to you to to focus only on his opposition to the most recent free trade agreement and neglect to mention his opposition to all free trade agreements (which is part of his consistent efforts to protect American workers) knock yourself out. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, Sanders was writing about the competitiveness of the U.S. worker, not the competitiveness of the American economy. I note btw that Sanders says these are not free trade agreements, so saying he has voted against all free trade agreements is injecting your personal interpretation. That again demonstrates why we need reliable secondary sources to analyze his positions and not use our own synthesis, which is prohibited by policy. TFD (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, the more detailed article re Sanders's political positions contains info on NAFTA, CAFTA, and the China trade agreements. This article contains only a line or two on each issue and there's not room for everything. I must say, however, that after so many years of pointing out the danger of having one editor pretty much in charge of our numerous GMO articles, it is ironic that I would see your attempt to add a political bias to this article as well. And here, as at the BP article, when you don't get your way you leave in a huff accusing the others of bias. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see no reason not to summarize his long-term position on free trade agreements and you provide none. It is a key part of his outlook and something that distinguishes him from other candidates. Nobody has any real answer to saving the rust belt that was created to a great extent by these agreements. It is heart-breaking to pass through those towns. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't SYN when he himself says it.

• It is his 4th bullet point on how he would reduce income inequality (his highest priorty) (see https://berniesanders.com/issues/income-and-wealth-inequality/ here] - higher than free tuition, higher than universal healthcare.
• "So-called 'free trade' policies hurt US workers every time we pass them" (his guardian editoral
• "Trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), the Central American Free Trade Agreement (Cafta) and the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China have been abysmal failures" again from the guardian source, emphasis added (he is listing only the famous ones - per United States free trade agreements and his voting record on them here (both already cited))
• "The TPP is simply the continuation of a failed approach to trade ... our overall trade policy must also change for corporations to start investing in America and creating jobs here again(again from the guardian editorial, again emphasis added)
• "First, the TPP follows in the footsteps of failed trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, and the South Korea Free Trade agreement. Over and over again, supporters of these agreements told us that they would create jobs. Over and over again, they have been proven dead wrong." his Huff Post editorial
• feel the bern links to this video posted by Iowa Pubic Television and titled "Sanders says he'd renegotiate trade agreements" where he says: "For Vermont, for Iowa, and for virtually the entire country, trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, have by and large been a disaster. I voted against all of them, and I am helping to lead the effort right now against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (and then he explains why, and then is asked, "How do you roll back the clock on those agreements?" and he says)... You renegotiate agreements. And what you say is, we want agreements that work for the American middle class."
• here on the floor of the senate about the Korea agreement (source here: "Mr. President, I know that my colleagues who are supportive of these unfettered free trade agreements will be throwing out all kinds of statistics about how wonderful these trade deals will be for the U.S. economy and how many jobs will be created. Mr. President, we've seen this movie before and it ain't gonna happen. Those jobs didn't materialize after Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Those jobs didn't materialize under NAFTA. And, they won't materialize under the Korea, Panama, and Colombia trade agreements that we are debating today. Unfettered free trade has destroyed jobs in my state of Vermont and in every single state in this country. Mr. President, Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Mr. President, let's be clear: approving these trade agreements is insane. Unfettered free trade has failed us in the past, and they will fail us in the future. We need trade policies that are based on fair trade, not unfettered free trade. ... Mr. President, we have got to fundamentally rewrite our trade policy so that American products, not jobs are our number one export. The middle class will not survive and our economy will not flourish if large corporations continue outsourcing American jobs to China, Vietnam, and other low wage countries. Over the past thirty years, we have been told by the Administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama that unfettered free trade will increase jobs in America. They have been proven wrong. emphasis added)

His stance on trade has been very clear, and very consistent, for a long time. It is something he cares a lot about and is a major theme of which TPP is only the most recent. Not including this is just bizarre, and "I don't like it" is not a good answer in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I don't think that anybody is arguing against the fact that he has oppossed NAFTA, etc., for years, as have most others in the progressive segment of the Democratic party. As one example, the US is directly responsible for bringing untold misery to Mexican farmers (for one) who had no choice but to leave their small farms when US corporate grown (and subsidized) corn was cheaper than what they could grow. A lot of them came to the US to find work and joined what I term a modern day slave class - sad but true. That is what is being called "free trade". It is the wording that is the problem. If you look at Sanders's stuff you will see that he never calls it "free trade" but calls it so-called free trade, etc. As for including it, it is in both of our additional articles, twice mentioned in one of them. Gandydancer (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This article, which summarizes his positions at a high level, misrepresents him - a lot - by discussing only his opposition to TPP. We are talking about something like three words here. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, NAFTA, CAFTA, and China can be added but that's not what you did. You removed TPP and replaced it with "free trade". There's a big difference. BTW, I had a little time to look at your other edits and noted that you found the info re Greenspan "hilarious". I ret'd that info. Gandydancer (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources. We cannot connect a vote for a trade deal 20 years ago with the TPP. We cannot report what Sanders says unless it is filtered through reliable secondary sources that take into account the different views on the subject. TFD (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please actually look at the free trade article. It mentions NAFTA in the first sentence and if you look at the opposition section, the arguments there = Sanders arguments. Gandy and TFD what exactly is your objection to linking to that article? In my view the best secondary source for his opposition to all free trade agreements is this from Vox which contextualizes things - making it clear it is probably the biggest difference between him and Clinton and has a quote from him saying that he has opposed all of them - the next best is this video I linked to above posted by Iowa Public Television (to the extent videos are ever good sources, but PBS is one of the most trusted news sources in america.

Gandy, yes, the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic Greenspan acknowledged that his model was flawed in a congressional hearing and it was made into a political "gotcha" with an edited video and added here in a SYN way to show that Sanders "won" the argument. We don't do gotchas in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is not our role to imply that Sanders is wrong, when no secondary sources make that comment. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:SYN and WP:PRIMARY. TFD (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not using WP as a source. I am saying that our free trade article describes what Sanders is opposed to. Your claim that it is not, is made on your own authority as far as I can see. I asked you above to explain and you have not. Please do. Please also respond to the sources I suggested (Vox and Iowa Public Television) for his consistent opposition to free trade agreements. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

See Manual of Style/Linking: "The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links." Readers who have better things to do than read the 200 articles linked to this one might assume that Sanders is opposed to what is commonly called "free trade", viz, where goods and services can be freely traded. Regardless of guidelines, it is wrong to misrepresent people in order to discredit them. TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, to say, "the content and source about Greenspan were ridiculously partisan and offtopic" is a gotcha and to then say, "We don't do gotchas in WP" is a sad attempt to bias this article, IMO. If there were any doubt at all that anything that has been stated may not be accurate, that would be one thing, but there is not. In this bio we are restricted to just a few words related to each of Sanders's achievements and his history and we must do the best we can with those few words. If this were a long article in a magazine we'd have several paragraphs to cover this. We don't have several paragraphs to cover it here. I have added yet another ref, though it is a blog. However, considering that no controversy is involved I believe that it should be acceptable. Gandydancer (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Focusing on the trade issue.... Sanders has a very clear and consistent stance on the free trade agreements the US has negotiated and signed since and including NAFTA, and on US trade policy, and this is important to him and his economic vision for the US. I have provided two secondary sources I think are good for that and a wealth of primary sources, including statements by Sanders himself, to support that. Please respond. Thanks. This may be something we will have to bring to a dispute resolution process, but before going there I wanted to get a response to a concrete proposal. Which is, in the "Political positions" section, replacing:

• He is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

with something like:

• He has opposed all United States free trade agreements since NAFTA, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the US trade policy under which these agreements were negotiated and signed; he holds that these agreements have benefited large corporations at the expense of American workers and he proposes renegotiating the agreements to better protect American workers.

References

I haven't properly formatted the refs yet. Happy to tweak that (and notice that I didn't link to free trade - am trying to work with you here) but the content on his position on trade needs to be here. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this Gandy. It is a move in the right direction. It doesn't say that he holds that these agreements have harmed Amercian workers and that is a big part of what concerns him - that is what he always talks about when he talks about these agreements, and I tried to capture that above. But it is more accurate now than it was. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

actually it is fine now, as it starts with "disaster for the american worker." thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There has never been an objection to including that he was against the previous agreements (it most likely was missed when we had to highly abbreviate this page when we added another article), but it was the way you wanted to word it, calling it free trade. Even above you admit, free-traders say that for american businesses to complete globally the US has to have free trade agreements (no tariffs either way) so that US companies are not at a disadvantage when they try to sell into other markets and they ~say~ that more sales means more jobs for american workers; protectionists say that the american labor market cannot compete with labor markets overseas and free trade is a race to the bottom for labor and they want to promote and protect the domestic market so american companies can make money here., and yet you have insisted on using the term "free trade" which sounds like a good thing, but Sanders objects to it. This is very basic George Lakoff stuff and I'm sure that you must know that. I really do not understand your objections here any better than I understand how you so snidely removed the Greenspan mention seemingly because you thought it was synth but now seem OK with it per your ref that is little different than the NPR ref, or even the YouTube as far as that goes. All in all this has been a very unpleasant experience and I hope that things will get back to normal here where we only need to discuss whether or not he's Jewish and/or a Socialist every few days. :=) Gandydancer (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

According to a 2006 CBS article, the US subsidized corn farmers $20,000 per year, while Mexico subsidized its farmers $100 per year. As a result of the elimination of tariffs under NAFTA, cheap corn flooded into Mexico and 2 million Mexican farm workers lost their jobs and emigrated (illegally) to the US.[6] Note that today 90 of corn is genetically modified. There are a number of reasons some people have criticized the agreement on corn, and they are not all categorical opposition to free trade, amd some people might not consider this free trade. We would need reliable secondary sources to make that determination. TFD (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Socialist in infobox?

I was surprised to see no mention of "socialist" in the infobox. I realize that's not the whole picture and never has been, but it is certainly part of the picture, major enough for the infobox IMO. [7] CometEncke (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Socialist means Obama to some (lol!) and more communist than today's People's Republic of China to others. The word is chic to some (whatever they think it means) and the Antichrist to others. It's better to use a less easily misunderstood term. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't generally put political ideologies in the infobox. For example. you will notice that Ronald Reagan's article doesn't have 'conservative' mentioned in the infobox nor does FDR's have 'progressive' in the info box. There are a few reasons for this. One, There are often more than one political ideology that can be ascribed to someone. Two, it's redundant as it is generally covered in the political positions section and categories. Three, there is often dispute over what actually counts as a socialist, liberal, conservative, etc. It's different for political parties since that's more or less official (e.g. Democrat, Green, Republican, independent). Alexander Levian (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

He clearly packages himself as a socialist, and has been described as one by both supporters and opponents. It seems prudent to include that basic fact in the infobox (while allowing readers looking for more context to read the political positions section. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what he calls himself. We don't put political ideologies in the infoboxes of other politicians. So why should we for this one? Alexander Levian (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, listing a politician's party affiliation is equivalent to listing their political views. Listing the Democratic Party and Independent doesn't really do Sanders' political view justice given his rather iconoclast positions/history. But, it appears that my position doesn't have much support and it's not an issue I'm going to push. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It is neither desirable nor practical to list the ideologies of everyone in the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Just an FYI, democratic socialist and socialist are two fairly different concepts to begin with, and what Sanders actually means (the way Wikipedia has come down on those terms not withstanding), as far as I can tell, is that he supports social democracy, e.g. existing programs such as social security, medicare and even, perhaps, their expansion, etc. I generally agree with Levian. Any of these terms are simply too loaded to be left hanging without any context in an infobox. (You could twist my arm to include social democrat in the side bar if this wasn't a WP:BLP concern, less because he's embraced the term and more because of the endless edit wars that might result; we'll have yahoos arguing that he also embraces nationalism, so why doesn't that make him a national socialist, etc. etc.) -- Kendrick7^talk 22:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not put "socialist" in the infoboxes of socialist politicians, even when, unlike Sanders, they belong to socialist parties. Kendrick7 has a point too, the Wikipedia article socialism is not about socialism in the sense that Bernie Sanders or modern Socialists mean. TFD (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Redundant autograph

The signature of Bernie Sanders is displayed twice in this article, on the right hand side, one below the other. Is this necessary? It seems rather redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJ1817 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That happens because there are two sidebars; the officeholder infobox, and the Bernie Sanders sidebar. They also both have pictures of him. If you want to discuss removing the signature from the second sidebar, the place to do so would be at Template Talk:Bernie Sanders sidebar. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Does he qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors?

Is anyone able to find more references about his father please? When exactly did he move to the US? Would Bernie Sanders qualify for Category:Children of Holocaust survivors? Has he spoken/written about this at length anywhere? Btw, is anyone able to find out if he is Orthodox, Conservative or Reform?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• User:Zigzig20s, Although there is no precise definition, the term "Holocaust survivor" is usually reserved for individuals who were actually in Nazi-occupied territory during the war. Judging form dating in the article, it appears probable that Sander's father left before the Invasion of Poland (most Poslish-Jewish immigrants to the U.S. came earlier than 1939). You would have to find the date of his emigration to know for sure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your response. I am hoping that we can figure it out together. If that is the case, what a great message it would send to the world for America to elect the child of a Holocaust survivor--freedom over barbarism! Either way, he must have written or talked about it, but I am not sure where to find reliable sources. I haven't read his book, Outsider in the White House, and anyway that wouldn't be a third-party reference. Perhaps journalists will ask him during the campaign and we'll be able to reference those interviews/articles then? But there must be some already. Please help me find them if you can. Have a nice day.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s He emigrated in 1921. from Słopnice. [8]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Still, it would be nice for America to elect its first Jewish president--especially these days, with the rise of antisemitism globally. In any case, thank you for finding this out. I still wonder if he is Reform, Conservative or Orthodox though. One of his top advisors, Richard Sugarman, is Orthodox.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

insufficient for wiki-purposes as it would require some WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but you can glean quite a bit from this article. Not orthodox. spoke at a conservative temple at least once. but most important, repeatedly described as secular or non-religious, so I think the whole R/C/O paradigm doesn't apply at all. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-is-proud-to-be-jewish-yet-low-key-on-religion/Content?oid=2758284. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Did he not attend a synagogue in Brooklyn as a child?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Per the articles I've seen, they attended mainly on holidays only, but he did attend hebrew school, but mainly went to get out of school and as social/cultural value. Regardless, where he went to 60+ years ago (primarily controlled by his parents) has not much to do with how we should describe (or think of) him now. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It should absolutely appear in the "early life" section, but it has to be referenced and specific. Which synagogue, etc. Since he grew up in Brooklyn, it may be a historic/notable synagogue. Equally significant to know if he was raised as Orthodox or other.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

per my link above, he says he was not orthodox, but does not say what he was. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I attended protestant church services for children and even had an aunt (deceased decades ago) who was a theologian as well as being confirmed when 15. My life's experiences have led me to become an opponent of religion per se. I am not seeking any office but would be extremely unhappy if you held my past over which I had no control against me. In a hospital form I recently wrote 'no religion'. One would have to know what Sanders's habits are to say how Jewish or not he is. Being genetically from Jewish stock is a biological description and does not tell us anything really. He was not drafted into the Army, it appears, and why that is would be more interesting. 58.174.193.5 (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Senator Sanders has not made the details of his religious observance and/or lack thereof a significant part of his campaign, or of his public persona in general. I don't think we need to make an issue of it in the article. He's Jewish, we say he's Jewish, I don't see the need for much more than that. If I look at the Hillary Clinton article, will I learn how often she went to church as a teenager? I hope not. It's not relevant. Neutron (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reflection of political campaign ads. Indeed, that would be a form of COI, which we reject. His religious background is relevant. (HRC is a Methodist, but we're talking about Sanders here.) It would indeed be relevant to his article if he attended a notable synagogue in New York as a child/teenager, regardless of his campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are making a somewhat common error. What is notable/relevant to wikipedia, is that which has been covered, and the degree to which such coverage is WP:DUE here, is directly proportional to the amount of WP:WEIGHT and attention it is given in the real world. One may be able to dig and find a source that answers your question. But the fact that such extensive digging was required makes it very unlikely to be something that wikipedia wants here. If it was indeed a notable part of his biography, it would be written about in a sufficient number of sources that answering the question would be trivial (or if not answering the question, it should be easy to point out multiple sources discussing the question itself). What is notable/relevant can change on a case by case basis. For example, the details of Obama's religion is more notable, due to the various controversies that have arisen in that area. Indeed it is very easy to find dozens and dozens of top-tier reliable sources discussing the minutiae Obama's faith. of There are no similar controversies for Sanders. Hes Jewish. People have talked about that. We talk about it too (primarily to say hes Jewish, but not religious, which is what the sources spend their time saying). Nobody (or very few) has talked in any depth about his R/C/O status, or which temple he attended as a child. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No! Details matter, and we wouldn't add very much anyway. But this is exhausting. (Did you follow me from the HRC talkpage?) Unless you can be constructive and present references we could use, I am not interested in being patronized by you; please don't hound me. He is Jewish; it would be good to know if he was raised as Orthodox/Conservative/Reform and which synagogues he has attended.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the one asking to include information. The WP:ONUS is on YOU to provide the sources and to build consensus for inclusion. I did not follow you. WP:AGF Gaijin42 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This started as a very nice and collaborative discussion with User:E.M.Gregory. Please, User:Gaijin42, if you have nothing constructive to add, stop talking to me. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I provided you with a link directly (or as directly as possible) answering the question you asked, and gave you policy based reasons why I disagree with your position. Constructive is not a synonym for "agrees with me". Gaijin42 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s, The Reform/Conservative/Orthodox classificaiton doesn't apply at all well to the Brooklyn of the 40s/early 50s. Only a few American Jews were Sabbath observers in tat era. The great majority of Jews might attend an Orthodox or Conservative synagogue or - very commonly - a synagogue organized by people from a particular village, mostly attended on the high holidays or personal occasions (saying kaddish, bar mitzvahs). Jews like this are sometimes called traditional (went to synagogue on the holidays, didn't eat pork). They were culturally Jewish and lived in Jewish areas, but not "religious" on the modern sense. There were also what is referred to in retrospect as "red diaper babies", i.e., the children of Marxist parents - this was also on a spectrum, both politically (the full Marxist spectrum had its Jewish adherents) and because some red diaper babies were taken to their grandparents synagogue on holidays, while many, many Jewish leftists were aggressively secular. Reform was for upscale neighborhoods and German Jews - not for Eastern European immigrants and their children. (The grandchildren of the 1880-1920 immigrants became Reform) Probably the majority of immigrants and their American-born children of Sanders generation were culturally Jewish in a passive way, attending on the holidays, but not observing much. Orthodox was a tiny minority, extremely unlikely to have included Sanders parents. It was very rare. I am painting here in broad, sweeping brush strokes. What might make be interesting would be to have articles on Sanders' parents. There are articles on Clinton's parents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely that Sanders' parents would be notable enough for articles about them. I have read the articles on Hugh and Dorothy Rodham and I do not think they are notable either, but that's not a battle I wish to fight. Neutron (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if Clinton's parents are notable, but there is sufficient information about them in Clinton's biographies to write complete articles about them. That is not the case here and may never be. TFD (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to address the original question— this might be helpful: http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-parents-holocaust/ —Morning star (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethics questions

Questions have been raised in the Rutland Herald: [9], Vanity Fair:[10] and probably elsewhere about the ethics/propriety (not legality, it was legal) of hiring and paying a salary to his step-daughter and wife.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The one article is over ten years old and the other one appears to be a hit piece (the tone is set with the first paragraph) based on an "investigation" by the "right-leaning" The Washington Free Beacon (hardly a reliable source). If this story grows legs then maybe it will be worth mentioning. As for now I'd consider this a non-issue.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet significance. I notice that the issue is not even mentioned in the Tom DeLay article. His payment of relatives is what started the enquiry. TFD (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Democrat/Independent

Bernie Sanders is still technically an independent in the Senate, though he is caucusing with Democrats in the New Hampshire primary for the Presidency. Therefore, his political affiliation in the InfoBox should really be changed to "Independent, caucusing with Democrats". 24.229.229.102 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree TFD (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• include transition info in body, not in infobox He officially joined the party on Nov 5. "I made a decision in this presidential election that I will run as a Democrat; I am a Democrat now," [[11]][[12]] Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Except he has not taken out membership in the Democratic Party. In accepting the nomination of the Liberal Party of New York, John Kennedy said, "I am a Liberal." But he was not a member of the Liberal Party,[13] he was a member of the Democratic Party. I could say I am a member of the U.S. Senate, that would not make me one. TFD (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree that this info is encyclopedic. We can word it: "Independent, caucusing with Democrats" thru 5 November, 2015, when he joined the Democratic Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with your text for the body somewhere, but thats too much for an infobox. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 02:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a discussion of Sanders' Party affiliation/s - BOTH in the infobox AND in its own section on the page. For my entire life I have known one thing about Sanders - that he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. It was like knowing that Buchanan was a bachelor, or that Andy Jackson served a giant cheese. It made them unique. Except, the Jackson cheese was not as trivial as it sounds. His administration truly did mark a transition from a government by "gentlemen of property and standing", to a more egalitarian government. We need to address this extremely distinctive and meaningful fact about Sanders: That was and is famous for being neither elephant nor donkey. The page needs to put the facts about his unique attitude towards Party in a subsection and on the infobox. What was he and when? And why? The people want to know!E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your RFC needs to be reformed to ask a question more succinctly to those who haven't been previously been involved in this conversation. In any case, I agree 100% that it should be discussed in the body, but thats a lot of info for an infobox. Perhaps "Democrat (previously independent)"? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it needs a discussion in the body. As for the infobox, I'm not sure what to do, if anything. It seems that there are two opposing statements: "I'm a Democrat now" and "he is still technically an Independent in the Senate," both correct AFAIK. Gandydancer (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reformulate
• 1.) Discussion in body of article on the history of Sanders party affiliations should be expanded.
• 2.) Infobox be changed to "Political Party:Democratic/Independent" with a footnote explaining that on Nov. 5, 2015 Sanders registered as a Democrat in Vermont, but in the Senate he is still listed [14] as Independent. And retaining Independent and Liberty Union Party as currently listed following "Other political affiliations" in infobox.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to register as a member of a political party in Vermont. Vermont does not provide any mechanism to do this. See previous discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that he is both an Independent and a Democrat at the same time, for different purposes. I realize this is probably beyond the capacity of Wikipedia to handle, because we like to be able to condense reality into single words in infoboxes, but it is nevertheless true. He was elected to his current office as an independent and the official Senate web site (http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ ) lists him as "I". I suspect the reason for that is that he has never written to the Secretary of the Senate and said "I am a Democrat now, please change my listing.") Whatever the reason, he appears to still be an Independent for purposes of his service in the Senate, though this fact has no practical effect anyway because he is part of the Democratic caucus. (Which is why he can be "ranking member" of a committee, which he is.) For other purposes, such as running for President and apparently for purposes of any future campaigns for office (presumably including future campaigns for re-election to the Senate, if any), he is a Democrat. Neutron (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

24.229.229.102 is correct. He is not a Democrat. This is very misleading. Even though he is filing in the Democratic campaign, he is not a democrat. http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/10/politics/bernie-sanders-democrat-or-independent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.184.33 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I've been able to tell over the years since I've been personally aware of him (since the mid 1990s), Bernie Sanders has never been a Democrat or a member of the Liberty Union Party. He's been offered both the Democratic Party of Vermont and the Progessive Party of Vermont nominations for U.S. Sentate a number of times in the past, but he's always turned them down to run as an Independent. From what I understand, he came out of the "Progressive Coalition" (now called the Progessive Party in Vermont) tradition in Burlington, but I don't know that he was ever directly affiliated with them as a political office holder in ther past. He has also always reliably caucased with Democrats in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate for several decades now. He is, right now, an Independent running for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States of America in the 2016 elections.

It is true that there's technically no way to officially register with the State of Vermont as a member of any political party, but that hasn't stopped many, many local & state political office holders from identifying themselves as Democrats, Republicans, etc. where Party affliations are allowed under local law. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Um, the point is that he is listed by the United State Senate as an Independent : [15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that he should be listed primarily as an independent with the notation that he has identified as a Democrat for purposes of his presidential campaign. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way to explain it - as a footnote, or parenthetically? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea, maybe someone else can implement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This would be the most factually accurate way. Mr. Sanders is still himself an independent running for the nomination of the Democractic party. If elected president, he would then be in office as a Democrat; until such time, he is an independent. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 13:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that this consensus revision was undone by User:Anythingyouwant later in the evening on January 31. I restored the consensus version. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 01:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree. I did not notice this discussion when I made the change. My bad. All the same, I think my edit was correct as a factual matter. No one here at this talk page has addressed the sources that I cited in that edit. For example, according to the first source I cited: "Sanders says he’ll run as a Democrat in future elections. He says, 'I am running as a Democrat obviously, I am a Democrat now.'" Additionally, I get hundreds of hits at the U.S. Senate website saying Sanders is a Democrat,[16] as well as many hits from the Senate website saying that he's an independent, so I don't think the Senate website matters much (they may be slow to update party affiliation). There's tons more of evidence about this, such as the following: PBS: "Democratic presidential candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., speaks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines, Iowa, on Aug. 15, 2015.” Wall Street Journal: "The Democratic Party also said its two presidential hopefuls, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (D., Vt.), would hold a debate in Flint on March 6 as a way to draw attention to the contaminated-water issue." CBS: "Sen Bernie Sanders (D-VT) responded to criticisms that his campaign was too 'idealistic,' and showed optimism about his chances in South Carolina." I have started a news subsection in the BLP about his party affiliation.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Childhood, youth

Lots of material about Bernie's childhood, youth, earliest political influences available in media interviews with Larry Sanders (Green Party). Flag User talk:Zigzig20s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposing subhead

• At present, Sanders' early political commitments - notably to desegregation/Civil Rights - are buried in a section headed: early life, education and family.
• I propose breaking them out starting from "Sanders joined the..." the 2nd sentence of paragraph 3 in the present childhood section, and moving the rest of that paragraph and the next paragraph through to its end: "as been a strong supporter of veterans' benefits." down the page into the next heading: Early Political Career, under a subhead entitled" Early political activism, or something similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• support Gaijin42 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Done. I think looks/reads better.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016

Article claims Senator Sanders is a Democrat, that is not correct he is an Independent. He is caucusing with the Democratic party, but he is not a member of the Democratic party. The article listed as a source is talking about that specific issue, as he is not a member of the party each state could refuse to put him on their ticket. Here is a proper source for his status, http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/senators_cfm.cfm?Name=Sanders&nState=VT or http://www.sanders.senate.gov/about You will see he is listed as an Independent. Also the correct marking for him is (I-VT), not (D-VT). 144.59.38.41 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Objected to, per prior discussion in the archives, and the plain language of the reference. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

There's also a current discussion of this, a few headings up the page. Neutron (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

He can sit as an independent in the Senate and still be registered as a Democrat, which he has had to do in order to get on the ballot in several states(most importantly New Hampshire, as Kendrick has shown). 331dot (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Which makes him both an independent and a Democrat at the same time, as I discuss in the section above. Neutron (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have proposed: "Political Party:Democratic/Independent" for the infobox, with a footnote explanation. See above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

MLK in lead

Sanders was down there somewhere

Charlton Heston (left) with James Baldwin, Marlon Brando, and Harry Belafonte at the Civil Rights March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom 1963. Sidney Poitier is in the background.

Sanders attended the "I Have a Dream Speech" in 1963 along with 200,000 others including those pictured at far right. It's fine to mention this in the body of the Wikipedia article, but in the lead? It's not in the lead for the BLPs of the people shown in this image at far right, nor even mentioned anywhere in some of their Wikipedia articles, and some of these pictured people actually accompanied Dr. King. So, I suggest to remove it from the lead of this BLP, but keep it later in this BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Support removal. It's very weird. "Attended event" is not something that I've ever seen in the lead of a Wikipedia biography before. This just seems to be an attempt to link Sanders with MLK. IgnorantArmies (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanders/O'Meara honeymoon

October 2007 interview with Jane O'Meara Sanders in the Vermont Business Magazine.: "Sanders: Yes. We got married in 1988. The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day Parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslovl with 10 other people on my honeymoon." Q&A: Jane Sanders, Burlington College Smith, Robert. Vermont Business Magazine35.12 (Oct 2007): 51. [18]. The bride says it was her honeymoon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's accurate that they honeymooned in the USSR, but we need to put it in proper context. See here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just want to point out: It is not reasonable to write in a way that implies that he was in any way soviet friendly. I understand that it's election campaigns going on right now, and as a consequence there are many who want to smear various candidates. Wikipedia should not become such a battleground. Dnm (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be reasonable if there's solid sourcing for it. I have no idea if there is or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Following the Sister Cities International policy of the Eisenhower administration, U.S. cities were paired with cities in other countries, including the Soviet Union. Burlington participated and sent its mayor and some of its councillors to visit their paired city. One result was that Ben and Jerry's set up a factory the Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A reasonable reading of her statement shows that it was ironic. Reporting the statement at face value is dishonest. TFD (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably a typo...

Article states that Sanders' family members died in 1912 "in the Holocaust." In 1912, the Holocaust was still decades in the future. Perhaps "1942" was the year the writer intended? -- User:Sagebrush52

I can't find what you are talking about. (also signed your post) -- Kendrick7^talk 04:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sanders Campaign DMCA Against Wikipedia

Why is there nothing in this article on Bernie Sanders' lawyers DMCA takedown attempt against the Wikimedia Foundation (and its withdrawal)? I looked in the talk page and didn't see any discussion of it. Though the story was not covered my the major media outlets, it did make the news in a number of sources usually considered reliable by Wikipedia.

• Ars Technica
• Boing Boing
• TechDirt
• Reason

I ask because I came to this page to see what Wikipedia said about the issue as it has shown up in an anti-Sanders meme alleging he "sues wikipedia on pretense of political button copyright, drops suit when wikipedia "sanitizes" his bio, removing Communist & Socialist Party details". I was surprised to see it not mentioned at all. I think that in the interests of transparency, when Wikipedia becomes part of a story, we should write about that, lest we give the appearance of a cover-up.

However, as I've done zero work on this article, I'm not inclined to Be Bold and got add this without seeing what the people who actually have written it think first. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

As a general rule, we're not big on WP:NAVEL gazing. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing is not sufficient to include information, it also must meet weight, which is determined by coverage in mainstream media. The Sanders campaign demanded that Wikipedia cease using copyrighted images and changed their mind on Jan. 15.[19] No information was removed from the article and you can check the edits.[20] On which conspiracy theory website did you get that information? TFD (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It was being circulated as part of a pro-Hillary; anti-Sanders meme on Twitter. I was not saying that the meme was true; just that it was out there. But to a casual observer, who is not versed in the details of Wikipedia, it does not look that far-fetched after reading the article. I know enough to look at the talk pages; most people using Wikipedia will not. Carl Henderson (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, you can check the edit history of the article. It shows every change made to this article and every version since its creation in 2003. Also, this article says, "While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America," and has a whole section about his membership and involvement with the Liberty Union Party. There are no reliable sources that he belonged to any other party and AFAIK the article has never made that claim. TFD (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

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

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

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

The RfC was specific in stating that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant guideline here is WP:BLPCAT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The author is Tracey R. Rich,[22] a lawyer with a suspended license[23]. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

We don't deal with comfort or lack thereof in regards to facts on Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not censored. One can be ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish (Fran Lebowitz is a good example of both), but they are two different things, and religion is a third thing (which Lebovitz isn't [24]). Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC); edited 05:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh. Cullen328 just put "religion = Jewish" in the infobox, claiming "Per talk page discussion".[25] If there is no consensus on the talk page, the right thing to do is to keep discussing, not pretend that there is a consensus and make the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph and Cullen, you are both mistaken about the facts. Yes, Sanders self-identifies as being of the Jewish religion, but he also identifies as being inactive in that religion.[26] So there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with us saying that he is of the Jewish religion and is inactive in that religion. The position that you are both taking puzzles me, because you are both asserting that I am seeking to characterize Sanders in a way contrary to his self-identification, which is simply false. Since you have both been participating in this conversation for quite a while now, you ought to realize that it is false.I should have known better than to get involved in a religious war at Wikipedia!Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political positions in lead

This lead is unusual in that the last part of it discusses his political positions. That may be somewhat useful during this election season, but this article is supposed to take a longer view. It would be much better, in my opinion, to mention in the lead notable legislation that he has proposed and wikilink the legislation, plus use adjectives to describe his general political philosophy. Including a laundry list of specific issues does not seem appropriate, and it also does not seem biographical because, for example, we do not say when he adopted those positions; we imply that he's always taken those positions, which is false (he probably wouldn't have been elected even in Vermont during the 1970s if he had been pushing transgender rights, and the primary climatic concern in the 1970s was an impending ice age so he probably would have been deemed unacceptable on that basis too).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic

change ((Democratic Party|Democratic)) to ((Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic))

Done, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The wording of the fate of his paternal relatives

I don't know what the proper Wikipedia conventions are, but I feel the text isn't as detailed and precise as it could be. It currently reads: "Eli's family was killed in the Holocaust." There are four sources given for this:

• The NPR article states: "Sanders' father's family was mostly wiped out during the Holocaust."[27]
• The New York Times Magazine article states that Eli "saw his family wiped out in the Holocaust".[28]
• Stone's book, The Jews of Capitol Hill, states that "his [father's] family had been wiped out in the Holocaust."[29]
• And, the most detailed description, from the Tablet article: "Most of Eli’s family was sent to concentration camps where they were killed."[30]

Perhaps it's the best we can do at the moment — without more information— but I just wanted to put it out there.—Morning star (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think our summary is accurate to those sources, but the relevance of the information to Bernie's bio is limited - we do not have any detail about how close of family/relations this is. At closest it would be uncles/aunts/cousins, and presumably ones that Bernie never met since he was born in 41 in America. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Reminder about Original research

Some editors on this page seem to have forgotten WP:No original research and appointed themselves Kings of the Jews. There is no such a thing as an "inactive Jew", and I challenge them to produce reliable sources that say there are or that Sanders is one. Until they can do so, it is impermissible original research| to say that he is an "inactive Jew".

I'd like those editors to carefully re-read the Washington Post article on which they're relying. It never calls Sanders an "inactive Jew", because there is no such thing as an "inactive Jew".

Furthermore, I challenge them to explain why Donald Trump says in its infobox that Trump is a Presbyterian with no qualification when the article says that he "is 'not an active member' of his church[334] and he "has not asked God for forgiveness for his sins".[337] Why is there one standard for Trump and another for Sanders? One for Christians and Jews? That's called ORIGINAL RESEARCH! (There are other names for that as well, but I'm going to try to be polite today.)

Before some troll starts running at the mouth, yelling "But WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS!", let me remind that troll what that essay actually says:

This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology.

I look forward to an explanation about why describing Sanders as an "inactive Jew" is not something an editor made up one day. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The cited Washington Post article says quite clearly (emphasis added):

“ [A]s an adult, Sanders drifted away from Jewish customs. And as his bid for the White House gains momentum, he has the chance to make history. Not just as the first Jewish president — but as one of the few modern presidents to present himself as not religious. "I am not actively involved with organized religion," Sanders said in a recent interview. ”

Therefore, it would be entirely proper to say in the infobox "Religion: Jewish (inactive)". In fact, I doubt it would be proper to omit the parenthetical self-identification, because readers would assume that he is an active member of the Jewish religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is no such thing as an "inactive Jew" and the article doesn't say that Sanders is such a thing. You're making up a class of people ("inactive Jews") that doesn't exist in reliable sources or in the real world. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're quoting me as supporting insertion of "inactive Jew" into the infobox. Your quote is bullshit, because I never said to do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're full of shit, as these quotes from above show:

• One source says that, and another source says that he is an inactive member of that religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Curly that merely stating "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox does readers a disservice, and makes it seem like Sanders actively practices the Jewish religion, which he has said he does not. But I don't agree with Curly that we ought to remove that material from the infobox. It would be much more straightforward to simply add the parenthetical "(inactive)". Sanders self-identifies as inactive, and we have lots of other parentheticals in the infobox. It's true that we don't add parentheticals to clarify how active the other politicians are with regard to their religion, but that's probably because other politicians have not identified as inactive.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• If Person X says "I am an inactive member of religion Y" then Wikipedia editor Z is not engaged in "original research" when he writes "religion: Y (inactive)". If you think otherwise, then I'd advise you read up on WP:OR.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Either of those would be okay, I guess, but the best thing would be to use the words that Sanders himself uses: "not active" (or equivalently "inactive"), unless you can find a good source that uses "secular" or "nonobservant".Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Joseph and Cullen, you are both mistaken about the facts. Yes, Sanders self-identifies as being of the Jewish religion, but he also identifies as being inactive in that religion.[31] So there is nothing wrong, and everything right, with us saying that he is of the Jewish religion and is inactive in that religion. The position that you are both taking puzzles me, because you are both asserting that I am seeking to characterize Sanders in a way contrary to his self-identification, which is simply false. Since you have both been participating in this conversation for quite a while now, you ought to realize that it is false.I should have known better than to get involved in a religious war at Wikipedia!Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You falsely conflate "religion" with "organized religion", Anythingyouwant, which indicates that you know very little about contemporary Judaism, where expressing a Jewish religious identity outside the confines of "organized religion" is quite common. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You're making stuff up out of whole cloth, and that's original research. (I advise you to read WP:OR. You're the one who wants to add material for which no reliable sources exist.) Sanders says he is Jewish, period. You are the one who wants to add qualifiers. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You're full of it. See my article edit here. Does it say "inactive Jew"? Of course not, because I never suggested inserting that language into the infobox. Does the language that I inserted into the infobox say that he's an inactive Jew? Not explicitly in that way, because the cited source doesn't say that explicitly. So please stop trying to twist what I inserted into this BLP, and address what I actually inserted into this BLP. Do you think that what I actually inserted was original research? Thanks in advance for your opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant You are making the mistake of conflating "inactive with organized religion" with "inactive with religion". The infobox is for "Religion". not "Organized religion". You know nothing about how Sanders practices religion and faith in his private life and home, but saying he is "inactive" says we know. We do not know. We only know he isn't involved in organized religion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Judaism is an organized religion. If he's not actively involved in organized religion, then he's not actively involved in Judaism.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if someone were to say he's an inactive Jew, whatever that means, that means he's an inactive Jew. That means for Religion, he's a Jew. If the infobox would ask if he practices his religion, then we can say, No. But it doesn't, it just asks an identification, what is his religion, the answer: Jewish. So until you go through the 534 other members of Congress, it is not really nice to single out the Jewish person. And Judaism is not an Organized Religion, you have 1 Jew and you can have 3 opinions. Why don't you let the Jewish person, namely Bernie Sanders, decide if he's Jewish nor not. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The Ted Cruz BLP says in the infobox: "Religion: Christianity (Southern Baptist)". Southern Baptist is a denomination rather than a religion, but it's a perfectly acceptable parenthetical because it clarifies.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, as you said, that's a denomination, not his practice. Catholic and Protestant is a denomination of Christianity, as well. But if you want, feel free to remove. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is an WP:OR assumption. Many people do not have access to an organization, yet they are still Jewish (or Catholic, or Muslim). Beyond that in the more liberal forms of Reformed Judaism, there is very little organization at all. What are your sources that say someone who is not involved in organized Judaism is not involved in Judaism? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant Here are some contrary sources :

• Columbia Encyclopedia "Also part of contemporary Judaism are the several Sephardic traditions maintained in Israel, France, Canada, and the United States by immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa and by European Sephardim in Europe and the Americas; the several Hasidic groups in Israel and the United States; the religious and secular Zionists in Israel and the Diaspora; the unorganized secular Jews, who maintain an atheist's or agnostic's adherence to Jewish values and culture; and those unorganized Jews who seek a religious life outside the synagogue
• https://books.google.com/books?id=cqMdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA316&dq=unorganized+religious+jews&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF1_zL2tnKAhUjyYMKHUKeDVMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=unorganized%20religious%20jews&f=false
• Search google books for "unorganized jewish" and you will find hundreds of references. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's blindingly obvious from the cited Washington Post article that the Post took his statement that he's "not actively involved with organized religion" to mean that he's not actively involved with Judaism. He very obviously wasn't saying merely that he had no active involvement with Catholicism or with Hinduism. And so putting the parenthetical "inactive" in the infobox is faithfully (pun intended) following Sanders's self-identification, and providing Wikipedia readers with the same useful clarification that Sanders himself has provided. The Post says he's "not religious", he says he's not religious, so I cannot understand the problem with indicating that parenthetically in the infobox. Many of the google hits you refer to are consequences of the fact that Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion, just like "gay" is both a sexual orientation and a state of happiness. In any event, "organized religion" is a special term with a special meaning, and ought to be your search term.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quotes from the same sources that can be used against your pov, But in any case, this is mostly moot, because you do not have consensus. In fact, I would say there is a clear consensus against your changes.

• "Sanders said he believes in God, though not necessarily in a traditional manner"
• "Sanders’s religious views, which he has rarely discussed" (not lack of religious views or lack of religion)
• " rejecting the formal trappings of religion" (note,rejecting trappings, not rejecting religion)

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to put "(inactive)" in the infobox. But I emphatically disagree that doing so would reflect any POV at all other than the Washington Post's POV and Bernie Sanders's POV. Anyone who reads the Washington Post article can easily see that, according to the Post, he is not active in the Jewish religion. I'm all done here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

While I haven't seen anyone actually advocate putting any variation of (inactive) in the infobox (it appears to be a straw man, used alongside the equally false claim that someone here says Sanders is not Jewish) I would note that we recently closed an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that showed an overwhelming (75%) consensus for the following:

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

Any variation of (inactive) would be a nonreligion, and thus not allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Luckily for us, he makes his religion very clear in the closest thing to an infobox a person can make for themselves, the press packet. He self describes as "Religion: Jewish" Parabolist (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The rules for a politician's press packet and the rules for a Wikipedia infobox are not the same. For example, if a politician puts "Children: None" in his press packet, we leave the "children = " section blank. Bernie Sanders has made it clear on multiple occasions that, while he is a Jew, he is not currently a member of the Jewish religion. See [ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-finally-answers-the-god-question/2016/01/26/83429390-bfb0-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html ], which says:

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

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nobody knows what Sanders' beliefs are and we have no evidence he is an "inactive Jew"—only that he doesn't participate in organized religion and perhaps puts little emphasis on spirituality in his life (?). He could very well be a practiser of Judaism in a personal way—we have no WP:RS evidence one way or the other. This "(inactive)" thing needs to be put to rest. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments -- religion in infobox

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

Survey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose. Sanders is Jewish, but according to the sources his religion is not Judaism (he is a non-religious Jew, AKA secular Jew). According to this source, Sanders is not particularly religious and indeed actively works to downplay his religion/lack of religion when asked about it. When someone is not particularly religious and/or downplays their religion, highlighting that person's religion prominently in the infobox violates WP:WEIGHT. Those who support this proposition with the phrase "Sanders is Jewish" appear to not know what the definition of the word "Jewish" is, and some appear to be ineducable on the subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Edited 02:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Sanders self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" and that ought to be the end of the matter. The only problem here is that a Wikipedia editor thinks they are better able to deternine Sanders' religion than Sanders himself. That is classic original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I haven't been following this page, and I came here from seeing the RfC notice. Given that the page says that he has said that he is proud to be Jewish, the fact that he is not observant is not relevant to the short description of him as Jewish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (or support with qualification) A number of reliable sources report he is non-religious. Spiritual belief in a nondescript higher power is not what users assume when we list "religion." I don't understand the number of support votes claiming he's Jewish - he's Jewish, that's not in question. The question is whether he's religious. Enough reliable sources say he's not to make the claim controversial and inappropriate without qualification. D.Creish (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose. Just putting "Jewish" or "Judaism" without a strong caveat is highly misleading and unnecessary. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support. He is both culturally and religiously Jewish. He went to a Hebrew School as a child and celebrated his bar mitzvah; he never recanted his religion; he even played the role of a rabbi in a 1999 film!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support I realize the question of Who is a Jew? has plenty of academic interest. But trying to minimize Senator Sander's minority status, such as it is, when he is currently running again a woman (whose agents constantly harp on her "minority status", and have coined the term Bernie Bro[32] 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 [33] [34], [35]. 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) [36]. 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)

Oppose: He has described himself as Jewish by background, but secular in day to day life.[37]--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:43, 5 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)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: MShabazz;s support !vote[38] and Kingsindian's support !vote[39] 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)

• 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[40]. 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)

Mayoral/house pictures

I would look for pictures of Sanders from his mayoral/House tenure, but I believe they will be copyrighted.

Why is the main picture under "Mayor of Burlington" that of the city hall? Buffaboy ^talk 21:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Official photos from the House of Repesentatives are in the public domain. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Minor language change in 'Tenure' section

Specifically the paragraph beginning "Sanders was a vocal critic of Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan"

The second sentence reads "In October 2008, after Sanders had been elected to the Senate, Greenspan admitted to Congress that his economic ideology was flawed" I feel the language of this sentence is too strong, and furthermore implies Greenspan admitted Sanders' statements quoted in the previous sentence were accurate.

As the cited NYT article explains, in his 2008 testimony before congress Greenspan admitted the financial crisis had revealed "a flaw" in his earlier blanket support for deregulation, but overwhelmingly stood by both his own actions and his wider ideology. I recognize that the headline of the other cited source (the NPR one) is "Greenspan Admits Free Market Ideology Flawed" but looking at the actual quotes the two articles provide, Greenspan's criticism of his own ideology is very limited. The single regulation he supports is "that companies selling mortgage-backed securities be required to hold a significant number themselves"

As such, I feel the language in the second sentence should be watered down, or that individual sentence removed. The link between that particular hearing and Bernie Sanders is fairly tenuous. --Mf299 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why is his "Personal life" section missing? He has a son, he is on his second marriage. Biographical information seems to be lacking. It doesn't even mention his marriage. IronWolve 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

IronWolve, that information can be found in the section called "Early life, education, and family". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Rabbi Manny Schevitz"

Bernie was in a low-budget movie in 1999, where he portrayed "Rabbi Manny Schevitz". I'm not kidding.[41][42] We have to add this. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Obviously. Has he been in other films? Perhaps he merits a "Filmography" section Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I added it, using the JTA reference. I don't think he's acted in anything else.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It was removed without consensus by User:Gandydancer, alongside his 2013 visit to his ancestral town in Poland and his limited knowledge of the Polish language, all of which was referenced content. I believe it should be restored. What do others think? User:E.M.Gregory (since you expressed an interest about his father's hometown)?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it merits a - very brief - mention, CNN [43] brought it into the news cycle, and says he did cameos in 2 movies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not determined by what cable channels bring into the news cycle, but if there are references for film cameos, I would say we should include a brief mention of it. Jonathunder (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

kibbutz name

accoriding to Haaretz newspaper, sanders was in kibbutz Shaar Haamakim. pleas add the kibbutz name. source: http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/world/america/us-election-2016/.premium-1.2842479 (hebrew) Yoodale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here's an English source saying the same thing. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I tlooks like it's being widely reported now. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So someone tweeted that 25 years ago Sanders told them he had stayed there 20 years earlier. I think that rates as a possible, but only because the press reported it. TFD (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if it's not confirmed, then it would be a bad idea to add it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Somebody has added it anyways. Should it be removed? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I took it out. There is no deadline and we need to present reliable information. TFD (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Split Early life, education and family

I think I'd be easier if we split the family as in (brother, wives, children wise) in that article section and creating a Personal life section and the info with his early life, high school info, college should be under Early life or Early life and education. Just my two cents. Also with the info about his Other pursuits can be merged into the personal life section like the Simple English article on Sanders. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Take a crack at it and see if it sticks. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey:: How does it look? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Looks fine to me, but I'm sure somebody will find fault with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about religion

The religion section cites an obscure source saying that some people speculate Sanders is lying about his belief in God. Crap like that does not belong in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neither the source nor the article says what you claim. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This BLP says:

“ He has rarely talked about religion and downplayed questions of religion.[221] which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic.[227] Sanders has said he is "proud to be Jewish" but is "not particularly religious",[30][221] saying he believes in God.... ”

Sanders says he believes in God. We state that correctly. A belief in God precludes agnosticism and atheism. Thus, we should delete the words "which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic". The speculation that he's lying is from unnamed people in an obscure source, and it has no place in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The source doesn't say that people are accusing him of lying. The source says that his reticence to talk religion has led people to erroneously believe he may be agnostic or atheist. As does our article. The source reports on wide speculation, but the both source and the article refute it. Further proof is Zigzag20s's statement that "many readers will be relieved to find out that Sanders is not an atheist". It's not a non-issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted the word "erroneous" for the time being.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

"which has drawn speculation that he may be atheist or agnostic"

This statement has been added to the article, and cited to an April 2015 student opinion piece in a California State University, Northridge newsletter [44] (not a reliable source). The student opinion piece does not back up the statements, linking only to one April 2015 Patheos article: [45] which does not substantiate at all but instead links to this site/article which disproves the whole thesis: http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/bernie-sanders-disappoints-atheists-strong-religious-feelings/. Since we've got multiple sources confirming that Sanders believes in God (and we've stated and cited that he does in this Wikipedia article), this inaccurate and non-RS speculation has no place in the Wikipedia article, and at worst is a WP:BLP vio. I think it should be removed as both irrelevant and inaccurate. We publish encyclopedicly notable facts, not random inaccurate speculations. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Then please remove it per current WP:CONSENSUS. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to explain your motives, Softlavender. The article makes it crystal clear that Sanders is a Jew who believes in God, so that's obviously not the issue. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, I've already removed it twice, User:Gaijin42 has removed it once, you have removed it, but Curly keeps putting it back despite rules against edit-warring. I'm not going to edit-war about it. Maybe another editor will get involved, to remove this stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Here's an idea: talk about it. I've refuted your accusations fairly thoroughly. Why not address that instead of tag-teaming to get it removed? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There has been no "tag-teaming" here. Editors have not coordinated their actions. Instead multiple editors happen to think you're wrong. In any event, I have inserted the word "erroneous" into the BLP, which should take care of the problem for now, somewhat. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it's a WP:BLPVIO (and cited to a completely non-RS source which does not even substantiate but actually does the reverse), I've removed it per this consensus. Removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation by any stretch of the imagination, nor is there anything resembling a consensus for what you propose. You'll have to self-revert. You have this habit of bullying your way in these articles, don't you, Softlavender? You didn't even attempt to address any issue I raised. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, whatever, fuck this noise. Fuck the fucking article up any fucking way you want—you can all call each antisemites till your fingers get sore. This article's a lost cause. Take the fucking keys, Softlavender, the house is all yours to push whatever fucking editwarring POV you want. You can all have a great big motherfucking circle jerk to celebrate one less voice of moderation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Take a break. Unwatch the page. Others here have got this. I have every intention of bringing this situation up at WP:AE, and will drop you a note on your talk page when that happens so you can comment where it counts. This is not the sort of problem that can be solved with incivility. This sort of problem can only be solved with topic bans. (To all reading this, note that I expressed no opinion regarding Softlavender or his edits. I haven't even looked into that and have no idea at this point what was done or whether or not it was within policy) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP-violating "sources"

Since when are opinion columns reliable sources for a BLP? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, we've pretty much settled this and removed the material entirely, per current consensus, for all of those reasons and because the "sources" the student opinion piece links to happen to refute the entire statement. Softlavender (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)