Jump to content

Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Discussion started at WP:No original research/Noticeboard

I've started a discussion at WP:No original research/Noticeboard#Is Bernie Sanders Jewish or is he "Jewish"?. Some editors are feeling empowered by a parenthetical comment in a section of examples to engage in original research, and that's just ridiculous. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It's unfortunate you had to start that discussion because of the Wiki-illiteracy displayed by so many on this page. While I wish it were not necessary, Kudos for doing so.Kerdooskis (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No original research is needed. Just follow the sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There are none so blind as Wikipedia editors who will not see. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Except perhaps those who think they already saw and therefore refuse to open their eyes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
CS Monitor: Bernie Sanders "I'm proud to be Jewish." http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2015/0611/Bernie-Sanders-I-m-proud-to-be-Jewish. , BTW, how "ACTIVE" is Donald Trump in his religion? He said he hasn't been in church in years, are you editing his page?Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. "He says he's Jewish"
  2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
  3. GOTO: #1
--Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Yawn, at what point do things get through your head? The question is not if he's religious. The question is what is his religion and that has been answered a dozen or so times. Why is it so hard to get through? Bernie says it, his press kit says it. I know you're going to post your stupid goto thing again, but you need to stop singling out the Jews, it is not cool, it is disgusting. Sir Joseph (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
If he isn't religious, then his religion is "none". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
How about you let people who are part of that faith determine if that person is part of that faith, and Bernie says he is part of that faith, so you can take your CIR and shove it. He says he is Jewish. He doesn't need to be a practicing Jew to be part of the religion. That is not how the Jewish religion operates. Just because YOUR religion may operate that way, doesn't mean HIS religion has to operate that way. Saying his religion is none is a violation of BLP considering that he says I'm proud to be Jewish in respect to his religion. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
No, Guy Macon, he isn't religious, and his religion is Jewish. "He is not religious" means that he does not attend synagogue, observe Jewish holidays, engage in Jewish rituals, etc. It means that and that only. You are misconstruing what sources are saying. Had sources wanted to say that "his religion is none", they could very easily say that. Similarly a source could very easily say, for instance, that Sanders' ethnicity is Jewish, but that his religion is not. Could not a source have said that? That is your core argument, is it not? Sources are not shy and sources have a good command of the English language. They are not expressing what you are purporting that they are expressing. Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to keep things WP:CIVIL please. Now if he said he was Christian that would be a different story since it is *only* a religious identity. However, "Jewish" is a religious identity, but it can also be an ethnic identity. For example, I am Atheist when it comes to religion and don't practice Judaism, but I am ethnically Jewish and therefore identify as "Jewish". The same may be the case for Sanders. Unlike with other religions, there is the question of Who is a Jew? and in what ways are Jewish people Jewish i.e. religion, ethnicity, etc. Since Sanders is not involved in organized religion according to the reliable sources, I don't think we have enough evidence that he is Jewish with respect to religion. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

that may be how you identify, but his press kit states, religion: Jewish. And Wikipedia policy says we go by that. Simple as that.Sir Joseph (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Still too ambiguous. Since he's not religious and since the press kit says "religion: Jewish" (a term that can also refer to ethnicity) rather than "religion: Judaism" (a term that can only refer to religion) there just is not enough evidence that his religion is Judaism. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • it says religion, not ethnicity. How much more unambiguous can you get? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The answer is "Judaism" would be more unambiguous which I just mentioned. An ambiguous term was used to refer to Sanders's "religion", but he has also said that he is not religious. If it would have said his religion was Judaism despite him saying he isn't religious then it would be easier to say that his religion is Judaism (unless he became non-religious after that source was released). Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide what religion people are, or to decide what terminology may be used to describe a religious belief. He says his religion is "Jewish". So should we. Neutron (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Prcc27—Sanders says "I’m proud to be Jewish" and Sanders lists his religion as "Religion: Jewish". This satisfies our policy requirement for Infobox inclusion of religion as per self-identification. Sources could easily say that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but that his religion is not. But they do not say that. Sources do not say that because sources are aware of the lengthy history of secularism in Judaism. The Jewish religion is never negated by failure to be religiously observant, and sources are aware of that. Wikipedia editors can hold all the opinions they want concerning comparative religion but those opinions don't replace sources. Judaism and Christianity for instance don't match up completely. There may be a strand of secularism in Christianity but I don't think it is as pronounced as in Judaism. We avoid introducing bias into our articles by adhering as closely as possible to the wording found in sources. By doing so we let sources sort out the differences between various religions. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders also says he would be the best president. Should we put "Best candidate for president" in the info-box? TFD (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
If that isn't a reason to not put an inaccurate one-word description in the infobox but instead to put a longer, nuanced explanation with references in the body of the article, I don't know what is. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I take it you didn't read the article then. It further RS'ed the fact that he's Jewish even according to your holiness, Guy Macon's severe guidelines and restrictions. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Your comments above violate WP:NPA. Knock it off or you will be blocked. Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—it is important that editors not misconstrue sources. Bernie Sanders is sourced as being Jewish. That is the only reason for the Jewish designation in the Infobox. Additionally no source has been presented even remotely calling into question his Jewishness. It is time to drop the stick and back away from the horse. Bus stop (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Per the above NYTimes piece, and this CNN interview, wherein he states, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world , I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That’s my religion. That’s what I believe in", it is clear that the infobox field labeled |Religion= requires a much more nuanced explanation than what space allows. We're not going to find a convenient single-word factoid for that infobox field which accurately conveys the various, complicated and sometimes conflicting reliably sourced explanations of what Mr. Sanders' religion is. (And before someone screams "He's Jewish!", of course he is, but quit changing the subject. This is about Sanders' religion.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—isn't Jewish a religion? Bus stop (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"Jewish" is a religion, and being "gay" is a state of happiness; both words have more than one meaning. An eye is something through which thread passes, but it may also be something that sees. We hold these truths to be self-evident.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Gosh, I dunno, Bus stop. When I plugged "Jewish" into Wikipedia to find out, it redirected me to Jews, the people, and the disambig note further informed me: This article is about the Jewish people. For their religion, see Judaism. But I've heard Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, so who knows? In reality, if just one person, any person, declares "______" to be a religion, then it is a religion - so the question really has no bearing on this matter. Now back to the actual issue: Sanders' religion. Even if you contend that his |Religion= Jewishishnessism, you must also agree that there is at least some disagreement among reliable sources; those describing his non-religiousness, not-very religiousness, secularist, humanist, non-practicing-ism. As such, putting a single word in the infobox does not convey what the totality of reliable sources convey about the subject's religion (or lack thereof). It risks misinforming readers who might only read the lead and the infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Xenophrenic, "...Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Thus you need to look to sources other than our Jews article or our Judaism article. It is hard to take much of the rest of your comment seriously because you seem to be implying that for instance being a secular Jew would disqualify his Jewish designation in the Infobox. Is there any basis for that? There is none that I am aware of. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a shame that you don't want to take my comment seriously. Specifically the most relevant part, you must also agree that there is at least some disagreement among reliable sources [about his religion] ... As such, putting a single word in the infobox does not convey what the totality of reliable sources convey. Perhaps you will have a change of heart. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen the disagreement among reliable sources to which you refer. Perhaps you can present for instance a bullet list of such disagreements found in sources thus allowing for the possibility of refutation. You are referring to a "change of heart" but there are no subjective feelings involved. Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen the disagreement...
Then I must apologize; I must have you confused with another editor who has been very involved with this issue, and has repeatedly addressed almost all of the disagreements across multiple venues. I've heard several of the disagreements, and seen the edit warring. "Jewish is a cultural description → no it isn't, it's a religion"; "He said his Religion = Jewish → no, a flunkie staffer did in a press kit"; "He said he's proud to be Jewish → No, he was responding to a question about Jewish Heritage"; "But he says he is Jewish → But he says he isn't religious → But then he says he is religions and spiritual, but it's a form of empathy/collectivism, and adds 'this is not Judaism'". I really don't need to know who's arguments and personal interpretations of the sources are "more right"; it is enough to know that the level of disagreement in what the sources are saying precludes us from filling that infobox field with the required unambiguous accuracy. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You say "...the level of disagreement in what the sources are saying precludes us from filling that infobox field with the required unambiguous accuracy" but you refuse to itemize these supposed "disagreement[s]". Normal varying descriptions are to be expected. His religion remains Jewish. Any darn fool knows that. You are apparently unwilling to contest that Sanders' religion is Jewish. You previously say "It risks misinforming readers who might only read the lead and the infobox."[1] The real fact of the matter is that you are "misinforming" the reader by omitting the fact of Sanders' religion from the Infobox. We are here to provide correct information and it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we know that the correct religion of Sanders is Jewish. The sources tell us that and he explicitly tells us that. What do you think "Religion: Jewish" means when he presents that in his press packet? We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason. That reason concerns self-identification. Bus stop (talk) 10:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
you refuse to itemize these supposed "disagreement[s]"
Incorrect: I've issued no such refusal. The disagreements have already been laid out for you, with sources, in multiple locations on Talk pages (see above), on noticeboards, in RfCs — and you have argued your positions at every turn. The simple fact that you are still arguing today should alert you to the reality that your proposed use of that specific infobox field is inadequate. And yes, misleading. And now you are requesting that I repeat all the same concerns yet again so that you can argue against them yet again? You've just clearly demonstrated why your simplistic proposal for what should go into the |Religion= field is not a solution. Infobox fields are for brief, unambiguous, uncontroversial factoids — and are to be left blank otherwise, lest we risk misinforming readers.
it is beyond any reasonable doubt that we know that the correct religion of Sanders is Jewish
Reliable sources disagree. Some reliable sources convey instead that he is not religious. Sanders himself makes it a point to follow almost every utterance about his Jewish heritage with a disclaimer that he isn't religious. When asked directly, "is there a higher power, what do you believe in?", he specifically avoided mentioning God, he specifically avoided saying his religion is Judaism, and instead spoke about "how we are all in this together", concluding with "That is my religion." That is self-identification. And yes, I've heard your pronouncement that "Jewish religion is never negated by failure to be religiously observant", but I'm fairly certain that for the purposes of an infobox field on Wikipedia, a person's religion is whatever they say it is, and your proposal does not comprehensively convey Sanders' religion.
he explicitly tells us that. What do you think "Religion: Jewish" means
That has already been explained to you. A political press kit ≠ explicit Bernie Sanders declaration. "Jewish" does not always = Religion. Other reliable sources conflict, saying he is actually not religious. You are welcome to disagree, but we are not welcome to pretend the disagreements do not exist by using the infobox to convey incomplete/inaccurate content.
We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason.
We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Sanders' religion is Jewish. The religion of this secular Jew is Jewish because he says it is. You are the one displaying a reluctance to abide by sources. Yes, he says he is not religious. He does not overly involve himself in ritual functions. His religion remains Jewish. You would like us to believe that there is some unclarity of the fact that his religion is Jewish but there is not. It could certainly well be the case that a person could be only ethnically Jewish. But sources have to tell us that. There is no source saying anything remotely like that. When sources wish to communicate that merely a person's ethnicity is Jewish, they articulate that. For instance, is the religion of the father of Barry Goldwater Jewish? To answer that question you must look at sources. You do not engage in original research if you wish to properly edit Wikipedia. "Although his father was ethnically Jewish, however, Goldwater himself had been raised as an Episcopalian by a devoutly religious mother." We have support in this source for the religion of the father of Goldwater not being Jewish. Where is the comparable source concerning Bernie Sanders? It does not exist? Then we are obligated to abide by the findings of the relevant and applicable sources. Sources must be particular to Bernie Sanders. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Sources are perfectly capable of deploying the English language to express any thought they wish to express. A source could easily express that Sanders' ethnicity might be Jewish but his religion is not. On your part there is a conspicuous absence of any source articulating anything remotely like that. Why is that? Sources have a good command of the English language. Yet they don't in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. You are reading into sources to find implications that are not there. Please see WP:OR. Alternatively please show us a source supportive of your argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Help me out here. Please quote back to me my "argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish." Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

they don't in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Jewish
They also do not in any way imply that Sanders' religion is not Scientology. This does not make Sanders a Scientologist. What reliable sources DO say is that Sanders isn't religious — he avoids being pinned down on matters of religion — he could potentially be the rare "nonreligious President" of the US. His religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are simply not a significant part of his public life and notability. And as such, trying to shoehorn Sanders' "religion" into a single word to be showcased against Wikipedia policy in an infobox is ...suspect. Which reminds me of a thought I just had...
We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason.
We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bernie has publicly selfidentified as being Jewish and in RS has proudly said he is Jewish. This is just a vendetta of sorts by a few editors, I guess. When every news source is reporting Bernie Sanders first Jewish candidate, yet on Wikipedia, he's not Jewish, you might want to take a step back and ask why. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  1. "He says he's Jewish"
  2. "Jewish is also an ethnicity, does he say he's religious?"
  3. GOTO: #1
Here we go around the loop again... :(
Free clue: Nobody, not a single person, disputes "Jewish" or "Candidate". "First" is in question, and the consensus is clearly against "Religion = Jewish". So please, for the love of YHVH, break out of the loop and stop saying "He says he's Jewish" over and over. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, we go by RS, and all the RS say he is the first Jewish candidate to win a primary and that is indeed something that should go in the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:RS is not the policy which determines what goes in the WP:LEAD. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—you are having a difficult time understanding some simple facts. Sanders' not being religious does not mean that he is not Jewish, and I do mean "by religion". Had sources wished to say that he was not Jewish, they could say that. Sources have a good command of the English language. It is merely your original research that Sanders' not being overly involved in ritual activities somehow renders him not Jewish by religion. That is your stumbling block. You are placing that stumbling block in front of yourself. It is causing you to reach the farfetched and patently incorrect conclusion that Sanders' religion is somehow not 100% Jewish, and you are making our article pay the price for your fundamental misunderstanding and failure to abide by the findings of sources. When you say "What reliable sources DO say is that Sanders isn't religious — he avoids being pinned down on matters of religion..." you are speaking gibberish as concerns your argument that Sanders' religion is not entirely and clearly Jewish. Reliable sources happen to comment enlighteningly on this: "Rabbi Joshua Chasan, the rabbi emeritus of Burlington’s Conservative synagogue, Ohavi Zedek, who has known Mr. Sanders since he was Burlington’s mayor, said Mr. Sanders 'does not have to wear his Judaism on his sleeve in Vermont or anywhere else to be a Jew.'"[2] Is there some reason that you don't bring sources? Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of that above paragraph appears to be referring to an editor other than me. Getting back on track...
please show us a source supportive of your argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish --Bus stop
Help me out here. Please quote back to me my "argument that Sanders' religion is not Jewish."
We have a policy of WP:BLPCAT for a reason. --Bus stop
We certainly do, and I would caution against being selective as to which parts of it we want to follow. The infobox field regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. I know you contend Sanders has self-identified his religion as Judaism (via the word 'Jewish'), and there is already disagreement on that, but take another look at the part that says his religion also has to be relevant to his public life or notability. Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy. With Sanders' unconcern, reluctance and even avoidance of things "religious" being so well documented, it makes me wonder just what the real reasoning might be behind such a determined effort to convince people that it is so relevant to his public life and notability that it should be (inadequately) showcased in an infobox. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—you have to stay on topic. You are saying, are you not, that "Sanders isn't religious". And you are saying, are you not, that "when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy". This does not translate into his not being Jewish. As for why it matters that our article note in the Infobox that he is Jewish (and I mean by religion)—there are numerous reasons. Reliable sources make much of his being Jewish. Reliable sources in general don't fail to note the religion of presidential candidates in general. Reliable sources are also concerned with the "firsts" involved. Or "seconds" or "thirds". It is a rarity for a Jew, again by religion, to achieve such a high office. It is not that it is unheard of. There are precedents. But this is a novelty and sources are concerned with this. I don't think I would be exaggerating to say that sources obsess over this. Your argument strikes me as odd. Are you not concerned that our article would be marked by the conspicuous absence of "religion" in the Infobox? The other thing, that I started this post on, concerns your apparent concern with Sanders' lack of religiosity. That is a basic misunderstanding that you are laboring under. That he is a secular Jew does not render him not Jewish, and let me quickly add—by religion. You say "Sanders isn't religious". That is not your concern in the least bit, and that is not Wikipedia's concern—as pertains to any question as to whether or not the Infobox should take note of his religion. Not being religious merely indicates the type of Jew he is. Wikipedia doesn't have grades for Jews that allow for some high-scoring individuals to be granted a "Religion" field in the Infobox. Many Jews are not religious. Actually all Jews are different, with religious observance falling along differing points on a spectrum. This particular individual, Bernie Sanders, is noted for activities and attainments in the political sphere. The onus is on you to tell us why in the instance of Bernie Sanders the religion should be omitted from the Infobox. Sources certainly don't overlook his religion. And our corresponding articles on individuals hailing from other religions do not omit information pertaining to religion. Why are you opposed to completing the "Religion" field in the Bernie Sanders article? Bus stop (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
You are saying, are you not, that "Sanders isn't religious"
Incorrect. Reliable sources, and Sanders himself, say that and paraphrased equivalents. Those that even bother to mention religion at all. I don't personally know the man, so I am not qualified to say that myself. Perhaps a little more care in reading on your part?
you are saying, are you not, that "when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy".
Incorrect again. I didn't say that. That is a reasonable paraphrase of what reliable sources have said about Sanders.
This does not translate into his not being Jewish.
I wouldn't know. Again, you're speaking to the wrong person; those descriptions were from reliable sources, not me, and I certainly didn't "translate" anything for you.
note in the Infobox that he is Jewish (and I mean by religion)—there are numerous reasons
Great! Let's hear them.
Reliable sources make much of his being Jewish
I disagree; in fact, I've observed the opposite. Most reliable sources discussing Sanders don't mention religion at all, and only mention his Jewish heritage in passing, if at all. And the scant minority of sources that do mention his religion at all only do so to mention that he isn't very religious, if at all; doesn't talk about it; doesn't "wear it on his sleeve"; doesn't attend synagogue; drifted away from cultural rituals as he got older; doesn't observe... in a nutshell: it isn't relevant to his public life or notability. Try again?
Reliable sources in general don't fail to note the religion of presidential candidates in general
That sounds like the same faulty reason, reworded — and I disagree for the same reasons. Of the fraction of sources that cover candidate's religion, the ones mentioning Sanders all appear to shrug it off as simply "Jewish upbringing, but not religious now" and nothing more. There are more sources exclaiming "oldest president ever" and "first socialist president ever". Try again?
Reliable sources are also concerned with the "firsts" involved. Or "seconds" or "thirds"
Yeah, a small fraction are - I mentioned that. And should he become the "first Jewish president", I doubt anyone is going to argue to keep that information out of the Wikipedia article. But we're not talking about that; we're discussing specifically the |Religion= field in the infobox, and you are supposed to be showing how Sanders' religion is relevant to his notability now. Try again?
It is a rarity for a Jew, again by religion, to achieve such a high office
Senator? At the risk of sounding like a broken record: I disagree. Certainly not a rarity. Now should he manage to become president, and his religion becomes a significant and relevant part of his public life and notability, we can certainly revisit that.
I don't think I would be exaggerating to say that sources obsess over this.
And I am seeing the complete opposite. On what metric are you basing your opinion? Sanders' religion, or lack thereof, gets minimal coverage in media and sources, and the coverage it does get usually ends up painting it as inconsequential to his candidacy, and certainly to his overall bio.
your apparent concern with Sanders' lack of religiosity. That is a basic misunderstanding that you are laboring under
There you go again, confusing me with someone else. Sanders' religion, or lack thereof, is his business and no concern of mine.
You say "Sanders isn't religious".
I call bullshit. I've never said that; you know it, I know it, everyone else reading this knows it -- but instead of calling a troll a troll, I'll give my standard socially acceptable canned response: You must have me confused with someone else. Please read more carefully?
Many Jews are not religious.
I'll take your word for it, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to showcase a person's religion in the |Religion= field of the infobox, that person's religion must be relevant to that person's public life and notability. Sanders is notable because of his political career; activist, mayor, senator, presidential candidate. He's not notable because his religion, or lack thereof, and unless he starts his own religion, builds a synagogue or starts performing miracles, it likely never will be.
The onus is on you to tell us why in the instance of Bernie Sanders the religion should be omitted from the Infobox.
Uh, no. That is incorrect. By default, the field is left blank. The living person's religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, *AND* the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. According to reliable sources, Sanders' religion isn't significantly relevant, and the only reason it is appearing now in any sources at all is because Sanders is a presidential candidate (FYI: there is a good example of a fact that is relevant to his notability) and the media is trying to get as much information as possible to the public. There is, however, one very good question you asked:
Are you not concerned that our article would be marked by the conspicuous absence of "religion" in the Infobox?
That is a thought-provoking question. Short answer: No, all infoboxes in Wikipedia articles are in various states of completeness, if they exist at all. Not a big concern. The body of the article is where the information is. But, if that is indeed a concern of yours, how would you feel about this: Have the infobox field say |Religion = (See [hyperlink to Religion section]). That way our readers will instantly know there is information about Sanders' religion instantly available, in all of its detailed glory, and we get the added bonus of avoiding all of the above drama. Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—you can "call bullshit" all you want. "Reliable sources say, to the contrary, that Sanders isn't religious, and in the rare instances when religion is brought up in his public life, he quickly steers the discussion back to policy." Didn't you write that? What you are failing to grasp is that it would not matter whether Sanders were religious or not. If he were an Orthodox Jew, would you feel that the religion designation in the Infobox would be more justified? If so, why? Bus stop (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you are catching on, Bus stop! Was that so hard? You wrongly claimed that I said "Sanders isn't religious". When I called you on your bullshit, you corrected yourself. Yes, I can call bullshit all I want - every time it is necessary. Moving on to your question:
What you are failing to grasp is that it would not matter whether Sanders were religious or not. If he were an Orthodox Jew, would you feel that the religion designation in the Infobox would be more justified?
Here is what justifies using a religious designation in the |Religion= field: religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, *AND* the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. Now a question for you, how would you feel about this: Have the infobox field say |Religion = (See [hyperlink to Religion section]). That way our readers will instantly know there is information about Sanders' religion instantly available, in all of its detailed glory, and we get the added bonus of avoiding all of the above drama. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOX says Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. That is vague enough that it could be used to support either |religion= or |religion=Jewish, but it rules out |religion=See #Religion. --Scott Davis Talk 03:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Judging by the growth of the section, looks like we're getting close to spinning off an analogue of Religious views of Abraham Lincoln. By the way, some articles have "Ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox, and that might be a decent compromise here if we can do it (see, e.g., Saul Katz).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, darn, Scott - that rather throws a wet towel on that idea. That puts us back to the default of leaving the field empty. Thank you for finding that MOS link, by the way. As for Anythingyouwant's compromise measure, that should be less problematic, but I still have this urge to form a pool and take bets on how long it will last. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
As a foreign observer of the USA election process, I find it difficult to understand how people like Xenophrenic and Guy Macon can expend so much time and energy arguing that Sanders' religion is not relevant/important. If it was not important, you would not be putting so much effort into trying to keep it out of the infobox. Guy went to the effort of an RfC at template talk:Infobox to ensure that longer explanations beyond a simple religion or denomination could not be put in |religion=, yet hasn't gone back through other US presidents to "correct" the value in infoboxes such as the one on Abraham Lincoln. As I have observed parts of these discussions, it appears to me that the Jewish measures of "Is so-and-so really a Jew?" (by religion) are not the same measures that a Christian might use to answer "Is so-and-so really a Christian?", yet many of us have heard people say "I can be a Christian even though I don't go to church", and that appears to have been accepted at the infobox on the Donald trump article.
As a candidate for election to high office (albeit indirectly under the US electoral system), it is highly likely that many voters will browse the Wikipedia articles of the candidates. I would imagine that some of them will be interested to see things like voting history, relationship history, religion, age, ethnic heritage, attitude to abortion or capital punishment, US state of birth/upbringing as well as current and previous offices held. Some will skim infoboxes and some will read deeper into the articles. For some, "Jewish" (religion, ethnicity or both) will mean they read further, and for some it will instantly turn them to another candidate. Some voters will look for someone who has demonstrated that they act in accordance with their principles even if the voter disagrees with the principle, others will look for evidence that the candidate's stated principles align with the voter, even if the candidate does not appear to adhere to their statements. It appears that Sanders claims to adhere to the Jewish faith (it is OR to hypothesise that his official press kit was written by someone else and not endorsed by him personally), and is accepted as a member of that community, despite not regularly participating in the rituals, so it is appropriate to summarise in the infobox with |religion=Jewish, and give more depth in the article, just like in the Trump and Cruz articles for example. --Scott Davis Talk 02:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Scott. You said you were having difficulty understanding, and I can see that, so perhaps I can clear things up a little. I've certainly never argued that information about any person's religion is not important. I can't say for certain about Guy Macon, but I doubt he has either. The Wikipedia article should give information which is as comprehensive as available reliable sources will allow, agreed? But, the infobox fields are not designed to convey comprehensive information. Infoboxes are designed only for unambiguous, non-controversial factoids. Therein lies the root of the issue here. As you have noted, there is some additional ambiguity in the "Jewish/Judaism" terms that we don't run into with, say, "Christian/Christianity". That causes a problem at the infobox. Also, there is disagreement on what, if anything, should go in the Wikipedia infobox field when a candidate says they are "Jewish", but then also says they are not religious; or after explaining his religious beliefs, concludes by saying "This is not Judaism." (Yeah, that happened - see Kimmel interview.) Or even more confusing, when asked to discuss his religion and beliefs in a higher power, completely avoids mentioning Judaism, God or anything Jewish, and states "This is my religion." (Yeah, that happened, too - see CNN interview.) That causes a problem at the infobox. Not only is there a contradiction between reliable sources, but there is also disagreement between editors on terminology. You made a key observation: "Some will skim infoboxes and some will read deeper into the articles." Exactly; and its because some people only "skim" that many Wikipedia editors have expressed concern over what, if anything, should appear in that field. (By the way, it is OR to state that "Sanders claims to adhere to the Jewish faith", or to hypothesize that the press kit was written by Sanders, or by a staffer, or was endorsed, or wasn't endorsed, or has even been seen by Sanders - all we can say in Wikipedia's voice is "the press page says XXX", and leave the reader with that. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned by the recent fiasco caused by the campaign ad endorsed by Ted Cruz, until it wasn't endorsed, after it was discovered it featured a porn star.) With all of the afore-mentioned problems, and with the purpose of the infobox being the summarizing of key facts, there has been a tussle over just what constitutes an accurate summation of the facts about Sanders' religion.
Also at issue is whether we should even be using the |Religion= field at all. As other editors have pointed out, there is/was stigma associated with matters of sexual orientation and religious affiliations (e.g.; Jewish religion) — enough so that special Wikipedia guidelines were established requiring a higher degree of relevance and significance to subject notability before the information could appear in categories or infoboxes. Guidelines also also require unambiguous self-identification of such information. There still exists disagreement as to whether all these requirements have been met. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
User:ScottDavis seems to be confused about Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes (which was approved with a consensus of over 75%). That RfC only deals with nonreligions in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox. You know, like the entry that the Bernie Sanders page currently has. Abraham Lincoln contains something in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox, but it is not a nonreligion as explained in the RfC's section on "examples of nonreligions". Thus Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes does not apply. I was very careful in the wording of that RfC. I purposely wrote "nonreligions should not be listed" (and provided a list of example nonreligions) instead of writing "only religions should be listed" so as not to inadvertently forbid things like links to sections in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—Bernie Sanders has the level of religious observance that he has. He does not have a lower level of observance and he does not have a higher level of observance. His level of observance is not what matters here. Sources are telling us that his religion is Jewish and he is telling us that his religion is Jewish. While it is true that sources are not telling us that he is Orthodox, this has no bearing on the question of whether or not our Infobox should contain the designation for "religion". What matters here is whether sources support that he is of the Jewish religion, whether or not he has self-identified as being of the Jewish religion, and whether his being of the Jewish religion is "relevant to his public life or notability." This last requirement does not mean that his notability is tied to his membership in the Jewish religion, otherwise Donald Trump would not have "Presbyterianism" in the "religion" field in that article's Infobox. It is sufficient that sources take note of Sanders' religion, and indeed many sources have taken note of Sanders' religion. Why would Wikipedia omit mentioning in this article's Infobox that Sanders' religion is Jewish? You concern yourself with the possibility that Bernie Sanders might not be religious. But even if this were the case, it would not matter. A person who is more religious does not qualify any more than a person who is less religious, for having the religion field filled in in the Infobox. We (Wikipedia) has no mechanism in place for evaluating how religious a person is. For our purposes, it simply doesn't matter how religious a person is. Finally, you are misconstruing sources. You may want to keep Bernie Sanders' religion out of the Infobox but in an effort to accomplish that you should not be misconstruing sources. When Bernie Sanders utters, in a Kimmel interview, that "This is my religion", he is merely using a figure of speech that transitions from the question asked to the point he wishes to make—that his sympathies are with the downtrodden. And he cites a member of another religion who shares his views—the Pope. You construe this to mean that his Jewish religion is called into question? Such argumentation is nonsensical. Despite your argumentation to the contrary there is absolutely 100% agreement in all sources (that weigh in on the question) that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish, and his level of observance is not a factor that Wikipedia weights, as concerns inclusion of "religion" in the Infobox parameter. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Skipping past your first five sentences, which don't appear to relate to our discussion and may have been intended for another person, let's jump to what you think the issue here is:
What matters here is whether sources support that he is of the Jewish religion, whether or not he has self-identified as being of the Jewish religion, and whether his being of the Jewish religion is "relevant to his public life or notability."
Not exactly; allow me to make a sleight correction so that we are both on the same page in this discussion. I prefer to use verbiage direct from our Wikipedia policies, I hope you don't mind: What matters here is whether reliable sources support that he has has self-identified as having a specific religious belief, and whether his having that religious belief is "relevant to his public life or notability." With that clear, let's continue with your arguments...
This last requirement does not mean that his notability is tied to his membership...
Membership? No. Religious beliefs? Yes. More specifically, what that last requirement means is that we are not to put a person's religious beliefs into Categories and Infoboxes unless those beliefs are relevant to the subject's notability. "But why is 'Presbyterianism' in Trump's infobox", you ask? Because Wikipedia will never be perfect; pointing out flaws in other parts of Wikipedia doesn't give a person license to replicate those flaws elsewhere in our encyclopedia. If you need help arguing for its removal from the Trump article, ping me. Next argument?
It is sufficient that sources take note of Sanders' religion...
No, it really isn't. See: WP:BLPCAT. It really is required, policy in fact, that his religious beliefs are relevant to his notability. And then there's the additional complicating fact that according to some reliable sources, he isn't religious, or doesn't hold the beliefs you ascribe to him - but we'll get to that.
You concern yourself with the possibility that Bernie Sanders might not be religious.
No, I really don't. In fact, the man's religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not my concern in the least. Accurate Wikipedia articles, however, are indeed my concern - and to that end, you might see me citing reliable sources on the matter.
it simply doesn't matter how religious a person is.
You'll get no argument from me. But, of course, since a person's religious beliefs must be relevant to a person's notability in order to be listed in an infobox, a non- (or hardly) religious person would likely have an empty field.
Finally, you are misconstruing sources.
No, you. You are confusing the Kimmel interview with the CNN interview. But to your larger point, when you see Sanders say "This is my religion" or after he explains his beliefs, says "This is not Judaism", you waive those off as merely "figures of speech". Of course you are entitled to your own personal interpretation; I prefer to listen to what he actually says in context, rather than pretend he didn't say what he said and waive his words away as figures of speech.
his level of observance is not a factor that Wikipedia weights, as concerns inclusion of "religion" in the Infobox parameter.
False. When it comes to including his religious beliefs in the info box, Wikipedia policy requires that the subject's religious beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. If his observance of religious beliefs is non-existent or so minimal that they have no relevance to his notability, the infobox field is not used. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

there is absolutely 100% agreement in all sources (that weigh in on the question) that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish,

Patently and blatantly untrue. This source surveys the whole controversy and concludes that this is indeterminate. He's not forthcoming either way, and there is absolutely no way, in Wikipedia's system, that one can assert as a fact something the person in question prefers to leave unknown to the public domain.Nishidani (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani—you are citing a source that does not call into question whether his religion is Jewish. The source only points out his laxity in observance. This is not a factor that is brought into consideration when weighing whether or not to note his religion in the relevant Infobox parameter. Consider for a moment, if you will, if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew. Would there be a stronger argument for including his religion in the Infobox parameter? There would not. Level of observance is not a factor that our policy takes into consideration for purposes of deciding whether or not to include "religion" in that Infobox parameter. Bus stop (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, Nishidani, you say "prefers to leave unknown to the public domain". Is that why he issues a press packet reading "Religion: Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
You made a confident statement. I gave a source that shows it is incorrect, the only 'religion' he can be accredited with, it concludes, was that regarding the welfare of the working man. The article's drift is obvious. Reread it. This is a highly provincial thing. Tp be elected in the US requires normally some bizarre profession of religion by people who, if elected, show no trace of it. Sanders is the only guy out there who refuses to play that cheap trick. Editors who want to inject certainty are playing the kind of politics he abhors. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Nishidani—you are having difficulty grasping what should be an easy-to-understand concept: level of religious observance is not an inclusion criteria concerning the religion parameter in the Infobox. Wikipedia has no policy pertaining to level of religious observance. The question, at least in this instance, is whether the religion of Bernie Sanders is Jewish. You brought a source that does not at all say that Bernie Sanders' religion is not Jewish. Your source explains that Bernie Sanders is lax in his observance. But laxity in observance or strictness in observance don't happen to be criteria that Wikipedia's policy takes into consideration when weighing whether or not to include a person's religion in the Infobox. Consider if you will, for a moment, that Bernie Sanders was Orthodox. By what Wikipedia policy would there be a stronger argument for including his religion in the Infobox? There is no policy that speaks to this. For all intents and purposes Wikipedia is unconcerned with how observant a person might be. Were this not the case the Donald Trump article would not read "Religion: Presbyterianism" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
level of religious observance is not an inclusion criteria concerning the religion parameter in the Infobox
False. When it comes to including his religious beliefs in the infobox, Wikipedia policy requires that the subject's religious beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. If his observance of religious beliefs is non-existent or so minimal that they have no relevance to his notability, the infobox field is not used. See WP:BLPCAT.
For all intents and purposes Wikipedia is unconcerned with how observant a person might be. Were this not the case the Donald Trump article would not read "Religion: Presbyterianism" in the Infobox.
Absolutely incorrect. Wikipedia is very concerned, and has even established guidelines stating that a person's religious beliefs must not only be self-identified, but also must be relevant to the person's notability. As for Trump, it appears you've located a problem which needs attention. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—you seem to be confusing Judaism with Christianity. (I'm responding to both of your last two posts above.) These religions are comparable and there are often corresponding points on one religion that are found on the other religion. But there are also discontinuities and points on one religion that do not have corresponding points on the other religion. As an editor, you should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the material you're editing, or you should be very careful to use only the highest quality sources and you should be careful about the wording you are reading. Jewish beliefs do not play the same role as Christian beliefs. You are treating Judaism as if it were Christianity when you speak of Jewish religious beliefs. Notice that I am often talking about levels of observance pertaining to Bernie Sanders. These are not beliefs, in the Christian sense. Even if Bernie Sanders were an Orthodox Jew, his beliefs would not necessarily be any different than they are as a barely observant Jew. When you point to policy and say that Bernie Sanders' religious beliefs [should be] relevant to their public life or notability one can only chuckle at the notion of this. Are you misunderstanding for instance maintaining a kosher diet for a belief? It is a practice. It represents a level of Jewish observance. It is a Torah precept. It is not a belief. A Jew doesn't believe in kosher food. Kosher food can't be relevant to a presidential candidate's public life—unless we are contemplating kashrus in the White House. Whether you are deliberately or inadvertently overlooking the particularity of the subject matter you are discussing, you need to slow down and either learn about Judaism or pay strict attention to only the best quality sources. And you've got to be careful with hyperbole and figure of speech. A wine lover may say that wine is their religion. It would be silly to misconstrue that to mean that a previously applicable religion no longer applied. Bernie Sanders makes a religion of fighting social injustice. Therefore he is no longer a Jew? Therefore his otherwise applicable religion is rendered no longer applicable? Please. Give me a break. I'm sorry if I am getting exasperated responding to you. The idea is not to win an argument. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia. You are arguing that there is unclarity over whether or not Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish—but there is none. Any darn fool knows that Jewish, in common parlance, is the religion pertaining to Bernie Sanders. Bus stop (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Bus stop! I accept your apology. As for the rest of your paragraph above, I'm going to ignore your personal commentary about a fellow editor; I'm going to skip over your presumption to educate me on various religions, or aspects of the English language; I'm going to breeze right past your personal opinions on matters unrelated to the present issue; and, I'm going to warn you to cease attributing statements and arguments to me which I did not make. With that out of the way, let's please continue. I believe I last directed your attention to the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and you were going to try to make a case for why Sanders' religious beliefs meet that requirement and should therefore be reflected in the article's infobox. I look forward to your arguments based on reliable sources and grounded in Wikipedia policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
You say "I believe I last directed your attention to the requirements of WP:BLPCAT, and you were going to try to make a case for why Sanders' religious beliefs meet that requirement and should therefore be reflected in the article's Infobox." To tell you the truth, I don't recall what you "last directed your attention to" nor what I was "going to try to make a case for". I am not as fired up about including Sanders' religious designation in the Infobox as you are about keeping Sanders' religious designation out of the Infobox. This tempest in a teapot is an issue that could conceivably have passed unnoticed were it not for some who do not want the Infobox to indicate the religion of Bernie Sanders. There is no question that Sanders is Jewish. You are prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent the word "Jewish" from appearing in the Infobox. This discussion has reached the point that I am only running on fumes. I respond to you because I am gobsmacked that you will apparently go to such great lengths in an effort to not identify Bernie Sanders as Jewish in the Infobox. Having said that, I'm going to respond to you once again. You say "I look forward to your arguments based on reliable sources and grounded in Wikipedia policy." OK. Let us start with the language in WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." You're going to have a tough time with this but Judaism doesn't place a great deal of emphasis on "beliefs". Religious beliefs are not particularly important to Judaism. Not to the extent that they are in Christianity. I don't have to argue that beliefs are relevant to his public life or notability. But sources make that argument. Many articles explore in great depth the religion of Bernie Sanders, including such components of religion as beliefs and practices and tendencies. We have for instance a source with the title "Why Bernie Sanders’ Judaism is so important" and with the subtitle "Sanders considers himself secular, yet his overwhelming sense of empathy for the downtrodden is profoundly Jewish". I could quote from that source but in the interests of brevity I will refrain from doing so. WP:BLPCAT also requires self-identification. This requirement is easily satisfied. He issued a press packet reading Religion: Jewish. What more do you need to know? Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not as fired up ... as you are about keeping Sanders' religious designation out of the Infobox.
You are mistaken. I think it would be great to have Sanders' religious beliefs in the infobox. I'm just not willing to violate Wikipedia policy to do it. (And there is also the issue of space constraints...)
There is no question that Sanders is Jewish.
Agreed. And he's proud of that. And that is in the infobox already. Jewish.
You are prepared to move heaven and earth to prevent the word "Jewish" from appearing in the Infobox.
Lies. See above. (Don't worry, I have plenty of pixels and time to devote to correcting fabrication and misconceptions.)
I don't have to argue that beliefs are relevant to his public life or notability.
Of course; no one can force you. But you will have to if you want to put them in the infobox, per policy.
We have for instance a source ... I could quote from that source...
Ah, now we are getting somewhere! I understand you were trying to keep it brief, but could I impose upon you to quote specifically the parts of that article that support your position? The college student who wrote that opinion piece cites a few more substantive sources in the article, are those part of what I should be looking at? We can get to the various "religions" Sanders has self-identified to after this part. Small bites, as it were. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic—we abide by sources. You don't get to decide what Sanders' religion is in the absence of sources to support your conclusions. The applicable policy here is WP:BLPCAT. Sanders' religion is Jewish because he says it is. Despite your argumentation to the contrary, Sanders does not say that his religion is anything but Jewish. WP:BLPCAT says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." His press package reads "Religion: Jewish". That takes care of self-identification. Here is where you seem to be having the most difficulty. His being Jewish is relevant to this biography. Does he have a "public life"? Does he have "notability"? All of the articles, which for Wikipedia purposes, we call sources, are written about his "public life" and his "notability". Therefore, to satisfy the requirement for relevance found at WP:BLPCAT we merely need to show that good quality reliable sources take notice of his religion. It is as simple as that. I do not have to prove to your exacting standards that indeed his religion has bearing on for instance his candidacy for president. I'm not going to engage in original research to satisfy your demands. It goes against my sensibilities as a Wikipedia editor to pontificate about for instance the intersection of religion and politics or any of the other subjects addressed by good quality reliable sources. Doing so is not really my responsibility. Whatever they say satisfies the requirement for "relevance". They don't have to say any particular thing. Whatever they say is A-ok. It is sufficient that reliable sources address themselves to this topic. There is no shortage of reliable sources written about Sanders' religion. Every editor here is aware of that. How do I know that? Because every editor up and down this page as well as at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard has been posting links to such articles. Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish and a multitude of sources writing about that provide affirmation of the "relevance" of his religion. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
You don't get to make anti-Semitic insults about a presidential candidate, Bus stop. Wikipedia has policies against that.
Sanders does not say that his religion is anything but Jewish.
Incorrect. Sanders has frequently said he is not religious. In one instance, he even stated, "So I believe that when we do the right thing, when we try to treat people with respect and dignity, when we say that that child who is hungry is my child … I think we are more human when we do that, than when we say ‘hey, this whole world , I need more and more, I don’t care about anyone else.’ That’s my religion." Direct speech. In yet another instance, in a direct response to a request to explain his religious beliefs, he did so, and concluded immediately thereafter: "That is not Judaism." His biographer has stated, "Bernie Sanders might not believe in God, but he does have a steadfast and long-standing belief in the rights of the working class. That's his religion."
[a press kit .PDF file written by someone] takes care of self-identification
Incorrect. I'll remind you that "religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." Please indicate the exact direct speech (please include date and venue) where Sanders self-identified.
I do not have to prove to your exacting standards...
Correct. You do, however, have to meet Wikipedia's requirements. (Sorry to have to break that to you.)
Doing so is not really my responsibility.
No one can force you, of course. But if you wish your contributions to Wikipedia articles to stand, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's policies, and meet Wikipedia's requirements. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic—you say "You don't get to make anti-Semitic insults about a presidential candidate, Bus stop. Wikipedia has policies against that." What is that a reference to? Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Howdy, Bus stop. You said, "You don't get to decide what Sanders' religion is in the absence of sources to support your conclusions." I replied in kind. Did I misunderstand the game? We're only giving each other advice on what we don't get to do, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Xenophrenic—are you accusing me of using this Talk page to "make anti-Semitic insults" about anyone? Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would you ask such a thing? Please WP:AGF and be WP:CIVIL. Besides, if you had, I wouldn't accuse you - I would have redacted it (and asked for a revdel if it was serious enough). Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not okay, and that violates WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The sad part is he was warned that it isn't okay. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_9&oldid=1044660575"