Talk:Stanley Milgram/Archives/2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult"

An editor deleted reference in the infobox to his being Jewish, writing "No evidence he was a practicing Jew as an adult" . That is not how the infobox works. There is ample reference to his being Jewish. And being Bar Mitzvahed. And to his Bar Mitzvah speech. And the impact of his being Jewish on his sensitivity to the Holocaust and his life's work. There is no support whatsoever for this editor deleting the information because of whether he was "practicing" (you aren't just Jewish if you "practice"), and to whether in specific he was "practicing" as an adult. The deleter even writes: "He was ethnically Jewish." There is no rule that this box is not to be used for "ethnically Jewish" Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, Jews are clearly not -- as this editor simply makes up, with no support -- "just practicing Jews." Any more than Americans are just people who pledge allegiance to the US flag.
People born to Jewish mothers are Jewish. It is not just a religion. It is also an ethnicity.
As the article Jewish atheism on Wikipedia tells you, "Because Jewish identity encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not inherently entail a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish."
Look for example (this should make it obvious) at the long List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. If you were correct, on Wikipedia this could not exist.
Plus -- Milgram isn't even a Jewish atheist, but instead a fully Jewish fellow of Jewish parents who in his Bar Mitzvah speech spoke about the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. As the source states: "The subject of his Bar Mitzvah speech was the plight of the European Jews and the changes the events of World War II meant for Jewish people everywhere: an early showing of Milgram’s feeling of connection with the Jewish people who were persecuted under Hitler."
Plus the other source --by the professor who was his biographer -- speaks of his "lifelong identification with the Jewish people." Lifelong. This is not rocket science.
The deletion is against the obvious fact that wikipedia accepts people who are Jewish atheists even as Jewish -- so clearly this editor is just making up his own rules that are not true, and fly in the face of how Wikipedia is edited. Let alone what it means to be Jewish.199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Jewish people are an ethnnic group; if they practice the religion, they are practicing Judaism. How can a non-practicing Jew be said to have a religion? That's absurd. And that's not "clear by all the other uses of this infobox on WP". Please don't claim something about Wikipedia that is simply not true. And please don't try to make up new rules for infoboxes. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles on Jews that do not have "Jewish" in the infobox as a religion. Some have it as "Ethnicity". One of the many examples: Zev Aelony, who grew up in a secular Jewish household; look at the infobox; no religion is listed; the ethnicity is Jewish. By contrast, look at Abram S. Isaacs, who was a practicing Jew. The religion in the infobox is "Judaism". Furthermore, Milgram'sBar Mitzvah is irrelevant to his religion as an adult; see WP:BLPCAT. Give us a reliable source that he practiced Judaism as an adult; not that he identified with Jewish culture, but that he practiced the religion of Judaism. Beyond the fact that you have added incorrect information, your edit has been challenged. Get consensus on the talk page before restoring it. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Are you reading ANYTHING? Don't take my word for it. Read what I wrote. But click through. You seem to not have a clue what it means to be Jewish. You do not have to "practice" to be Jewish. You are born into it.
That is why we have List of Jewish atheists and agnostics -- in your non-wikipedia made-up view of the world, you could not have such a list, because you mistakenly think (make up) some false rule that one has to "practice" Judaism "as an adult" to be Jewish. But as the existence of this list on Wikipedia of Jewish atheists and agnostics says, and as the article "Jews" on Wikipedia says -- you are simply completely wrong.
Read the Wikipedia article Jews. Which says: "The Jews ... also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group... Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation,... while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance."
And even after I started this talk page discussion -- without you responding to it, you continued to again delete. Do you know what that is? That is verboten. It is edit warring. And then you have the chutzpah to, after deleting without responding to the discussion, paste a stupid warning on my page? When you were the one deleting without engaging in conversation? And when you obviously (look at the List of Jewish atheists and agnostics) don't know what you are talking about?
What do you NOT understand about the wikipedia article statement I pointed you to that says "Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish"???
And this guy's biographer said he had a LIFELONG identification with the Jewish people. Where the F are you coming from?
And wtf -- why do you refer, in an article about a DEAD person, to your (mistaken) understanding of a rule for LIVING PERSONS??
Are you a troll? Cut it out. When your arguments are clearly wrong, stop beating a dead horse. Otherwise, let's have an adminstrator review your deletions, made without responding to my talk page discussion, and in the face of all of this, and decide what to do.199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Consider this a warning not to make personal attacks on editors; comment on article content, not editors. I'll ask again: Give us a reliable source that he practiced Judaism as an adult; not that he identified with Jewish culture, but that he practiced Judaism. If you can't do that, there's nothing more for me to discuss here unless other editors express an opinion to establish consensus. Sundayclose (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you not read anything in the above? You seem unable or unwilling to understand that:

  • As the article Jews on Wikipedia states -- "The Jews ... also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group... Jewish ethnicity, nationhood and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation,... while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance."
  • As the article Jewish atheism on Wikipedia tells you --"Because Jewish identity encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not inherently entail a contradiction. Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish."
  • And his being Jewish was reflected even upon his becoming a man in the Jewish religion, as his Bar Mitzvah speech spoke about the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world, and was as the source states: an early showing of Milgram’s feeling of connection with the Jewish people who were persecuted under Hitler."
  • You've not responded to any of this. Just repeatedly deleted, and made up personal rules that contradict all of this. Deleted also that he is a professor. And deleted also that he had 2 children. Without any reason, amazingly. You simply again and again deleted, in the face of all the above. Citing (fascinatingly) to your (mistaken) impression of a rule for articles on Living people .. while obviously this is a Dead person.199.102.168.8 (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Third and final request: Give us a reliable source that he practiced Judaism as an adult. Not that he identified with Jewish culture. Not that he was ethnically Jewish. Not that he was born to a Jewish mother. Not that he was considered Jewish by Jewish law. The only thing that matters for Wikipedia's purposes in categorizing his religion is that he practiced the religion of Judaism as an adult. Until you provide that, by Wikpedia's policies, he may have been ethnically Jewish but "Jewish" was not his religion. Rant all you want, but that's my final comment until you provide the source. And I remind you, in case you consider restoring your edit, there is no consensus of one person when an edit has been challenged. Feel free to follow all recommended actions suggested at WP:DR, but do not restore your edit without a consensus here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Read the above.
There is no requirement that he practice Judaism as an adult.
I've supplied evidence from top sources that he was Jewish, born to Jewish parents, had a Bar Mitzvah, and identified as Jewish "lifelong."
Read Jews.
Read Jewish atheism.
Read List of Jewish atheists and agnostics.
Explain why you again deleted material supporting this even after I added sourcing of his lifelong identification as Jewish.
Explain why you again deleted material as to him being a Professor, without reason,.
Explain why you again deleted material as to him having two children, without reason.
Explain why -- after talk page discussion was opened -- you again deleted ... without yourself replying on the talk page.
Explain why all the above is wrong, and your made-up standard that you have not supplied support for is correct and something more than one editor's made-up view that is at odds with wikipedia articles as can be clearly seen above by these footnotes and Wikipedia articles?
Furthermore, as the article now also reflects, Author Kirsten Fermaglich wrote that Milgram as an adult had "a personal conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi destruction, and as an insider, as scientist." His wife Alexandra stated that Milgram's Jewish identity led to his focus on the Holocaust and his obedience-to-authority research. And Herbert Winer, one of his obedience study subjects, noted after speaking to Milgram about the experiment that "Milgram was very Jewish. I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research."
There is simply no rationale basis for your Three repeated deletions. The last of which is here.

199.102.168.8 (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming from WT:JUDAISM. The problem is that the Template:Infobox person doesn't have an "ethnicity" parameter, otherwise this could be resolved quickly and painlessly. As it is, "Jewish" is a mix of religion, culture and ethnicity. You are both correct, but Sundayclose is more right, because the religion paramter is specific about religion. Being Jewish and even having had a bar mitzvah, is not yet proof of being religiously Jewish. However, if there are sources that he went to a synagogue (temple), that might be able to tip the scales. Debresser (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

A claim of religious membership must be cited to be valid. It's not simple or even possible to use religious rules to divine this because the argument then becomes which one? For example, the 'Judaism passes from mother' claim is a religious rule, but an effective argument could fill pages here that a majority of articles on people now identified as Jewish should be moved to the Mormon category due to the active post-mortem conversion project Baptism for the dead and many could be just as vehement in their claim the people are now only Mormon, with plenty of published material to cite. It's a waste of administrative time and becomes a shouting contest. Please only publish what you can cite. Lexlex (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
If the dead person communicated from beyond that they agree with the baptism, then 100%, put Mormon as the religion. I can't claim that YOU are a member of my religion by my own doing. This is far different than Milgram being Jewish and never doing anything to deny it. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • He was Jewish. Whether he practiced his religion or not, is irrelevant. The infobox is not whether he's a practicing Jew, it's whether he's Jewish. It is known he was Jewish. That is the whole reason for his experiments. He wanted to know how people can just go along with authority and how they killed his relatives in the Holocaust. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Religious rationale is not generally considered a reliable source. See WP:Citing sources/Bible for more background. Lexlex (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Debresser: Actually, the "Ethnicity" parameter will work for Template:Infobox person. See the example of Zev Aelony that I mentioned earlier in this discussion. But if I understand anon 199's point of view (based on his edit summary that the Religion parameter is "not for 'practicing' Jews or 'Jews practicing as adults'"), even if an ethnicity parameter is available, Milgram should be classified as Jewish as his religion, even though so far there is no evidence that he practiced Judaism as an adult. Sundayclose (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Since when does someone have to practice Judaism to be Jewish? If someone doesn't go to church, do they stop being Christian? If a non-practicing Jew wants to put on [Tefillin]] will we stop him? It's disgusting for editors to decide that in order to be labeled as a Jew, the person has to practice his religion. That is not how it goes. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I added "ethnicity = Jewish". I hope everyone will be happy now. Wishing you all a happy Passover, -- -- -- 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@-- -- --: Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
How does that solve anything? His religion is Jewish and that is what it should show. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: I don't want to insult your intelligence, but do you understand that someone can be ethnically Jewish and not identify with any religion? Do you understand the difference between Jewish ethnicity and Judaism? Sundayclose (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
That could very well be, but that's not the case. Read the sources. Someone who had a bar-mitzvah is not just an ethnic Jew, he's a member of the Jewish religion. You don't need to practice the religion to be a part of the religion, and reading the sources provided shows that it wasn't just an ethnicity to him but a religion and something important in his life, not just something he was born with. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
"You don't need to practice the religion to be a part of the religion.": That may be true according to the religion, but it is not Wikipedia's standard for indicating that someone is a part of a religion. Wikipedia requires evidence that the person practices the religion as an adult, not just for Judaism but for any religion. William J. Murray, son of famed atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, identified with atheism until he became an adult, at which time he became a Christian. Why can't Wikipedia identify him as an atheist; after all, he grew up as an atheist? And please address the issue raised by Lexlex above. Why don't we refer to all Jews who have received Baptism for the dead as Mormons? We need clear evidence that he practiced Judaism as an adult to identify his religion as Judasim (or "Jewish"). Sundayclose (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
With that, you are wrong. It is not up to Wikipedia to determine what religion a person belongs to. And as far as Mormons, they reached an agreement to stop doing that to Jews, and in addition, while the Mormons may say that you are now a Mormon, that has no bearing on what YOU say. Milgram never denied his Jewishness. If he had, then I would agree that he should not be marked Jewish. But he did no such thing, so we have the fact that he's Jewish and as per himself, and the criteria, he should have Jewish in his infobox. It is not up to Wikipedia to determine what a religion's criteria is. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • "he's Jewish and as per himself: He was ethnically Jewish per himself. We have no evidence that he identified himself as having any religion as an adult; thus so far we have no evidence that he was religiously Jewish (i.e., Judaism) per himself. Again, do you understand that when someone says he is Jewish in reference to his ethnicity, that does not mean he is identifying himself with the "Jewish" religion? If I grew up in a secular Jewish household that never did anything to practice the religion of Judaism, I can call myself "Jewish" ethnically, but not Jewish religiously.
  • "It is not up to Wikipedia to determine what religion a person belongs to": It is up to Wikipedia editors to provide a reliable source for information added to an article, especially personal information such as religion. Verifiability is a cornerstone policy of Wikipedia. In fact, everything on Wikipedia is subject to that policy. And again there is no source that Milgram practiced Judaism as an adult.
  • As for the Mormon issue, what about those who have already received post-mortem baptism? Lots of Mormons would tell you that they are Mormons. So why can't we identify them as Mormons?
  • You did not address my point about William J. Murray. Why can't Wikipedia identify him as atheist since at one time in his life he identified himself as atheist? Sundayclose (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As I wrote above, if the dead person can somehow communicate and agree with the Mormon conversion, then put it in. Until then, it is person X saying what religion person Y is a member of. In this case, we don't have that. We have the fact that Milgram is Jewish, has celebrated religious rituals and never denounced it. He never said "I'm not Jewish." After his bar mitzvah he gave a speech, which is sourced. Never in adulthood did he denounce his religion and indeed, if you read the sources, his religion played a part in his adult life, choosing what subject area to do his testing on, etc. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia requires a source that he identified religiously with Judaism as an adult in order to refer to his religion (not ethnicity) as Jewish, not that he denounced Judaism in order to say he wasn't Jewish religiously. Again, that's true with any religion, not just Judaism. If William J. Murray did/does not denounce atheism, we still don't refer to him as an atheist (and for a third time, you failed to address that issue). According to the sources in the article, Milgram's Jewish heritage and background (and as an adult his Jewish ethnicity) played a major role in his life; I've never denied that. None of the sources verify that his adult religion played a role in his life. Once again (inexplicably, to me anyway), you fail to make a distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity. They are not interchangeable.
  • We are going around in circles here because you do not accept Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability for adult religious identification (for Jews, at least), so we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. You and I throwing the same arguments back and forth endlessly does nothing for this consensus discussion. So thank you for your comments; I respect your right to express your opinions here, but this is my final comment about the distinction between Jewish ethnicity and Jewish religion. Sundayclose (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I was out of touch for a day or so, because of Pesach preparations. Thanks for the edit, adding ethnicity. As I see it, that solves the issue. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems like the pro argument is that: If you simply claim another is a pink elephant, they actually ARE a pink elephant—unless they deny it, and if they're dead who's to say they aren't? It's a logical fallacy. Put another way: Since anyone, no matter their race, can choose to convert to Judaism, the idea that all of their children and children's children are then automatically and forever more Jewish, no matter the child's choice, is merely a religious construct which violates WP:Evidence: Because your great-great grandmother made a philosophical choice, you're stuck with us whether you like it or not—that's religion talking and has no place here. Lexlex (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I refer editors to this discussion which establishes a clear policy regarding the use of the "Religion" parameter in the infobox. That discussion concluded that the religion parameter should be removed from the template altogether; however, it remains because there are cases where religion is a defining characteristic of the person being described (for example, Catholic bishops or Buddhist monks). But, unless a person's religion is central to the person's notability, the parameter should be omitted. --Ravpapa (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Ravpapa, his religion is notable because it is because of his religion that he went on the path he chose. If you read my sources, his being Jewish played a large role is his deciding to do his experiments. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Concerning religion in infoboxes (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".
From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."
Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.
The word "Jew/Jewish" is a special case and has has several meanings, some nonreligious. The source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion (Judaism), as opposed to someone saying "I am a Jew", which could refer to nonreligions such as ethnicity or culture. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—have you seen any source which suggests that Stanley Milgram's religion might not be Jewish? If we abide by the totality of sources I think you will agree that all sources are consistent with his religion being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to go to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons and post an RfC for replacing our WP:CAT/R and WP:BLPCAT policies with your new "by the totality of sources" policy. Until you get that change approved, you are required to follow Wikipedia's existing policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone missed the point, I am asking for citations that show Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
He had a bar-mitzvah and stated lots of times that he chose the path he did and the experiments he did because he is Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Do you have a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy or don't you? If you do, please post a lkink to the citation. If you don't, please drop the stick.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
owner, I've provided the links, he identified as Jewish and even according to your own policy, he's Jewish. No need to hide his religion merely because he's Jewish. I also find it odd to find you here.Sir Joseph (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: After an editor repeatedly refuses to get the point and persists in making the same false statement over and over, it is considered disruptive and can result in a block. Consider this a warning. The article does not provide a source that has anything to do with Milgram's identifying with the religion of Judaism as an adult. This issue is settled. Secondly, stop making personal comments about editors. You can also consider that a warning. Drop the "Jewish religion" issue. You seriously are skating on thin ice here. I will not hesitate to make a report at WP:ANI about your disruptive editing. Sundayclose (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand then, you decide the issue is settled, you make up a policy, and then you decide that you will not hear anything else? Sounds a lot like ownership to me. I don't care one way or another, I just find it troubling that it is only on Jewish people that have this new made up policy. I provided links above and more are available if you just Google. The fact that you are taking away someone's Jewishness is troubling and disgusting. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider this a second warning about making personal comments about editors. Sundayclose (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Joseph: Again I ask, do you have a citation that shows Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) in his own words as required by Wikipedia policy? "I've provided the links" is not an acceptable answer, because I don't see what I asked for in any link you have posted. Citations, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, a person's religious identification (as opposed to what Sundayclose refers to as "ethnicity") is characterized by the person's participation in religious ceremonies and rituals. In the case of Milgram, he was married in a Jewish religious ceremony at the Brotherhood Synagogue in New York in 1961 (Blass, p. 74), his daughter was confirmed in the Riverdale Temple in 1979 and his son was Bar Mitzvahed in the same temple in 1980 (Blass, p. 244). Milgram was apparently a member of the Riverdale Temple - I don't have proof of that but I could probably get it if it were necessary.

All of this clearly indicates that Milgram was a practitioner of the Jewish religion, beyond his explicit identification with the Jewish people as an ethnic group. There is no published quote that I could find of Milgram stating that he is a practicing Jew - a quote that Sundayclose considers essential for Wikipedia to say in the infobox that Milgram is a Jew. Based on what I know of Milgram, I believe he would find, as does Sir Joseph, that this distinction between religious and ethnic Judaism, and this insistence of such a high standard of verification, is bogus and offensive. It is not Wikipedia's business, he would say, to pull down his pants to confirm that he is Jewish.

However, this entire dispute is irrelevant. Because the decision that I cited above ( here) is clear: the "Religion" parameter has no place in the infobox except in the case of people whose profession is religion. If Milgram had been a rabbi, or a mohel, or, perhaps, the president of a synagogue, the "Religion" parameter would be appropriate. In this case it is not. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong. He does not have to be a rabbi, mohel, or president of a synagogue. All that is required is a citation showing Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy. And it isn't "a quote that Sundayclose considers essential". It is something that WIKIPEDIA POLICY says is essential. The other things you mention (married in a Jewish religious ceremony, daughter confirmed (confirmed? Shouldn't that be Bat Mitzvahed?), son Bar Mitzvahed, member of a Temple) are irrelevant. They are not Stanley Milgram self-identifying as being a member the Jewish religion (Judaism) using direct speech as required by Wikipedia policy. I don't know how I can explain this to you any more clearly. Is it possible that we are having a language problem here? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I have had many disagreements in Wikipedia, but never one as bone-headed as this one. You think the religion param should not be in the infobox. I think the religion param should not be in the infobox. Why do you continue arguing? Ravpapa (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a Who is a Jew? argument which has occurred umpteen times on Wikipedia. A person can be ethnically Jewish without being a practicing member of the Jewish faith. Richard Feynman is an obvious example. The issue is relevant because it is often said that Milgram's famous experiment was inspired by the Holocaust. When it comes to the infobox, "religion" should not be filled in without clear sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this discussion The thread is Sir Joseph again. All are invited to comment at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

  • So, some editor found an elegant solution, and reflected in the informationbox that Milgram was Jewish. But, because some people who wrote here seem to have read this discussion but not the article with the sources the article has ... the article (with books and other good sources--there is good, clear sourcing) indicates:
  1. He and his parents were Jewish.
  2. His Bar Mitzvah speech was on the subject of the plight of the European Jews and the impact that World War II events would have on Jewish people around the world. He said, upon becoming a man under Jewish law: "As I ... find happiness in joining the ranks of Israel, the knowledge of the tragic suffering of my fellow Jews ... makes this ... an occasion to reflect upon the heritage of my people--which now becomes mine. ... I shall try to understand my people and do my best to share the responsibilities which history has placed upon all of us."
  3. He later wrote to a friend from childhood: "I should have been born into the German-speaking Jewish community of Prague in 1922 and died in a gas chamber some 20 years later. How I came to be born in the Bronx Hospital, I’ll never quite understand."
  4. Milgram married his wife in a ceremony at the Brotherhood Synagogue.
  5. Milgram's interest in the Holocaust had its basis in what his biographer, Professor Thomas Blass, referred to as Milgram's "lifelong identification with the Jewish people."
  6. Author Kirsten Fermaglich wrote that Milgram as an adult had "a personal conflict as a Jewish man who perceived himself both as an outsider, a victim of the Nazi destruction, and as an insider, as scientist ...."
  7. His wife Alexandra stated that Milgram's Jewish identity led to his focus on the Holocaust and his obedience-to-authority research.
  8. He shared this as well with Herbert Winer, one of his obedience study subjects, who noted after speaking to Milgram about the experiment that "Milgram was very Jewish. I was Jewish. We talked about this. There was obviously a motive behind neutral research."199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph is right above. And he you can tell read the article. The editors who say "but you need sources" obviously didn't read the article. Which has all the above information. And the sources. Plus, this was a specially silly article to delete that he was Jewish from in the informationbox. Because the fact that he was Jewish was so, so important to his research which he became famous for. As his wife said. And as his subject Herbert Winer said. And he chose to get married in a synagogue, etc, and I found the deletion just nuts with all the many sources that showed that he was Jewish and that what he biographer called his "lifelond identification with the Jewish people was the basis for his interest in the Holocaust. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I know at least three people who married in a synagogue but are not Jewish, either religiously or ethnically. Non-Jews can get married in a synagogue. Non-Catholics can marry in a Catholic church. Atheists can marry in synagogues or churches. Where someone is married is no indication of their religion. Please read the post above by Guy Macon. We are not talking about what you would like in the article or what someone else might like in the article. We are talking about Wikipedia policy, which is that the requirement for identifying Milgram as practicing the religion of Judaism is a specific statement by Milgram that he practiced Judaism. That has not been provided. You don't have to agree with Wikipedia's policies, but if you want to edit here you have to follow those policies, or stop editing. Until someone produces a sourced statement by Milgram that he practiced Judaism, this issue is settled. No one's rants will change that. Sundayclose (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Sundayclose—a person who is not Jewish would not likely be married in a Jewish wedding. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bus stop: The issue here is Wikipedia policy, not what is or is not likely. Wikipedia requires an unequivocal statement by the subject of the article that he/she practices Judaism in order to state that the person's religion is Judaism. We don't have that. My point in responding to anon 199 was not to discuss the likelihood of a non-Jew getting married in a Jewish ceremony, but to point out that where someone is married is irrelevant to the issue of Wikipedia policy. Unless you can provide a source that no person who does not practice Judaism has ever been married in a Jewish ceremony. Sundayclose (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think we put on blinders when we evaluate sources. This is in response to your saying "My point in responding to anon 199 was not to discuss the likelihood of a non-Jew getting married in a Jewish ceremony, but to point out that where someone is married is irrelevant to the issue of Wikipedia policy." I think that we should consider all the sources that have bearing on a point about which there may be a degree of editorial disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bus stop: I have considered all the sources. Wikipedia policy on this matter is unequivocal. Have you read Guy Macon's post above about the policy? None of the sources meets Wikipedia's standard to identify Milgram as practicing Judaism as an adult. Sundayclose (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Just run the following program. It accurately predicts all past and future discussions on this topic:
10 "He says he is Jewish."
20 "Jewish" can also mean culture or ethnicity. Where is the citation where he says his religion is Judaism?"
30 "You have to consider the totality of the sources that prove that he is Jewish."
40 "Nobody disputes him being Jewish. Wikipedia policy is clear. He has to self-identify his religion (not culture or ethnicity) in his own words."
50 "So you are saying he isn't Jewish? Because he says he is."
60 "Please, just read the policy and do what is says to do, OK?"
70 GOTO 10
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Milgram Jewish continued

Just to clarify - this discussion is not about Milgram's Jewishness, but about Guy Macon's and Sundayclose's interpretation of Wikipedia policies. Sundayclose contends that "Wikipedia policy on this matter is unequivocal". Yet, to many of us, their interpretation of the policies in this matter is so fatuous as to raise questions of integrity.

Here are the policies that Guy cites:

  • From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements".
This policy requires that the subject publicly self-identifies "with the belief or orientation", but it does not say that that self-identification has to be speech - it could also be action. For example, if a person participates in public religious rituals on a number of occasions, that is form of public self-identification that is acceptable by the policy. A Catholic priest might never make the statement, "I am Catholic", but his daily participation in the mass is sufficient verification of his religion.
  • From WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion."
Here the authors of the policy have explicitly stated that the verification of belief need not be a quote, but can also be through public action. I would note that in an earlier part of this discussion, I stated that the religion parameter of the infobox should be reserved for people who hold official clerical positions. I said that based on my reading of this policy. However, Guy was quick to correct me: "You are wrong'" he wrote. "He does not have to be a rabbi, mohel, or president of a synagogue." This suggests to me that Guy's interpretation of the policy is even more liberal than mine(!). In any case, it is clear that public acts such as marrying in a religious institution, being a member of a religious institution, bringing up one's children according to religious practice and participating in religious ceremonies on a not infrequent basis all satisfy the requirements of the policy as verification of a person's religious identification.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox.
This policy has nothing to do with religion in infoboxes. However, Guy has mashed it up with an RFC that determines that non-religions cannot be listed in the religion parameter of the infobox. The RFC gives examples of non-religions: "Agnostic, Antireligionist, Apatheist, Atheist, Communist, Ignosticist, Irreligion, Leninist, Marxist... " Judaism is not a non-religion. There is a note below 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." The example makes crystal clear what is meant: people who have no relation to the Jewish religion, but, because of circumstance, are identified by some people as Jews. It would certainly be inappropriate to include the religion parameter of someone who had no relation whatever to Judaism but was born to a Jewish mother. That is obviously not the case we are discussing here.

Just to make clear how preposterous Guy and Sunday's interpretation of the policies is, let's reduce it to the bare facts. Milgram says he is a Jew on numerous occasions, he participates in public Jewish rituals, he belongs to a Jewish religious institution (a requirement if one wants to send one's children to religious school), he sends his children to a religious education, he participates in public rituals related to his family (confirmation, Bar Mitzvah). All of these are "public acts" in the words of the policy. However, all this is, for Guy, insufficient verification of Milgram's Jewishness. What Guy requires is a quote - had Milgram said, "I am a Jew. I participate in Jewish religious ceremonies. I was married by a Rabbi, I belong to a Jewish temple, and I bring my children up in the Jewish tradition," that would be verification of his Judaism.

And that interpretation is neither the intent nor the letter of Wikipedia's policy.

Respectfully, Ravpapa (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

He does not have to be a rabbi, mohel, or president of a synagogue if he self-identifies through direct speech. I am still waiting for a citation showing where and when he did that. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Where in the policy does it say that "direct speech" is required? The policy that I read says " through direct speech or through actions". Perhaps we are reading different policies. Ravpapa (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Any action? Is Obama a Jew because he "participates in public Jewish rituals?"[1] Or does the policy give specific examples that are unambiguous equivalents of direct speech? And why do you keep saying things like "Milgram says he is a Jew on numerous occasions" and "...insufficient verification of Milgram's Jewishness"? That is a straw man argument and you know it. You claim that someone here is saying that he isn't a Jew despite the fact that nobody has ever made that claim, then you knock down the man of straw that you yourself set up and claim victory. GOTO 10. Didn't Moses write something in a famous book about bearing false witness? He even cited a reliable source... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—do you find any sources supporting that Barack Obama is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sundayclose—in one post you say "The issue here is Wikipedia policy, not what is or is not likely. Wikipedia requires an unequivocal statement by the subject of the article that he/she practices Judaism in order to state that the person's religion is Judaism."[2] In another post you say "Wikipedia policy on this matter is unequivocal."[3] Yet I look at the Infobox for Jack Lew, and it says Religion: Orthodox Judaism. Where is the "unequivocal statement by the subject of the article that he/she practices Judaism"? Bus stop (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see any, so I raised the question on the article talk page. See Talk:Jack Lew#Looking for citation for religion in infobox. If you run into any BLPs with other religions in the infobox that don't have citations to self-identification, please let me know. I don't want to inadvertently focus on one religion just because you are focusing on it while making an WP:OSE argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—do you know of any instances in which the biography of a religious Jew has the Infobox completed for Religion and additionally has a verbal statement of belief held? Bus stop (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Sure. Elizabeth Taylor.
"I, of my own free will, seek the fellowship of Israel... I believe that God is One, Almighty, All-Wise and Most Holy... I promise that I shall endeavor to live, as far as it is in my power, in accordance with the ideals of Jewish life... Most fervently, therefore, do I herewith pronounce the Jewish confession of faith: Shma yisroel adonoy elohenu adonoy echod [Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One]. Boruch shem kvod malchuso I'olom voed [Praised be his name whose glorious kingdom is for ever and ever]."[4]
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, Ivanka Trump.
"I always shied away from it being a public conversation because it’s such a personal thing... We’re pretty observant, more than some, less than others. I just feel like it’s such an intimate thing for us. It’s been such a great life decision for me. I am very modern, but I’m also a very traditional person, and I think that’s an interesting juxtaposition in how I was raised as well. I really find that with Judaism, it creates an amazing blueprint for family connectivity... We observe the Sabbath. From Friday to Saturday we don’t do anything but hang out with one another. We don’t make phone calls.”[5]
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations. Now name another one. In most instances of biographies of religious Jews no such attestations of belief exist. Also, that quote attributed to Elizabeth Taylor is part of a conversion ceremony. Such statements are apparently a part of some conversion ceremonies. "At her conversion ceremony Elisheba Rachel Taylor repeated the pledge." All she is doing there is repeating a conversion pledge. Your argument is that there is an inviolable rule that prevents Wikipedia from indicating religion in the Infobox in the absence of a statement of belief. As concerns religious Jews the opposite is the norm. Jack Lew represents the norm at Wikipedia. No statement of belief is found yet the indication for religion is found in the Infobox. (After an edit conflict, let me add this postscript: Ivanka Trump is also a convert to Judaism.) Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
WP:OSE. "There is an inviolable rule that prevents Wikipedia from indicating religion in the Infobox in the absence of a statement of belief" isn't an argument. It is an easily-verified fact. Requiring self-identification through direct speech is Wikipedia policy. Deal with it.
I am now calling an end to your game of twenty questions. If you want to continue playing, I suggest that you play with yourself. Either follow Wikipedia policy or don't (and suffer the consequences). I have better things to do with my time. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

so stop focusing on Jews. Go to Richard Nixon and remove Quaker from his page. He certainly wasn't very Quakerlike in his actions. And you bringing in Trump and Tayor show you grasping at straws. Trump is a convert so of course there is focus on her religion. Read all my quotes I brought. When someone has a bar mitzvah, marries in a Jewish ceremony and is a member of a Jewish congregation, why would you still fight that he is not Jewish? THere is also NO BLP here. He's long dead, so you're the one who needs to drop the stick. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:Richard Nixon#Looking for citation for religion in infobox. Please let me know if you find any other pages where the citations don't appear support the infobox entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Milgram is not a living or recently dead person, so the rules can be relaxed if there are other reliable sources, Sir Joseph (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Clearly there exists no citation where Stanley Milgram self-identified as being a member of Judaism, so does anyone have a citation where anyone else called the adult Stanley Milgram a member of Judaism? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There's plenty of that in this section, just read above. And again, remember that in the Jewish religion, you don't need to practice it to be a member of that religion. Someone who had a religious wedding ceremony, someone who was a member of a Jewish synagogue is a member of the Jewish religion especially since after his Bar Mitzvah speech he not once denounced his Jewish religion. This is not like some other people who may be agnostic or atheist. Milgram chose his field of study precisely because of his Jewishness. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Here we go with the program again: GOTO 10. No one said someone has to practice Judaism to be considered a member by a congregation or some other organization, but Wikipedia requires that Milgram unequivocally identifies himself as a practicing Jew as an adult. Giving a Bar Mitzvah speech at age 13 or getting married in a Jewish ceremony that many non-Jews have participated in is not Milgram stating unequivocally that practices Judaism. Being born to a Jewish mother may be considered as practicing Judaism in some contexts, but not by Wikipedia's standards. And one does not have to fail to denounce Judaism to meet Wikipedia's criteria. And, back to the program, he went into his field of study because he is Jewish, which can refer to an ethnicity or culture, and doesn't mean he went into his field because he practices Judaism. Now, GOTO 10 and start the endless cycle again. Sundayclose (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia doesn't require a dead guy to have had unequivocally identified as a Jew. Besides which he did identify as a Jew. If you just read the above. And Wikipedia does not dictate religion. If someone is born in the USA, they are American, whether they feel like it or not. If someone is born to a Jewish mother, they are Jewish and it is not up to Wikipedia to play religion police. and it's getting very hard to not think you have some sort of bias here. Even Guy Macon said that for a non-BLP issue his rule doesn't apply. And he did go into his field because of his religion. You need to read the links above and you are the one that needs to GOTO 10. Are you now going to go through every person and delete their religion from their infobox if they're Jewish? Sir Joseph (talk)

GOTO 10 again. You are once again refusing to address what dozens of people have told you: You can be Jewish without belonging to any religion. WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia, and requires a source that identifies the (living or dead) person's religion, not his maybe-religion-maybe-ethnicity-maybe-culture. Don't bother responding. I already know that you are not willing to accept this basic fact about Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It's time to request an uninvolved party to close this discussion because it has come to it's natural end, and there's no reason to continue recycling the same information again and again. Sundayclose (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You both clearly have competency issues with regards to Jews and you should not be editing in this area. Focus on removing other religions from infoboxes and leave the Jewish stuff to those who are competent in the facts about Judaism. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Telling me to Fuck Off is not very friendly. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Department of redundancy department

I edited "Milgram, who was Jewish, was born in 1933 to a Jewish family in the Bronx in New York City" down to "Milgram was born in 1933 to a Jewish family in the Bronx in New York City". Sundayclose reverted this—why? The four paragraphs of the "Early and personal life" section alone use the word Jew or Jewish twelve times. Aside from being horrible writing, just how often do we have to bang the readers' over the heads with "The Jewish Jew Milgram was a Jewish Jew who was Jewish"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: We have edit summaries to avoid this kind of confusion. I would suggest that you use edit summaries to explain why you remove content, which would have avoided this issue. You removed "Jewish" because you felt that it was redundant; very good point, but how was I supposed to know that without an edit summary? Especially when you did so twice without explaining. I assume you do not doubt Milgram's Jewish ethnicity. If so, then we have another problem altogether. Sundayclose (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I left an edit summary: "redundant". I assume you know what "redundant" means. If not, then we have another problem altogether. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You removed "Jewish" and changed the spelling of his name. If you had said "Jewish is mentioned several times" instead of just saying "redundant" we would not have had a problem. I didn't know if you felt that his misspelled name was redundant or Jewish was redundant, especially after I messaged you asking about it and you still didn't explain. Sundayclose (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I removed this on the grounds of poor wording, and it had nothing to do with religion, ethnicity etc. The article is at risk of degenerating into a battleground over this issue.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 21:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Seeing the participants above, I'm afraid that's inevitable. You've been reverted, by the way. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I explained on my talk page—you didn't bother to wait for the explanation. If you weren't sure after the second edit, then there really is no hope, is there? Not that there's any credibility to you believing the spelling was what "redundant" referred to. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
You explained after you did it twice. Yes no hope . . . of me being able to read your mind. Sundayclose (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
"Mind reading"—what garbage. There was only one thing in the edit that any reasonable person could consider "redundant". I suppose it's hopeless you'll stop templating the regulars and insinuating they're antisemites. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: First time: I don't template regulars (and I didn't template you). Second time I template regulars. Antisemite? Now you have made a personal attack. Give me a diff in which I insinuated someone is an antisemite. And don't bother giving me this diff. Telling someone they removed important information or misspelled a name is not antisemitic. I won't template you, so consider this a warning for personal attacks. And we're finished this "discussion" unless you make more personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
And now accusations of personal attacks—that's rich. The insinuation was in your very first comment in this section—not exactly the most casual, innocent thing to say, is it? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think things are getting unnecessarily heated all around. Please let's all try to relax a notch or two. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

Note: this question is in the process of being settled by RfC on this page. This is being posted here because some of the participants here may wish to pitch in and help on the other pages listed.

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[6] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[7] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[8] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[9] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[10]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[11] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[12] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[13] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[14] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[15] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Milgram/Archives/2016&oldid=1044659802"