Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Confirmation bias

I see a lot of evidence here of confirmation bias. If you are absolutely determined to find sources that say Bernie Sanders's religion is Judaism then you will find them. What happens if you instead ask your favourite search engine for an alternative term, say "Bernie Sanders secular Jew"? The answer, of course, is that you find them. Including PBS, New York Times, WaPo and others.

It is clear that Sanders does not consider Judaism a defining part of his character. He does not participate in organised religion. Therefore, according to the RfC on religion in userboxes, the religion parameter should be omitted.

As to why other sources identify his religion as Jewish, I suspect this is mere laziness: my experience is that many Americans simply cannot conceive of someone not having a religion, and there is a well known confusion in the public mind between Jewishness, the cultural phenomenon, and Judaism, the religion. Not everyone who is Jewish is observant, but even secular Jews will often celebrate Passover, for exactly the same reason that many non-Christians celebrate Christmas. It is a cultural identity thing. And yes, many Jews are annoyed that he refuses to identify as Jewish-as-in-religion, and that, too, is documented fact.

But that is an aside. The fundamental point here is that providing sources that identify his religion as Jewish - even when that does not involve obvious confusion of Jewish-as-in-race and Jewish-as-in-religion, which it often does - cannot validate a label which he himself has clearly and unambiguously rejected; finding such sources constitutes confirmation bias, the correct search is not one that supports your position but one that would refute it. Sanders states that he is not religious. That refutes the claim. Trying to nail a religious label on him that he himself has publicly rejected, is not just against policy, it is plain rude. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you stopped to consider whether this "evidence of confirmation bias" could apply to those arguing that bernie sanders is not Jewish (religiously)? They seem to see every mention of being Jewish as a statement regarding heritage, and not one regarding religion, even when the context of the statement and the article is one clearly discussing religion. Even when it says in simple black and white from an official and primary source "Religion: Jewish" they come up with excuses as to why that information is not correct.
You yourself state that you think that sources claim that he is Jewish simply because they are lazy. You believe that he is without religion. That Americans have a hard time concieving of people not having a religion. I wouldn't debate that point regarding how many Americans deal with atheists. However, he is religious and spiritual. He is not an atheist. He's not even agnostic. He's said numerous times that he believes in God, that he's religious, and he's spiritual. So, even if you don't make the connection specifically to Judaism, one can't possibly claim that he is without religion or belief in God altogether. You're coming up with excuses as to why the articles which support the idea that he is of the Jewish faith aren't true. You're showing your own bias.
One of the more puzzling things in your statement along these lines to me is this: "The fundamental point here is that providing sources that identify his religion as Jewish - even when that does not involve obvious confusion of Jewish-as-in-race and Jewish-as-in-religion, which it often does - cannot validate a label which he himself has clearly and unambiguously rejected; finding such sources constitutes confirmation bias, the correct search is not one that supports your position but one that would refute it." So, wait.. my claim is that IN BLACK AND WHITE a primary source from the horses mouth clearly states "Religion: Jewish", my claim is that the statements he made which dictate to the public his level of practice are being grossly misinterpreted. This is what I'm trying to clarify for people, to educate on, and to explain further with other statements of his own. Yet, you're suggesting that for some strange reason if I actually am able to FIND articles, interviews, and the like which SUPPORT my position, I am actually defeating my own position by presenting these facts and statements? I'm not even sure how to respond to such a thing.. it's kind of ridiculous logic. Centerone (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
...those arguing that bernie sanders is not Jewish (religiously)
I think that is a false premise to build your line of questioning upon. It is Bernie Sanders who is arguing that he is not part of organized religion; not very religious; has drifted from it as he grew older; doesn't speak about it and feels it should be a private matter. But Sanders feelings be damned, he's gonna get religion whether he likes it or not - at least in his infobox, if a few Wikipedians have anything to say about it.
He's said numerous times that he believes in God
Please show me just 3 of those numerous times. (I'm anxious to see if he also, in the same breath, qualified that by saying he thinks everyone believes in God ... and his belief isn't actually like anyone else's). I think I've only seen one reliable source (Washington Post) claim that he said he believes in God (they didn't quote him), but I've seen him avoid answering direct questions about it several times. And by the way, there are indeed sources which describe him as atheist. (Not sure I'm convinced of that, just sayin'...)
IN BLACK AND WHITE a primary source from the horses mouth
No. A .PDF file from an unknown author attached via a link to his actual Official Senate Bio, which conspicuously does not mention anything about his religion (while many of his colleague's Senate Bios do). The .PDF file even contains other errors and vagueness (Winning by 12 votes instead of 10 comes to mind). Common sense tells us that the document was generated by his staff (perhaps someone suffering the same ethnicity-religion confusion JzG correctly identified), but that he would have final approval over. If he even bothered to review it, is the awkwardly worded "Religion=Jewish" even something he would have taken issue with? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
He says "I’m proud to be Jewish"[1] but it would be "rude" of us to indicate that he is Jewish in the Infobox? Do I understand you correctly? Would you care to explain? What you are saying seems somewhat contradictory to me. You seem to be saying that he has "publicly rejected" being Jewish, but I think the opposite would be closer to the truth. Not only does he numerous times say he is proud to be Jewish but he issues a press kit at "sanders.senate.gov" reading "Religion: Jewish". He does not keep it a secret that he is Jewish. Would you expect him to say "I'm proud to be of the Jewish religion"? People don't speak that way. WP:BLPCAT should not be demanding that Jews "self-identify" in language that is apart from normal speech. In common parlance, saying that one is proud to be Jewish should suffice for the Wikipedia purpose of self-identification. If you are going to argue that he would have to say something like "I am Jewish, religiously", that is simply unrealistic, because people do not speak that way. He need not be a part of "organized religion", although to a limited extent he is.[2] Do you note in that source that he participated in the lighting of a Chanukah menorah? He did so in the capacity of a Jew. Please note this source. "...he appeared later that day with Lynchburg’s mayor for the Rosh Hashana ritual of tashlikh, the symbolic casting of sins into a stream."[3]. That happens to be religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Pure WP:OR. If you disagree with Wikipedia policy at WP:BLPCAT feel free to go to WT:BLP and suggest a version that is more to your liking. Until you get consensus to change BLPCAT you are required to follow it, just as you are required to follow all Wikipedia policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy Macon—what would satisfy you as far as self-identification is concerned as per WP:BLPCAT? Please suggest normal language that Bernie Sanders could be using that you might find satisfactory. Please give me an example. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't speak for Guy Macon, but what would satisfy me (and more importantly, Wikipedia requirement), would be an unambiguous self-identification in direct speech (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) as to what his religion is; preferably one that requires less interpretation than other self-identifications in direct speech elsewhere (like he did here: "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."). But remember that self-identification is just one of several requirements which must be satisfied before a living person can be labeled in the infobox with a religion designation. It must also be a significant component of their notability and public life, and the designation must be an unambiguous, non-contentious, accurate fact which clearly summarizes the sourced information on his religious beliefs in the body of his article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xenophrenic—what would satisfy you as far as self-identification is concerned as per WP:BLPCAT? Please suggest normal language that Bernie Sanders could be using that you might find satisfactory. Please give me an example. I would think that if there is no language that is realistically possible by which Bernie Sanders can self-identify as being of the Jewish religion, then the whole purpose of self-identification is defeated. For example, a person does not normally make a statement such as "My religion is Jewish", or "My religion is Judaism". That is because people don't normally speak that way. It is much more common for a person to say for instance "I'm proud to be Jewish". That is common parlance, and that is what we should be looking for, or some approximation of that. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Bus stop. What would satisfy me (and more importantly, Wikipedia requirement), would be an unambiguous self-identification in direct speech (not a .PDF file of unknown origin) as to what his religion is; preferably one that requires less interpretation than other self-identifications in direct speech elsewhere (like he did here: "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."). I disagree with you that people do not normally say that their religion is Jewish, or "My religion is Judaism". And remember that self-identification is just one of several requirements which must be satisfied before a living person can be labeled in the infobox with a religion designation. It must also be a significant component of their notability and public life, and the designation must be an unambiguous, non-contentious, accurate fact which clearly summarizes the sourced information on his religious beliefs in the body of his article. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Perhaps more to Bus Stop's point, it's just too damned bad that 'It is much more common for a person to say for instance "I'm proud to be Jewish".' It's an ambiguous statement. In reality. That means we can't just take it to mean whatever we want it to mean. It's a moot point with regard to Sanders, since we have RS with him stating that he's not religiously Jewish anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Bus stop: That is precisely the problem I identified with confusing Jewish-as-in-race with Jewish-as-in-religion. Nobody disputes that he's Jewish, but he himself has stated that he does not follow the Jewish religion. Rejecting the label of Jewish faith means we don't put it in the Religion parameter. Maybe we need a parameter for cultural identity, but religion is clearly tendentious in context. I addressed precisely the point of cultural Jewishness versus religious Judaism. A secular Jew may indeed celebrate the religious festivals without being in the least bit religious, especially if they are proud of their cultural identity. Many people who do not profess the Christian faith still celebrate Christmas, this does not confer Christianity on them. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"he himself has stated that he does not follow the Jewish religion." Er, no. That's not at all what he said. He said that he is "not particularly religious." or "not actively involved with organized religion." That is not the same thing as not following the Jewish religion, or "Rejecting the label of Jewish faith". In particular, besides having his religion stated as Jewish in his official press bio, he's also responded to questions and statements specifically involving and referencing religion and spirituality by saying "being Jewish is an important part of my life." and "It's a guiding principle in my life, absolutely, it is." amongst discussing it numerous other ways and times. To understand the "not particularly religious" or not being actively involved quotes in context, besides just considering the words at their face value which don't decry Judaism, one should look at the hundreds of years of history and the spectrum in which Judaism is practiced and observed. Not only is his behaviour common and accepted, it is supported by the religious texts. Centerone (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Guy—you say "he does not follow the Jewish religion".[4] Give me an example of what following the Jewish religion would mean, to you. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that is obvious: being religiously observant, and not making statements that repudiate organised religion. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Guy—a person does not have to meet your standards. We are not saying that he is Orthodox. You are (inadvertently) pointing out that he is not Orthodox. Every editor in this discussion agrees that he is not Orthodox. But is his religion Jewish? Yes—according to every source that addresses the question. He doesn't have to attend or be a member of a synagogue. Do you think a person whose religion previously was Judaism loses that religion as a consequence of not attending synagogue? No source is saying that. And certainly no source says that concerning Bernie Sanders. As editors we should not be taking stances based on mere personal opinions. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
A person does not have to meet Guy's standards (and I don't see where he claimed so), but does have to meet Wikipedia's standards. With that firmly in mind, when you assert, is his religion Jewish? Yes—according to every source that addresses the question, please provide here "every source" wherein Sanders self-identifies in direct speech as required, "that his religion is Jewish [sic]". And no, a .PDF file of unknown origin linked to his Senate website is not such a source. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
He doesn't repudiate organized religion, he's just not actively involved with it. There is a difference. However, even if he did 'repudiate' organized Judaism, that's okay, questioning and challenging things is supported and encouraged in Judaism. Also, He doesn't need to be actively involved with it. He doesn't need to attend or be a member of a Temple or Synagogue. Jews don't need a Rabbi or a building or anything like that to be religious or commune with God. For some rituals, they only need 10 men - none of which need to be Rabbis, that's a minyan. He also can follow or not follow rituals, practices, and beliefs as he sees fit and still be considered a Jew, religiously. This is supported by the texts of the religion, and Jewish scholarship. You might also want to consider various movements and the spectrum of religious practice in Judaism from Reconstructionist, to Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox - these are just mainstream practices that are well known; there are others. I previously posted the following, but i see it's now been archived. Here it is again, note that this is text from an _Orthodox_ website: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45132/jewish/What-Makes-a-Jew-Jewish.htm I keep thinking that I should quote some lines from it, but there are *SO MANY*. Let me try just to quote a few: "Can one still be Jewish without observing the edicts and ethos of Torah in one's daily life? Answer: Jews defy all conventional definitions of a "people" or "nation." We lack a common race, culture or historical experience." "Throughout our 3300-year history, what has defined us as Jews is a relationship and commitment. We are Jews because G‑d chose us to be" "This would seem to define our Jewishness as a "religion": we are Jews because we adhere to the beliefs and practices mandated by the Torah. But the Torah itself says that this is not so." "In the words of the Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a), "A Jew, although he has transgressed, is a Jew." Centerone (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Jews don't need a Rabbi or a building or anything like that to be religious or commune with God.
On behalf of people from all other faiths who claim the same — and I'll resist the urge to (using my best church lady voice) say, "Well, isn't that special!" — I'll merely note that has nothing to do with the issue under discussion.
Your statement that a non-religious Jew can follow or not follow rituals, practices, and beliefs as he sees fit and still be considered a Jew, religiously reminds me of what attendees at AA meetings are told, "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" even if they swear off alcohol and never again touch another drink. A question for you, Centerone: If it takes a whole paragraph like that to even begin to try to convince Guy (who seems to already have a good grasp of Sanders' religion and ethnicity) that despite Sanders' words regarding organized religion and his own lack of religiousness he should still be labeled by Wikipedia as a religious Jew, how many more paragraphs will it take to explain that to an average reader? And how do you propose to get all that in the |Religion= field? Infobox fields are for simple, unambiguous key facts which summarize information already in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Every darn thread on this subject on this page is redundant. Centerone (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I will try to make points that haven't been discussed much. We all agree that Bernie Sanders is an ethnic Jew. There are countless ethnic Jews who have repudiated religion. They self-identify as atheist or agnostic, they state they do not believe in God, they state that they are not part of the Jewish religion, they avoid synagogues and religious observances like the plague. No one argues that such people should be called members of the Jewish religion. But Bernie Sanders is not such a person. It is clear to everyone that he is not highly observant religiously. But a high level of tradional religious observance is simply not required in order to be a member of the Jewish religion. Sanders is of Jewish ancestry, is ethnically Jewish, self identifies as "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet, says he believes (non traditionally) in God, and reliable sources report that he sometimes engages in Jewish religious rituals. That is good enough for normative Jews worldwide to accept him as a member of the Jewish religion. But it is not good enough for a handful of determined Wikipedia editors who function as self-appointed judges of Jewish religious identity. They propound their original research theories such as the notion that an identity as a "secular Jew" is somehow incompatible with membership in the Jewish religion. Such notions reflect a profound misunderstanding of the Jewish religion. I am a secular Jew who is a member of the Jewish religion. We are legion. There is no contradiction. Is there a single solitary reliable source that says "Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Jewish religion"? Of course not. Is any Wikipedia editor bold enough to state that Bernie Sanders is not a member of the Jewish religion? I certainly hope not but I fear that they would. Their obsessive editing behavior makes it difficult to achieve consensus on the infobox issue, creating a situation where every other member of Congress except one overtly non-religious member has the basic biographical fact of their religion listed in the infobox. Richard Nixon is called a Quaker in his infobox! And one of the deniers self identifies as a Quaker! A basic biographical religious identity is denied in the infobox to a progressive Jew, and speaking as a progressive Jew, it hurts deeply and I find it profoundly offensive. I can recognize a dogged and determined opponent, and instead of fighting, I will just say, "For shame!" Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia article on secularity, "Secularity (adjective form secular, from Latin saecularis meaning 'worldly' or 'temporal') is the state of being separate from religion, or of not being exclusively allied with or against any particular religion." Per dictionary.com, "secular" means: "1. of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal....2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred )...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course you know that a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source but since you quoted from one article, then I will quote from another which is more applicable, Secular Judaism:
"In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Ahad Ha'am contributed to the secular movement with his ideas on Jewish national identity, religion and religious practice. He saw Jewish religious cultural tradition as integral for the education of secular Jews."
There is nothing in Jewish tradition or practice that says that a person cannot simultaneously self-identify as both a secular Jew and as a member of the Jewish religion, and no reliable source makes such a claim. My synagogue has many such members and our community has other such members who like Sanders are not synagogue dues payers. These people exist. Secular in this context is not synonymous with complete rejection of a Jewish religious identity. It is just that the identity is not highly observant or "orthodox". Reliable sources are more important than quotes from Wikipedia articles, though those articles are useful in discussions like this to the extent that they accurately summarize the sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Since you selected a quote from Secularity, then in fairness, ponder another quote from the same articlle, which summarizes things nicely:
"This does not necessarily imply hostility to God or religion, though some use the term this way (see "secularism", below); Martin Luther used to speak of "secular work" as a vocation from God for most Christians. According to cultural anthropologists such as Jack David Eller, secularity is best understood, not as being "anti-religious", but as being "religiously neutral" since many activities in religious bodies are secular themselves and most versions of secularity do not lead to irreligiosity." Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you aware that you just deleted my comment? Are you aware that I quoted dictionary.com in my previous comment to you? I don't think it's shameful to resolve disputes about meaning by referring to a dictionary. Is there a dictionary definition of "secular" that supports your position? As to secular Jews benefitting from being educated about non-secular Jews, I entirely agree with that. I also entirely agree that religious Jews engage in many secular activities (including work), but the term "secular Jew" refers to people, not activities. I've never suggested that the BLP subject has any hostility to God or religion, by the way.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I did not mean to delete your comment, and I apologize with the explanation that it is late at night and I did not notice. Of course, dictionary definitions are useful but not determinative. I will repeat my earlier assertion that there is no contradiction whatsover between being a "secular Jew" and a member of the Jewish religion. If you think that's the case, then I wonder if you (or the other editors who argue similarly) have done any serious study about Jewish identity. Again, there are plenty of ethnic Jews who have repudiated a Jewish religious identity, as is their right if they so choose. Bernie Sanders is not among them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
A "secular Jew" is not necessarily one who rejects the religion entirely. Instead, it means that businesses should not be forced to close on the Jewish Sabbath (or the Christian Sabbath as was common in the US only a few decades ago). Marriage and burial should not be under the exclusive control of the rabbinate or clergy, as is the case in Israel. Butchers should be free to sell (or not sell) pork or shellfish, or meats not slaughtered under rabbinic supervision. Governmental events should not include mandatory denominational prayers. The public sphere should be wide open to people of all faiths or no faith. Secular Jews do not reject religion but instead reject any mandatory imposition of religious observance in the public sphere. All reliable sources about secular Judaism that I have read agree on these principles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Cullen328: This isn't a discussion forum on Bernie Sanders' religion and whether secular Jews can be religiously Jewish. If you have reliable sourcing to claim that Bernie Sanders is religiously Jewish, then just lay it out. If not - and as far as I can see, nobody here has pointed to any statements by Bernie Sanders about being religiously Jewish - then this discussion belongs on a chat forum, but not on this talk page. We can't put "Religion: Judaism" in the article if we don't actually know what Sanders' religious beliefs are. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thucydides411, the problem with your comment is that we do know about his religious beliefs. He self-identifies as "Religion: Jewish" in his press packet. He says he believes in God and considers religion important. He has spoken repeatedly about how being Jewish has influenced his career as a politician. Reliable sources report that he has participated in various Jewish religious observances throughout his life, including in recent months. We know that he is not a synagogue member, that he is not highly observant, and that he expresses his Jewish values primarily (though not exclusively) in secular ways. So, we know quite a bit about his religious beliefs, and it is all referenced to reliable sources in the article, and I added several of those sources. I have studied them. And nothing we know indicates that he is not a member of the Jewish religion. Quite the contrary. We have far better sources showing that Sanders is actually religiously Jewish than we have sources showing that Donald Trump is actually Presbyterian. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Cullen328, no, we don't actually know Sanders' religious beliefs. My personal reading of him, based on how he's answered direct questions on national television about his religious beliefs, is that he's an atheist. Your personal reading of him, based on his attendance of some services, is that he's religiously Jewish. But our speculation is irrelevant here. I might be wrong, and Sanders might be avoiding saying "I believe in Judaism" because that's politically tricky, or you may be wrong, because many atheist Jews attend synagogue on occasion, especially on the high holidays. The press packet isn't compelling, because we don't know who compiled it or how careful they were being in distinguishing religion from ethnicity. Absent a clear statement from Sanders about being religiously Jewish, and I've searched but not found one, we shouldn't fill out the infobox with conjecture. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur. The press packet is just one isolated data point, it is contradicted by too much other evidence, and all this "certainty" the part of some that Sander's is religiously Jewish is just a bunch of WP:OR (of all four kinds at once, being novel analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis of primary sources. It's forbidden by policy four times over.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In Israel, there's a common distinction between hiloni versus dati, which mean secular versus religious. Jews who reject the Jewish religion are considered secular. This matches pretty well with the definition of "secular" in English dictionaries. So when a press packet (which is a primary source) says Sanders' religion is Jewish, but secondary sources say he's a secular Jew and self-identifies as such, then it's a bit ambiguous. In any event, over 900 biographies at Wikipedia say "Ethnicity: Jewish", and we know from reliable sources that Sanders' ethnicity is more of a key feature than any religion that he may believe. I'm getting kind of tired of this little controversy, and so will try to avoid it here on out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I’m reminded, reading Sanders, of the following passage:

For my Religion, though there be severall circumstances that might perswade the world Christian. I have none at all, as the general scandall of my profession, the naturall course of my studies, the indifferency of my behaviour and discourse in matters of religion (neither violently defending one, nor with that common ardour and contention opposing another), yet, in despight hereof, I dare without usurpation assume the honourable style of a Christian.( Sir Thomas Browne, ‘Religio Medici,’ in The Major Works, ed. C.A. Patrides Penguin 1977 p.61)

Cullen has given good arguments suggesting the word ‘religion’ means something different in Judaism to what it means for the generality of (American) Christians or secularists in that country (the prepossession of the ‘religious’ issue is, for many non-Americans like myself, somewhat bewildering), and that in this sense one community is being misread out of another community’s cultural misprisions. I’ve tried to review why I didn’t think it appropriate. For one or two who might be interested this is the reason.
I was once called in to arbitrate between 4 waiters in a backwood restaurant in Italy. Three were established there, one had just arrived. They were 'basically' Albanian, and all Muslims, but the longest serving one, a friend, had mixed parentage. He and the other two were being berated by the newcomer, from Kosovo, for not speaking Albanian and identifying with the new pan-Albanian movement. This took place near the kitchen, and the troublesome fellow was a butcher, handy with knives. My Macedonian Muslim friend called me over, but before entering the fray I asked him what version of Albanian the troublemaker spoke: it was Gheg. The point was, that he felt the other three who conversed among themselves in Macedonian or Italian, were betraying a group-national cause, in which all differences had to be submerged in a common affirmation of shared 'Albanian' identity. It emerged that the fellow thought this regional Macedonian resistance to being bundled up as 'Albanians' in an deeply ethnically-conflicted region was undermining pan-Albanian aspirations, which extended to northern Macedonia which, he said, would eventually form part of a large Albanian empire. The other 3 were apolitical, were refugees from the conflict, and primarily wanted to work anywhere, esp. Italy, where they could raise their respective families in peace. For them, being Albanian was obvious, but not the major part of their identities. There may also have been a certain fear that being passed off as only 'Albanians' might make things difficult for them, since Italian prejudices at the time associated that group with thieving and violence. The strongest part of their identity, outside of family, was their religion, but even that was not, as was the case with the newcomer, brandished publicly. It was a private matter. That is what I thought back on while watching the Bernie Sanders brouhaha. Sanders is Jewish ethnically, his website writes 'Jewish' for religion. But he has consistently held off from clarifying this, refusing to enter the fundamentally Christian-American obsession of making 'religion' a part of political discourse, and an electoral issue. And he has not expanded on what he means by 'Jewish' in a religious context, which for all we know, might be an atheist's intelligent recognition of the importance of Judaism in the formation of his humanitarian values, or subscribing, to honour one's forebears and their travails, to the specific experience of those raised under the umbrella of Judaism. It may be, in its minimalism, deliberately equivocal for reasons any scholar of Sir Thomas Browne would understand. In short, he refuses to be caught up in the "our guy" badgering of one side/the anti-Semitic flip side of which is the "their guy" snarking. If I understand him correctly, he is perhaps the most, (perhaps the only) passionate advocate of a general, inclusive, 'Graeco-Roman(pagan)-Judeo-Christian' outlook associated with Western civilization. His reticence comes from a sense that the constituency he wishes to woo is inclusive of all religious, ethnic, social and economic backgrounds.
The rigorists erased 'Jewish' because, apart from that one press release, he has not flaunted a self-identification with Judaism (and many indications suggest he is not 'religious' (in the Christian sense, where there is a sharp divide between faith and secularism). Two in particular of the defenders of its retention cited the entry as proof he is one of "us" also religiously (Judaism, at least in its Conservative and Reform branches, does not appear to mark off neatly religion as strict observance from religion as an ensemble of practices one occasionally enacts). The reason for the difference in the idea of religion is that Christianity tends to be more theo-ideological, whereas Judaism blurs the lines between cultural practices (what Christians call 'faith') and ethnicity so that the one implies familiarity with the other.
Given that Christians, or people from a general Christian (inclusive of Western secular) background, hail from a tradition that invented anti-Semitism, and made it virtually programmatic for millennia, it is not only natural, but a selective survival trait to be extremely wary of discourse about 'Jews' coming from outside the fold. This natural reflex was evident here, and, the swarming in of so many voices on a rather finicky issue, which invariably happens only if Jewishness is the topic, meant that antennae picked up and read a lot of what was being said in support of erasing the 'Jewish' religion entry, as an uncomfortable trace of this age old 'Western' (Christianocentric) obsession. At the same time, one can overread, or pick up the wrong signal from the noise. Cullen and Gamaliel saw it as Malik did, Number 47 implicitly disagreed. I think that Number 57 made the correct call technically, but I can understand why the others saw that humongous argument as, in part, not detached from an ominous rumbling.
J. J. Goldberg has put this eloquently in a fine identitarian psephological analysis.

It’s ironic, perhaps, that few will feel this sting. The Jewish voters most likely to support Sanders — younger, more liberal, less religious — are precisely the Jews least likely to feel the tug of ethnic pride at the success of “our guy.” The Jews most prone to that sort of ethnic loyalty are, for the most part, the ones least likely to feel the Bern.

For some editors on the other hand pushing adamantly for the ascription of his religion, what Goldberg earlier wrote is also relevant:

The Sanders campaign is providing the backdrop for a mass Jewish psychodrama of wrenching, deeply depressing proportions. Sanders is serving as a passive canvas onto which we are projecting a startling array of our saddest insecurities, neuroses and self-delusions.

One could say, mutatis mutandis that this applies equally with the obsessive kvetching by the press and Wikipedia editors on both sides of the issue.
Though it is not part of wiki practice to look into the larger context or extended thinking beyond the apparent meaning of relevant diffs, sometimes one wishes that all parties might comment less, and think more deeply into the sensitive hinterlands of a talk page controversy, particularly one like this. I think these sensitivities were ignored (as I think they are widely ignored by many editors at least in the past whose main interest in early Christianity is backdating the charge of antisemitism to that religion, showing a total insensitivity to current scholarship and the sensitivities of believers). I’m a pagan also because I think religions are intrinsically liable to incomprehension of others, reflecting the doctrinal disagreements that thrive within the folds themselves). I have no idea how Bernie Sanders stands in this densely intricate discursive muddle, and don’t care. Both possessiveness about someone else’s private identity and the converse, dispossessiveness by those who live beyond its cultural confines, disturb me, though I do think now that if a press release from his office he is familiar with does rate his religion as 'Jewish', it probably holds more weight than wiki's pettifogging. I don't believe it is representative of that man's history to be so specific, but I've no right to contradict what his own office puts out in his name.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Damn, I thought I made long posts. Anyway, Cullen's point that, as you summarized it, "the word ‘religion’ means something different in Judaism to what it means for the generality of (American) Christians or secularists in that country", is completely extraneous. This is a general parameter in a general infobox using general English to a general audience. It is not Americans-specific, Jews-specific, or Jewish-Americans-specific. This article is not written in Jewish American sociolect. Neither is the infobox. Cullen needs to see WP:JARGON and WP:SSF; it's fallacious to assume or suggest that WP would use words with an extremely specialized alleged meaning when we're writing something in a general context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What matters here are policies and sources. We should want to know that religion has relevance. We have sources saying "Why Bernie Sanders’ Judaism is so important"[5] so we know his religion is relevant. Besides, almost all other similar articles consider religion to be relevant. Next we want to know if we have "self-identification". This is easily satisfied by the press kit reading "Religion: Jewish" and quite frankly reinforced by the numerous instances in which Sanders says that he is proud to be Jewish. Concerning the embrace of religion, we are not looking to see if he is an Orthodox Jew. He is not. But we find reliably sourced numerous instances of sporadic participation in Jewish ritual, and that easily satisfies an affirmative relationship to the Jewish religion. "As the mayor of Burlington, Vt., Mr. Sanders in 1983 was asked by Rabbi Yitzchok Raskin to permit the lighting of an eight-foot-tall menorah on the steps of City Hall. He not only agreed but lit the second-night candles himself. Rabbi Raskin recalled that when he asked Mr. Sanders if he needed guidance, Mr. Sanders said, “I know the blessings,” and recited them in Hebrew."[6] "Today, Senator Sanders does not regularly attend any synagogue in Washington or Vermont, though he does show up for rituals like the yahrzeit — the anniversary of a death — of the father of a close friend, Richard Sugarman, who teaches philosophy in the religion department at the University of Vermont."[7] We know that his religion is Jewish because the sources are telling us that this is the case. At most if not all other articles on candidates for the US presidency "religion" is listed in the Infobox, and this article should be no exception. Sources support that Sanders' religion is Jewish. Policy language most applicable can be found at WP:BLPCAT. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You've already said that dozens of times. It's bludgeoning the discussion. I stopped reading after your first link to Matthew Rozsa, whose opinion is not evidence. Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rozsa source was posted to attest to the relevance of Sanders' religion. But there are of course many other sources that can attest to the relevance of Sanders' religion. Here is one: "Sanders’s religious views, which he has rarely discussed, set him apart from the norm in modern American politics, in which voters have come to expect candidates from both parties to hold traditional views about God and to speak about their faith journeys."[8] I think we would all agree that his politics is more important than his religion, but his religion is not so irrelevant that it should be omitted from the Infobox. And of course it is WP:BLPCAT that is requiring us to show "relevance" for religion. Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rozsa opinion piece by a college student (self-proclaimed online "pundit" and blogger), doesn't state how Sanders' notability is because of his religion, or lack thereof. Neither does the WaPo piece, which actually confirms that religion isn't and hasn't been a significant component of Sanders' public life. I'm fairly certain that Sanders is notable for his public service and politics (Mayor, Representative, Senator), not his religion, and the only reason you are now seeing his religion (and everything else about him) mentioned in the media is because he is running for the highest office in the land. You are confusing "must be relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" (Wikipedia requirement) with "he's notable as a candidate, so now the media thinks his religion along with everything else about him is relevant enough to be published". Perhaps you should review the Wikipedia requirement a little more carefully? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you quite grasp that his religion is relevant because "the media" regards it as relevant. You are saying "...now the media thinks his religion along with everything else about him is relevant ..."[9] Sources pay attention to his religion. That constitutes relevance for Wikipedia purposes. And by the way, the high degree of scrutiny that his religion has come under is the reason that you can claim that his religion is "ambiguous". Were his religion not under a microscope you would not be able to make the incorrect claim that the parts don't add up. What is missing from your far flung argument is the all-important source saying that his religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for clearly demonstrating your confusion (again). I have not made the argument that "his religion is not Jewish". You can keep propping up that strawman and knocking it down, but I think everyone sees through that argument fallacy by now. Back to my actual argument (Wikipedia's argument, actually): "must be relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources". And remember, just because you find a source or sources which mention his religion, that doesn't mean Sanders is notable because of his religious status (Sorry, but that isn't why he has a Wikipedia article). Show me the sources which explain that the reason the world knows about Bernie Sanders is because of his religious status. We'll go from there. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
So, wait.. let me get this straight.... "I have not made the argument that "his religion is not Jewish"?? Are you now suggesting that you now believe that he is infact Jewish by religion? Because, I could have sworn that it has been part of your argument for a while that he wasn't of the Jewish religion. If you now accept that he practices Judaism as a religion, then can I ask, what changed your mind? Also, if so, can you help us convince others who still feel that way as a major part of their argument? If we can get beyond debating that simple referenced fact, we can make this a much simpler, and perhaps more polite discussion as to whether that information should be in the infobox or not. Centerone (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you now suggesting that you now believe that he is infact Jewish by religion?
No. I don't have any "beliefs" on the matter. All I do is repeat what reliable sources say (which sometimes includes Sanders himself).
I could have sworn...
Suggestion: Rather than 'swear' to stuff that likely isn't true or accurate, just read what I have written. As for Sanders, sources (including the man himself), overwhelmingly convey that he eschews organized religion, religious rituals, talking about religion, and he repeatedly reminds us that he simply isn't very religious at all. By contrast, several Wikipedians argue that he should be labeled in our infobox simply as religiously Jewish. The totality of reliably sourced information available to date convinces me that such use of the |Religion= field would be not only misleading, but in violation of Wikipedia requirements. I hope that clears things up for you. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic—please review the following:

Is Mitt Romney noted for being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Is Rick Santorum noted for his Roman Catholicism?
Is Rick Perry noted for his Nondenominational Evangelicalism?
Is Elizabeth Warren noted for her United Methodism?
Is Rand Paul noted for his Presbyterianism?
Is Joe Biden noted for being a Roman Catholic person?
Is Jim Webb noted for his Nondenominational Christianity?
Is Chris Christie notable for his Roman Catholicism?
Is Jeb Bush notable for his Episcopalianism?
Is Lincoln Chafee notable for being an Episcopalian?
Is Marco Rubio noted for Roman Catholicism?
Is John Kasich noted for Anglicanism?
Is Ted Cruz noted for being a Southern Baptist?
Is Ben Carson notable for being a Seventh-day Adventist?
Is Hillary Clinton notable for being a Methodist?
Is Donald Trump notable for his Presbyterianism?
Is Martin O'Malley notable for his Roman Catholicism?
Is Carly Fiorina notable for her Nondenominational Christianity?
Is Jim Gilmore noted for his Methodism?
Is Lindsey Graham noted for being a Southern Baptist?
Is Mike Huckabee noted for being a Southern Baptist?
Is Bobby Jindal noted for his Roman Catholicism?
Is George Pataki noted for his Roman Catholicism?
Is Scott Walker noted for his Nondenominational Evangelicalism?
You are saying "And remember, just because you find a source or sources which mention his religion, that doesn't mean Sanders is notable because of his religious status (Sorry, but that isn't why he has a Wikipedia article). Show me the sources which explain that the reason the world knows about Bernie Sanders is because of his religious status."[10] Sanders doesn't have to be notable "because of his religious status". You are misunderstanding the "relevancy" requirement in WP:BLPCAT. Do you think all the other presidential candidates are mainly notable for their religious status? Do you think there are Wikipedia articles about all the above individuals due to their religious status? Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind, Bus stop, that many of us want to see all of those go, and have said so and have even started RfCs over this. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS, which is not a license to continue to violate policy in still more articles. I think part of the reason many examples (like those listed above) where |Religion= has been used without much objection is because those politicians, unlike Bernie Sanders, aren't known to have publicly said they aren't part of organized religion and repeatedly reminded us that they simply aren't very religious at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Concur with Curly Turkey and Xenophrenic, and would add that Mormon, Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, etc., are not simultaneously religions and ethnicities, so they do not raise the same central issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the above should have been closed. It was a discussion, not an RFC. That being said, for now I'll just add some additional commentary, rather than reopen at this time. Whether or not one agrees that an Infobox should or should not include Religion based on some level of "notability FOR" the religion, I would have to pose the following: Per Guy Macon's point: "Excellent point. Certainly Huckabee is notable for his religion, and perhaps Cruz and Carson" .. I'd agree that Huckabee is specifically notable for his religion due to his religious education (attending the seminary) and then being involved in religion as a career. However, as I see it I would only say that Cruz and Carson are only notable for their religions because those religions are different and unusual in relation to the majority common denominations/religions of most politicians that seek the presidency. Perhaps there is a bit of their story I have missed, but I don't think they are particularly notable for their religions for other reasons. In the same way, I would say that Bernie Sanders is notable for his religion (yes, I know Guy and a few others don't even believe it's his religion, but let's practice suspension of disbelief just for this thought process, okay?) Bernie Sanders' religion is different and notable in the same ways that Cruz and Carson are notable. This is also the same way that John F. Kennedy was notable for his religion. JFK was the first Roman Catholic president and it was a big deal at the time he was running and elected, not because of anything he did differently as a person, but just because his religion was different. Centerone (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Is JFK's religion so relevant in his Infobox, though? Outside of sufficient contextualization, what does it even mean? In the context of an Infobox it's hardly more than a factoid (like listing his blood type). (Note: I'm assuming the reason you're suggesting it's notable is the context of "first Catholic president"—perhaps it's notable for other reasons I'm unaware of.) Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
That is basically what I was suggesting. It was important in relation to him based on how it was a controversy during his election and presidency. Whether that's because of some issue, culturally, around the religion, or just because he was the first, (and still only), I don't know. Also, I was saying that Guy Macon also said that for some reason Ted Cruz and Ben Carson's religions are notable enough to be in the infobox for the same reason. If they're notable enough for the same reason, then Bernie Sanders' religion is also notable enough to remain in the infobox. (Lets just discuss this point and not debate whether he is or isn't Jewish.) Centerone (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
As to the question of how this information comes across in an infobox, well, I think even in relation to Mike Huckabee, it's still just a 'factoid'. So, whether it's JFK, or someone else, it's just one simple thing, but the story, whatever it is, can never fully come across in an infobox. It's a simple fact that doesn't tell a whole story. I personally don't believe infoboxes are meant to tell whole stories, just to provide basic information at a glance. A number of things typically contained in infoboxes can use further explanation depending upon how much you want to understand about an individual. Centerone (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am in agreement with Centerone that the above discussion should not be closed. ("I don't believe the above should have been closed. It was a discussion, not an RFC.")[11] I am un-hatting it. Bus stop (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • See WP:LAWYER and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. This is precisely the same thing as an RfC except it didn't have some template at the top of it. It's how disputes have always been settled here. The WP:RFC page and template were created simply as a means of attracting more people into such discussions; they're a supplement to the discussions, not a walled garden of some magically special kind of them. Due to the extensive canvasing and forum shopping of one of the participants, and other means by which this dispute has been referenced on many other pages, this is a very well-attended consensus discussion. Thirty days is long enough for it; it is extremely unlikely that a new view will be presented that no one thought of, that it would change the outcome, or that a sudden influx of additional commenters will change the ratio of editorial views on the matter or the basis of any of them. Any WP:ANRFC respondent will be able to summarize the consensus and close this, per normal. A large number of things listed for admin closure at ANRFC are not technically RfCs, and no one ever gives a damn but people who know that the consensus has not gone their way and thus hope to WP:GAME the system against the consensus finding (hint: that never works). ANRC can close this whether or not you unhat it, and surely will do so as soon as someone with the asbestos guts to do it gets around to it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Guy, at the top of this thread. Sources tell us Sanders is a secular Jew (i.e., he's ethnically Jewish at least in part, not a practitioner of the Jewish faith), and adding |religion=Jewish is WP:OR and WP:POV. Now that people not getting their way here and in various other articles where they want to label people inappropriately, they're agitating to add an |ethnicity= parameter (in the wrong venue; it's at Template talk:Infobox instead of Template talk:Infobox person). This is getting ridiculous. All of these people – whether anti-Semites, or Jews wanting to "claim" Sanders for their faith – need to just zip it, and stop disrupting Wikipedia to get their way on a trivial point.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

BLPCAT

Some people keep bringing up BLPCAT repeatedly as to why Religion:Jewish shouldn't be in the infobox.. yet BLPCAT is specifically named in regards to Categories, yet I have not heard anybody suggest that we should remove any categories such as: American Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Jewish American mayors, Jewish American writers, Jewish feminists, Jewish human rights activists, Jewish members of the United States House of Representatives, Jewish socialists, Jewish United States Senators Is there anybody who actually seriously believes we should remove these categories? Centerone (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Sanders is an American Jew. That's not what the dispute is about. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
So, are you suggesting that none of those categories should be removed from the article? Centerone (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Centerone—no one has suggested removing any of the Categories. This page has been consumed by whether or not to include "religion" in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and that is why I created a new section and have asked the question. I'm not asking about the infobox. It's been discussed extensively. Centerone (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Nobody wants to remove any of these CATs, so what are you suggesting we discuss? What are you hoping to accomplish with this thread? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Nobody, CurlyTurkey? And people don't want to remove _any_ of them? I didn't know that, and how can you? That's why I asked the question. I was hoping to get a response from people like Guy Macon, yourself, Xenophrenic, etc. who are so outspoken about the infobox, and his religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as you see it. I was trying to get an answer to that question. Centerone (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey is correct. In addition, regarding the above claim that "BLPCAT is specifically named in regards to Categories", WP:BLPCAT clearly states that "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs" Nobody has named BLPCAT in regards to categories. The entire discussion has been about one entry ("Religion = ") in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Fine. But we have sources telling us that Sanders' religion is Judaism. Perhaps you haven't seen this: "...Sanders’ Judaism deemphasizes the traditional, tangible elements of the religion..."[12] Notice the words "Judaism" and "religion"? I think this clearly lends support to the inclusion of religion in the Infobox. We should be following explicit sources such as this. Bus stop (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • So contextualize that in the body. That's not an argument for including it in the Infobox. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • His religion can be contextualized in the body. But we know from that source that his religion is Judaism. As I said, this lends support to the inclusion of religion in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That would violate Wikipedia policy. 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." --Guy Macon (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • That would violate Wikipedia policy. From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) ... should not be used unless ... the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Xenophrenic (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This source distinguishes between religion and ethnicity: "...Sanders’ Judaism deemphasizes the traditional, tangible elements of the religion..."[13] You can no longer say Sanders' Jewishness is only ethnicity and not religion. That argument is out the window. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • An opinion by a 19-year-old student? That's only a reliable source on what the opinion of the 19-year-old student is. Have you ever heard of the Law of holes? If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_12&oldid=709456057"