Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 11

We are currently in violation of an RfC that had over 75% support.
Template talk:Infobox, (which was approved with a consensus of over 75%), clearly forbids nonreligions in the "Religion = " entry of the infobox. Per WP:LOCALCON we cannot override Template talk:Infobox with a local RfC, and besides, there is a strong consensus that putting "Religion = Jewish" in the infobox violates WP:BLPCAT, which clearly states:

"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. [...] These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements." In my opinion, we should remove the entry now because it clearly violates the overwhelming community consensus at WP:BLPCAT and Template talk:Infobox. We are a few days away from a major primary here in the US, and the infobox of Bernie Sanders page should not say something that is demonstrably not true.

Note, as an experiment in this section only, I would ask everyone to completely ignore any response that contains phrases like "are you saying he isn't Jewish?", "But he says he is Jewish", "Stop claiming that he isn't Jewish" or any variation of those phrases. Don't respond at all (any response just encourages more of the disruptive behavior) and instead talk about whether we should or should not immediately delete the entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It says his ethnicity is Jewish which I don't disagree with at all. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Guy Macon's section, he makes the rules. Apparently when you are dealing with Jews there are special rules that we must follow. Even though as per his bolded part, Bernie has indeed self-identified, even just last-night he said as such, but I guess it will never be good enough for him. I will just let Malik Shabazz deal with you. I have had enough. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bernie Sanders campaign literature stating "Religion: Jewish" means that we are not in "violation" of the RfC. Interpretations and arguments on both side of this content dispute have valid points. This is not a black and white issue that can be solved with appeals to authority.- MrX 17:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it is not black and white, then we should not include the description in the info-box. TFD (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Gosh, where have I heard that before? Perhaps MOS:INFOBOX?
 * "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
 * Or perhaps it was Help:Infobox:
 * "In general, data in infobox templates should be concise (Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts), materially relevant to the subject, and already cited elsewhere in the article."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less. It matters very little. These discussions are a monumental waste of time and energy.- MrX 22:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest not reading things that you find to be a waste of time. If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a Talk:Bernie Sander feed with The Wikipedia Song blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Bernie is ethnically Jewish, that is not disputed by anyone so we should move on! Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (In response to the comment that has since deleted): "Jewish" isn't a religion, nor is "Christian", "Muslim", etc. I understand why it doesn't say "Religion: Judaism" in the infobox, because that would violate WP:OR. But Jewish isn't a religion; it's an ethnic, religious, and cultural *identity*. For the record, I made my first comment in this section before the infobox read "Religion: Jewish" to point out that at the time Sanders's religion wasn't even in the infobox despite Guy Macon claiming that it was. But now it *is* in the infobox, and I didn't come to this section to argue what Sanders's religion is. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, how is this still going on? Should we put a little note in the infobox - maybe request permanent protection for the article? This is such a non-issue. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 06:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK. I don't look at this for a day or so, and discover that now the article does not have a religion in the infobox at all, but it has a religious interpretation of Jewish in a hand-coded "Ethnicity" field. I'm also stumped how it can be considered to be OR to conclude that the subject's utterances are consistent with Judaism as his religion, but it's not OR to imagine that Sanders had nothing to do with a press pack issued by his office about him. If you were writing a full citation for that press kit, who would be in the author field? Most of the examples in the Infobox RfC are adjectives, so arguing that "Jewish" is a non-religion is poor form. --Scott Davis Talk 12:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with on this point.  It's not essential to have it in the infobox, the field is "Religion" and Sanders has said numerous times that he is ethnically Jewish not religiously Jewish.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, that's not actually what he said. He never said he's ethnically Jewish but not religiously Jewish, what he said is that he's "not particularly religious". There is a significant difference between being non-religious and not particularly religious, particularly when it comes to the Jewish religion and American Jewry in particular; much of this has already been discussed.  Guy Macon is simply misinterpreting what that statement means, and continuously repeating it ad nauseum.  Centerone (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually Sanders says his religion is Jewish. He explicitly says "Religion: Jewish". From where are you deriving that his religion is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders HIMSELF (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify. This has been explained to you multiple times. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What has happened in these absurd threats was well diagnosed in this article. J. J. Goldberg, 'Bernie Sanders Keeps Talking About Being Jewish. Why Won't We Listen?,' The Forward 26 February 2016. So drop it. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That article makes a good point. Here on the Bernie Sanders Wikipedia page, we are being bludgeoned by a small minority pushing an unsourced claim concerning Bernie Sanders' religion, but in the process of repeatedly pointing out the total lack of sources where Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) publicly self-identifies as belonging to a particular religion, we must not lose sight of something very significant and notable, which is Bernie Sanders' strong and well-sourced identification of his Jewish heritage and ethnicity as being something that has made him the person that he is and has led him to hold the positions he holds. Explaining and sourcing this properly is an important part of making this a good article. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your responses are somewhat puzzling to me. As it is you're the one pushing the unsourced claim, you're the one who is bludgeoning the process yet you try to make it sound as if it's other people doing so.  Nowhere does he state he does not belong to a religion, nowhere does he state he is an atheist.  How many times does it have to be discussed and pointed out that you are simply misinterpreting what has been said?  He openly states that he is spiritual and believes in God.  His literature and bio openly declares his religion.  There is a difference between being "not particularly religious" and being not religious at all.  When people disprove your claims you move the goal line, choose to ignore the people who have disproven you, or you make attempts to wordsmith things and play games with semantics.  A key point in this article is towards the end: "Part of our problem is that most of our understanding of what Judaism consists of in America today — and what it is that American Jews experience in their Jewish lives — is gathered by and filtered through people who don’t get the average American Jewish psyche — and don’t particularly want to get it, unless it’s to fix it." Centerone (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but "Nowhere does he state he does not belong to a religion" doesn't cut it. Nowhere does he state that he isn't a Scientologist either. Do you have a source where he himself states that he belongs to a particular religion? No. You do not. Per WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify as belonging to a religion.  If you think that BLPCAT is "filtered through people who don’t get the average American Jewish psyche" go to the BLPCAT talk page and suggest that it be modified. Until you succeed at getting it changed, I plan on following the clear instructions in BLPCAT. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no point in arguing about whether or not Sanders practices Judaism or not. What matters is that we follow Wikipedia policy. Since WP:BLPCAT requires that Sanders self-identifies with the religion, we should not reflect that he practices Judaism until he says so himself. Prcc27💋 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And he HAS said so himself! He's just not going to say so in a way simply to satisfy a wikipedia editor's word games.  He's openly stated he believes in God, that he's spiritual, he approved the press packet / bio it where it says Religion: Jewish (editor of the press packet notwithstanding, he still had to approve of it's contents!), that he's proud of being Jewish, etc..  All he's said that has been repeatedly misunderstood is that he's "not particularly religious" which means he's not terribly observant of ritual and ceremony, that he's not involved with a temple or synagogue; this is very common amongst Jews and infact it's supported by religious scholarship that one doesn't need to be terribly observant to still be a Jew by religion. Centerone (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Although it may be hard to believe, there is actually a Wikipedia editor whose religion seems to be repeatedly denying that Bernie Sanders' religion is Judaism, despite his own press packet self identification, and reports in reliable sources that he recited Hanukkah blessings, observes yahrzeit and practiced tashlikh in 2015. That editor is dogmatically religious in arguing that Bernie just isn't Jewish enough to pass that editor's personally stringent test of Jewish religious observance. Quite amazing, actually. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  07:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but when I point it out I get warned that I risk getting blocked for some reason and then Guy Macon posts his stupid step 1 and step 2 thing again. I guess some people don't like having a Jewish presidential candidate for some reason then need to come up with all sorts of bogus reasons and logical fallacies to distort and all it does it make Wikipedia look stupid. Look at his infobox now, it says Ethnicity, and every other 534 members of Congress has Religion, his presskit says Religion, the only difference between him and all the others members of congress and other candidates? He's Jewish. Something smells rotten. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The latest edit, in the infobox, has the ref, "I am proud to be Jewish" with the press kit ref. BTW, Guy Macon and others are wrong when they say it has to be in his own words. They are erroneously quoting a policy that applies to a cat, that is a generalization. Even that "guideline" says the guideline has exceptions and a presskit written by a Senator should obviously be viewed as coming out of his own mouth. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have started edit warring over the infobox (appropriate warning left on your talk page), ignored the fact that there is a discussion on this still occurring, and that consensus has not been reached. You also ignored the admonition from an administrator regarding WP:DS.  PLease note that edit warring doesn't have to equate violating 3RR.  You wasted no time in putting things back to your preferred version all on your own right after the full protection of the article was lifted.  And no,  is not wrong and has not misinterpreted policy.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which policy would that be? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been told several times that per WP:BLPCAT, Bernie Sanders himself (not some anonymous staffer) must publicly self-identify as belonging to a religion. Obvious feigned ignorance is obvious. You say that I am "erroneously quoting a policy that applies to a cat" but WP:BLPCAT clearly states "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements." Obvious pretending to not have read the policy being discussed is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume it is some anonymous staffer? It is on his Senate website. It is his responsibility, let's not be overly stupid here. And he has publicaly self identified as being Jewish. You are the one feigning ignorance. What part of "I am proud of being Jewish" does not mean "I am proud of being Jewish?" Furthermore, read the top of the page you linked to, since you love to quote the BLPCAP, "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Note how normally is hyperlinked to the page about USE COMMON SENSE, try it. AS PER GUY MACON's QUOTING WP:BLPCAT] USE COMMON SENSE That should be the end of the story. Why don't you read your own links? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per User talk:Sir Joseph you have been topic banned from editing any article relating to Bernie Sanders for one week. Per WP:TBAN a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. Please self revert the above comment now. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a Reliable Source to indicate that Bernie Sanders did not write his Press Kit that says his religion is Jewish? --Scott Davis Talk 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a Reliable Source to indicate that Bernie Sanders did not murder and rape a young girl in 1990? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot of confusion in this discussion about what it means to be Jewish. When someone says, "I'm Jewish," it's not equivalent to someone saying "I'm Christian." "I'm Jewish" does not necessarily say anything at all about a ones religion. It can just as easily mean, "I'm culturally or ethnically Jewish," the same way an American might say, "I'm Irish," "I'm Italian" or "I'm black." Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. What's the point of the "Religion" entry in the infobox? Is it to describe ethnicity or religion? I think the answer is obvious, and since we don't actually know what Sanders' religious beliefs are, we shouldn't claim his religion is Judaism. I know plenty of people who would unhesitatingly say, "I'm Jewish," but who would also tell you that they're atheist, Buddhist, merely spiritual and so on. Again, being Jewish has two different meanings, in a way that being Christian doesn't, and I think that's what's confusing so many people here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Archives Important to Religion / Infobox Jewish (Religion) or Not Discussion
I was personally surprised at how quickly discussions are being archived. Since several of them are pertinent and part of the current and ongoing discussion, I thought it important to highlight them. Centerone (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive 6 has information regarding the Barry Goldwater / 1st Jew discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_6

Archive 7 has a rather large discussion on religion in the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_7

Archive 8 has more on the religion in the infobox discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_8

Archive 5 has several pertinent sections about this topic too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernie_Sanders/Archive_5

I just thought it important to have quick links to this stuff since these are so recent in relation to the current and ongoing discussion. I'm surprised they're being archived within a month. Centerone (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing yet another perfect illustration as to why the use of the |Religion= field with just a single word or two is problematic. Infobox fields are to contain unambiguous, uncontentious summary of clear, key facts -- or remain unused. All of those lengthy arguments (to which you can also add multiple RfCs, and multiple Noticeboard discussions, and people even getting blocked over editwar disagreements on what should go in that field), show exactly why that field remains unused.  (And yes, this applies even if - and especially if - you personally know beyond a doubt what true "key fact" should go in that field.) Xenophrenic (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, what about religion = Jewish (secular) ?
I've noted a few times that I think the RfC question was unfortunate for being binary. It is not a yes/no question that should have been posed in such a formal way. I want to probe here.

Keeping in mind that we need an answer everybody can live with, how would folks feel about religion = Jewish (secular) ? I will close/archive this pretty quickly before this gets out of hand, as the above has. So if you like, just post a "yes" or "no" or "I could live with it" - no reason to give big long explanation or argue with each other - by now everybody knows what the other people's arguments are.

I'm just probing this as a potential compromise candidate. Here goes...Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please see Template talk:Infobox. For the record, I'm of the opinion that the "|religion=" parameter should be left blank in most cases, except for when religion can be shown to be a key aspect of an individual's biography. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * thanks, but please just simple answers - I am not trying to start another riot, just take the temperature. :)  Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The overwhelmingly common and understood practice is to leave the Religion parameter in an infobox blank. There's no reason to fill it out here because Sanders is not religious. The only time Religion is filled out in an infobox is if the person's religious practice (and religious belief) is an intrinsic and highly visible and highly public part of their life. Sanders fails on all counts. What's happening here is ethnicity is being confused with religion. (Or, at best, childhood training/upbringing being confused with adult religious practice.) Softlavender (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Is there a PAG or Essay that gives that impression because it's been said a couple of times in discussions here but it's not been that way in my experience. In my experience, where someone is notable (for whatever reason) and their religion receives attention and it can be confirmed it tends to be listed even if it's not massively important to that individual. I'm not trying to start a fight just asking if there was some pag/practice reason i wasn't aware of.
 * To your comment that ethnicity is being confused with religion, it's been dealt with repeatedly above, almost nobody is confusing the two. There just appear to be broadly differing standards for what people will accept as RS for being a religious Jew. Some people finding the press pack, the role call and several of Sanders' statements (which are not specified as about religion but appear to be so from context) as sufficient sourcing and others not. And then there's the disagreement on the point I've asked about above, that is the notability reqirement. SPACKlick (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It tends to be listed because Infoboxes tend to get every conceivable field in them filled out, whether they are appropriate or not. There is a lot of opposition to this, to the point where many editors are opposed to having infoboxes in articles at all (see Disinfoboxes, for instance, or WikiProject Classical music, a project that has virtually outlawed infoboxes for composers—take a gander at some composer articles and you'll see that hardly any of them have infoboxes).  These disputes go back many a year and get extremely heated (sanctions, blocks, TBANs).  Much of the problem would go away if people would just use their heads when filling out Infoboxes, keeping the filled-in fields to a minimum.  Of course, people won't, and so these disputes will never end. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as a reasonable compromise. And, at this point, compromise is needed because the RfC above is going to be closed as no consensus.  No consensus will mean that Jewish will go in the religion field of the infobox, and that will mean more bickering, another possible RfC with another likely no consensus.  So... YES, I can live with it (is that clear enough, ? :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, I'd like to say that since it has been pointed out that doing what Jytdog is proposing would be against policy (looking directly at, now), I'm taking a WP:IAR stance here in the interest of keeping the peace and compromise. That said, I realize that it's unlikely this will happen, as so many in this thread have already pointed out that we can't do what's being proposed.  Even so, I'm going to swim upstream on this one.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If the above RfC (to put Jewish in the |Religion= field) is closed as No Consensus to put 'Jewish' in that field, the field will remain empty. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What happens if the closer finds "no consensus" will depend on what the closer determines should happen. The relevant policy is at WP:NOCON "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." which seems to provide leeway for the closer to say "include it" (as it was in the article months ago) or "remove it" (if they deem it too Contentious). --Scott Davis Talk 12:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously the article should be returned to its longstanding state of reading "Religion: Jewish" in the Infobox in the event that it is found that there is "no consensus". From November 3, 2015, to January 28, 2016, the article read "Religion: Jewish" in the infobox. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are not allowed to return an article to a longstanding state after two RfCs (RfC #1 and RfC #2) have decided that the longstanding state is no longer allowed. See WP:LOCALCON. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course the longstanding version is allowed. This has been a colossal waste of time. The onus has been on you or others who support your position to show that Sanders' religion is not Jewish. But sources don't support that farfetched finding. Generally speaking he is a nonobservant Jew. His religion remains Jewish. That is the abiding fact. You need to present a source saying his religion is not Jewish and you have not done that. That he is nonobservant does not mean that his religion is not Jewish—unless a source says that. Bus stop (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @ScottDavis, thank you for linking to WP:NOCON; the operative part in this situation being, "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless". Wikipedia recognizes religious self-identification as a contentious matter (frequently the cause of controversy or disagreement) related to a living person. Of course there is always "leeway" for a closer to ignore all rules and choose to include policy-violating content anyway, but in this case, that would inevitably put the matter on a fast track to WP:AN for a closure review and reversal.
 * @Bus stop, you are overstating the "longstanding-ness" of your 90 day period you are calling a previous "consensus". Please realize that there was an open Infobox RfC directly relating to this matter running during the last half of that period, and there were ongoing Talk page discussions (including one on "Jewish" and one on "Universalism") during the early part of that period.  Best practice during such discussions is to refrain from editing the content, so the fact that you didn't see any revert-warring during that 90-day period does not equate to longstanding agreement.  And don't think I didn't catch your attempt to prop up your favorite straw man yet again: You need to present a source saying his religion is not Jewish - NO.  The RfC asks: Should the infobox in this article include "Religion: Jewish"?, and the prevailing policy-based argument is "No, the |Religion= field should not be used because the subject's religious beliefs are not a defining characteristic of his notability, and he hasn't explicitly self-identified through direct speech with a religion."  Nowhere in that argument is the need to say Sanders religion is not "_____" religion; it's not germane to the RfC question and asking for such silliness is a transparent attempt at distraction.  We already have Sanders' self-identification through direct speech as not part of organized religion and not very religious, which negates the use of the field irrespective of names of religions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This has already been decided. Per WP:LOCALCON a discussion here cannot override the clear consensus at Template talk:Infobox and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Secular means "not relating to religion." It is too complex for the info-box.  Also, can we please stop bringing this up over and over.  TFD (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Wikipedia policy prohibits it. The |Religion= field is not to be used unless the subject's religious beliefs are a significant component of their notability or public life.  Your attempt to find a more acceptable solution is laudable, but your suggestion doesn't get past the biggest Wikipedia policy hurdle. This hurdle applies to all proposals to use that field: the field is to remain unused unless reliable sources say that Bernie Sanders would have a Wikipedia article just because of his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, if was never in politics.  I think we can all agree that reliable sources do not say that.  Religious status is not why Sanders is notable, and it is certainly not a defining characteristic of his public life. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sanders has made various statements that he has religion of some sort, that he does not participate in organised religion, and that he is Jewish. This value seems to tick all the boxes. None of the references cited ad nauseum say he is atheist, only that he does not routinely practice the rituals. --Scott Davis Talk 12:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose When he self-identifies as Jewish, he's evidently citing an ethnic identity, not a religious identity. There is no reason to have a religion field in his infobox. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Several editors have chosen to ignore the established fact that this has already been decided -- twice -- so I am adding my useless oppose !vote just in case whoever counts the !votes also ignores the fact that we are not allowed to decide this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as user Curly Turkey above. Dnm (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)