text:
Talk:Stanley Milgram

Request for Comment: Should the parameter "Religion: Jewish" be included in this article?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the parameter "Religion: Jewish" be included in the infobox of this article? Ravpapa (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of the issue
Two users on this talk page have been arguing (vociferously) that the religion parameter may not be included in the infobox of this article because, in the case of Jews, Wikipedia policy requires a direct quote from the subject of the article stating his adherence to the Jewish religion. A statement by a person that he is Jewish is not sufficient because Jewish can also refer to an ethnicity, not only to a religion. Policy, they contend, requires a clear statement in the subject's own words of his religious commitment (as opposed to ethnic or cultural commitment) to Judaism.

Advocates of including the religion parameter in the infobox contend that the policy in question - several have been cited but the two most relevant are WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R - do not require a direct quote, but also allow public actions which clearly identify the subject's religious affiliation. In the case of Stanley Milgram, there are many of these: he was married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi, he belonged to a Jewish temple, he raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed. He also stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research. These actions, together with his own statements, constitute "public self-identification" as required by the policies. Moreover, the advocates contend that Stanley Milgram is not living but dead, and therefore, policy requires only that "there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." This is certainly the case, since all the sources discuss Milgram's Jewish identification, religious as well as ethnic.

The opponents of inclusion contend that these public actions are not sufficient to meet the stringent requirements of the policy, but that only "direct speech" is acceptable for establishing a person's religious affiliation for the purpose of inclusion in the infobox.

For the convenience of editors participating in the RFC, I include the relevant policies here:

WP:BLPCAT

"Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources."

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. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."

Ravpapa (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey
Please indicate Support including parameter or Oppose including parameter.

 * I support adding the Jewish religion to the infobox. The Jewish religion is passed from the mother, if she is Jewish, to the child. Once it is reliably sourced that the mother was Jewish, we have to look to other sources to see if Jewishness is applicable in a particular instance. An exception to this would be in the case of a convert to Judaism. We can not look to see if a convert was born to a Jewish mother. In my opinion we apply policy. We don't stand on ceremony over policy that might not be applicable. Judaism is a minority religion. Christianity is a majority religion. The language found in policy is obviously related to Christianity. It can be adapted to Judaism. And that is what we must do here. It is reliably sourced that Stanley Milgram was born to a Jewish mother. What other factors are applicable? Has he repudiated his Jewishness? Has he converted to another religion? Has he done anything or said anything that would lead one to believe he is not Jewish? No, no, and no. Or at least no one has brought a source suggesting that the Jewish religion is not applicable. So we go by the sources available. Those sources tell us only of his involvement in things Jewish. He was married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi. He belonged to a Jewish temple. He raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed. He has stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research. The onus is on those who wish to remove his religion from the Infobox to bring sources. Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on "The onus is on those who wish to remove his religion from the Infobox to bring sources": You couldn't be more wrong. You have completely circumvented WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. The infobox parameter was challenged. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Sundayclose (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose—do you have any sources to present? Thus far you haven't presented any. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, read WP:BURDEN. The responsibility to provide a source that Milgram practiced Judaism is on those who wish to add that to the infobox. I'm not repeating this. If you GOTO 10 and repeat the same false information, I'm not responding. Sundayclose (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose—from where do you derive that a Jew must "practice Judaism" (in order to add his religion to the Infobox)? Is this found in policy? Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The policy (determined by consensus) is that Wikipedia needs a source that the person identifies with and subscribes to the religion (and the religion is Judaism, not "Jewish") as an adult; it is not that the person must be or identify with an ethnicity or culture. And again this has been explained ad nauseam on this talk page. I will not explain it again. If you GOTO 10 and ask for the same information again, I will not respond. Drop the stick. Stop asking for the same information or making the same false arguments over and over. Sundayclose (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose—I asked you if this is found in policy. You have not linked to a policy. Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already asked and answered. Read all discussion above. Drop the stick. GOTO 10. Sundayclose (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you never answered. Where is the policy that says a Jew has to be a practicing Jew in order for you and Guy Macon to allow it in the infobox? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already asked and answered. Sundayclose (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

So please indulge me and let me know which policy says a Jew needs to be a practicing Jew in order to be labeled as Jewish in the infobox. I would greatly appreciate it. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't indulge editors who refuse to get the point. Already asked and answered. And that's my final comment on the issue. Sundayclose (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I looked and I couldn't find ANY policy that says a Jew has to be a practicing Jew. I tried to find it, so please indulge me. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on "The language found in policy is obviously related to Christianity." Again, completely wrong. It applies to all religious identification, Christian, Jewish, Islam, atheism, etc. etc. "Minority religion" has nothing to do with this. Sundayclose (talk)
 * Sundayclose—the language found in policy is obviously related to Christianity. A Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother. A Christian, by contrast, is a person who accepts (believes) that Jesus is the Messiah. These are different religions. Christianity and Judaism share some commonalities but there is not correspondence between every aspect of Christianity and Judaism. Our policy calls for a statement of belief. But Judaism is not predicated on the holding of a particular belief. Judaism is predicated on being born of a Jewish mother. There is an obvious need to adapt policy to Jews. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some Jews may define practicing Judaism as being born to a Jewish mother, but Wikipedia does not define practicing Judaism as being born to a Jewish mother. You are also confused about Wikipedia and Christianity. Some Catholics believe that anyone baptized in a Catholic Church is a Catholic. Wikipedia does not define practicing Catholicism as being baptized in a Catholic Church. You are creating false assumptions about Wikipedia selectively applying a policy to certain religious identification and not others. Wikipedia policy applies to any religious identification. I'm finished repeating this. If you GOTO 10 and make the same false statements again, I'm not responding. Sundayclose (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Sundayclose—you say "Wikipedia does not define practicing Judaism as being born to a Jewish mother." That is correct. You are right about that. We look at all sources. Why deprive ourselves of some sources that may have bearing on material we may or may not choose to add to an article? We do not wear blinders when editing an article. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. The man was born to a Jewish mother, married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi, belonged to a Jewish temple, raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed, and this man has stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research (that for which he is notable). Furthermore—it is not as if we are weighing these factors against other, detracting factors. You have brought absolutely no sources to suggest that maybe he abandoned the religion, renounced being a Jew, or converted to another religion. To put it succinctly—you have not presented any sources at all. He too was Bar-Mitzvahed at the appropriate age. There is no reason to omit that. Bus stop (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've said all of that before, and I and others have responded. Drop the stick. GOTO 10. Sundayclose (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose for all the reasons explained at Talk:Stanley Milgram/Archives/2016 above. Giving a speech at a Bar Mitzvah at age 13 is not equivalent to practicing Judaism as an adult. Getting married in a Jewish ceremony is not equivalent to practicing Judaism since many non-Jews have married in a synagogue. The argument has also been put forth that Milgram was born to Jewish mother and therefore should be considered as practicing Judaism. That may be true according to some Jewish thought, but Wikipedia content is not determined by the rules of particular religions; for example, as noted above some Mormons would claim that many Jews are now Mormon because the LDS Church performed vicarious baptisms (Baptism of the dead) on these Jews. It has also been argued that Milgram went into his chosen field "because he is Jewish"; the problem again is that no distinction is made between his identification with Jewish ethnicity and Judasim. There is not a shred of reliably sourced evidence that Milgram practiced Judaism, as differentiated from his identifying with Jewish ethnicity and culture; for Wikipedia's purposes, the two are not interchangeable. This is true for any religious of identification on Wikipedia, not just Judaism. People baptized Catholic are not necessarily practicing Catholicism as adults. William J. Murray, son of famed atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, strongly identified with atheism until he became a Christian in his 30s; we do not identify him as atheist as an adult simply because he claimed atheism earlier in his life. The basic problem here is that many of the "Religion =  Jewish" advocates here have completely failed (vociferously) to make the distinction between Jewish ethnicity/culture and Judaism. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose—please give me a concrete example of something Milgram could do to prove to you he is a Jew. Not an abstract example, but a concrete example. Bus stop (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. I have never said he wasn't a Jew. We need very clear evidence that he practiced Judaism. I don't mean to be insulting, but I assume you know the difference between being an ethnic Jew and practicing Juadism. Evidence would be a statement by Milgram that he practiced Judaism. Or unequivocal evidence that he attended synagogue regularly (and not just for a wedding). Being born to a Jewish mother, being Bar Mitzvahed, stating that he is Jewish (as opposed to stating that he practiced Judaism) are not sufficient. And he doesn't have to fail to convert to another religion or repudiate Judaism for the Wikipedia policy to apply. Sundayclose (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose—please, if you wouldn't mind—give me a concrete example of something Milgram could do. I'm not asking for an abstract example—but a concrete example. What could he say? What could he do? Could he perhaps say "I believe I was born to a Jewish mother"? WP:CAT/R is calling for belief. Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Concrete examples that he practiced Judasim: "I attend Temple Beth El most weeks."; "I studied the Holocaust because I actively practice Judaism."; A close family member: "Stanley was active in his synagogue." Examples that don't fulfill Wikipedia's criteria of practicing Judaism: "I am a Jew." "I studied the Holocaust because I am a Jew."; "My mother was Jewish."; "I was Bar Mitzvahed."; "I was married in a synagogue." Family member or friend: "Stanley was a Jew." "Stanley studied the Holocaust because he is a Jew." Sundayclose (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose The infobox, like the categories at the bottom of the page, are for uncontroversial statements of fact. See WP:BLPCAT for more details and a good explanation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ianmacm—by what stretch of the imagination is Stanley Milgram a "living person"? Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I thought somebody might mention this, I know he died in 1984. However, the same basic principle applies regardless of whether the person is alive or dead. There is a long history of people adding religious belief categories, which is discouraged by WP:BLPCAT unless reliable sourcing is available and it is notable enough for the article. The infobox and the categories should be sourced from material in the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is controversial about Stanley Milgram's Jewishness? Sir Joseph (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing is controversial about Milgram's Jewishness, but that is not what this RfC is about, which is whether Judaism should be used for "Religion" in the infobox. Drop the stick. You seemed to drop it at ANI, but it looks like you have picked it back up and we'll have to go back to ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose inclusion in the infobox per WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. Object to biased "Explanation of the issue". Object to WP:BLUDGEONING. The "Explanation of the issue" reads like a support vote instead of being an unbiased description of the question being asked. Statements such as "He also stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research" are an attempt to sway !votes by conflating Jewish heritage with Jewish religion. The bludgeoning consists of Bus stop arguing with every support !vote. Again. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)````
 * Support it's a terrible policy for Wikipedia to say that for Jews, in order to be labeled as Jewish in the infobox they need to be practicing Jews. That is not how Judaism works. When Jews say "I'm Jewish" they refer to the religion. It's terrible that only Jews on Wikipedia have this problem. I see it as a CIR issue with those voting oppose. Not every religion is like Christianity. Furthermore, if someone is not Jewish but has Jewish heritage or ancestry, they don't say "I'm Jewish." They say, "I have Jewish ancestry." As for the evidence at hand in this case, it is far to the side of Stanley Milgram was a religious Jew and not just a cultural or ethnic Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I believe the pernicious and never-ending argument about the inclusion of religion parameters in infoboxes of biographies of individuals whose religion is not a significant part of their notability was settled definitively by this RfC. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, it is a part of his notability. He entered his line of work and did the Milgram Experiment because he was Jewish. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Milgram is known for his scientific findings, not for being Jewish. Even if his Jewishness was the impetus for his scientific work, it still isn't what he is known for. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still notable, same as any other religion in the infobox. Is Obama a minister or priest? Is any politician notable for their religion? Milgram's Jewishness played a role in his career, that is documented, as such it is indeed notable for a mention in the infobox. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point is well-taken; I would support the removal of the infobox religion parameter for politicians as well, except of course where their religion is a significant part of their notability. Raise this issue at their talk pages, and I will support you. Here, I oppose. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Starke, I agree regarding most politicians. Someone like Jimmy Carter or Ted Cruz might be notable for their religion, but Donald Trump certainly isn't. Also keep an eye on the garden path Sir Joseph The Redefiner is leading you down. First he says "Milgram's Jewishness played a role in his career", which is likely true, but it is also likely that it was his Jewish culture/ethnicity -- there is zero evidence that the adult Milgram belonged to any religion, just some WP:SYNTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your the one who seems to have something against people labeled as Jews. Someone who is a member of a temple, and who had a Jewish wedding and who had his sons circumcised and his sons bar mitzvah is CLEARLY not just culture/ethnicity but religion as well. This is almost the identical evidence that was posted to Richard Nixon, and yet you have no problem with that. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest again that you drop your comments about editors here having "something against people labeled as Jews". No one in this discussion is against people labeled as Jews. One more comment like that and we're back to ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose If we declare Judaism membership based on their religious rules, we must also allow Mormon, and Pastafarian claims based on theirs–and any other religion which might claim membership, otherwise the individual editor is picking and choosing which religion he will follow and that is WP:Original research. Lexlex (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SYNTH. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 08:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SYNTH, per reasons given by other opposers and because this is YET ANOTHER attempt to ignore this simple, non-discriminatory guideline. Pincrete (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per reasons above, basically, that sources to establish the claim are not clearly presented. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: until references are provided. Even if the "subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question", this needs proper attribution, otherwise it's a clear no. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  12:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the evidence brought forth to date, in particular the statement by Blass, Milgram's biographer, that Milgram, despite his identification with Jewish culture and a deepening interest in the religious and spiritual aspects of Judaism, "never turned into a practicing, observant Jew" (p. 257). --Andreas JN 466 12:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:BLPCAT. He's not famous or notable for being religious, so the Religion field is not to be used.  Encyclopedic content about religion can still be added, however, to the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kristen Fermaglich's book American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares, page 162.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  22:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The very Milgram biography cited to support inclusion specifically says he "never turned into a practicing, observant Jew" .HGilbert (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC) (Afternote: I see someone already mentioned this above.)

Threaded Discussion

 * Note. Before the RfC gets completely out of hand, I urge Sir Joseph and Bus stop to stop badgering the opposers in the section above, which is supposed to be a "survey". See how there's a special section for threaded discussion right here? Please use it; hopefully an explicitly threaded format may inhibit at least some of the repetitiousness and the round-and-round effect. There no rule against a reasonable amount of specific responding to specific points above, AFAIK. But the amount of it is already getting not-so-reasonable. Compare WP:BLUDGEONING. I have more to say to Sir Joseph, but I'll do it on his own page. Bishonen | talk 09:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC).
 * I am asking for the policy and all I'm getting is "I already gave it." I haven't seen it or I missed it and I am requesting a policy that says that for Jews, the person needs to be a practicing Jew. Why is that so hard to respond to? Just show me the policy. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the first vote was a Support and Sundayclose was the one who questioned that comment. I think if Sundayclose responds to a Support in that section, it's only fair that Bus stop can respond to Sundayclose's comment. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that reminder, Bishonen. There aren't two sides to this story. A man's religion is Jewish, and it played a role in the work for which he's notable. Obviously his religion is noted in the Infobox. Reliable sources support his religion as Jewish and his Jewishness is related to his reason for notability. There are no minimally acceptable levels of Jewishness. Nobody is bringing a source suggesting that the Jewishness which we know is applicable, is somehow compromised. All of the sources are in support of his religion being Jewish, not to mention related to the work for which he's notable. The frustrating thing is this happens disproportionately at articles which are biographies of Jews. That greater scrutiny of Jews is a problem. Those who support equal treatment of subjects of biographies despite their religious background find this off-putting. And the encyclopedia is made to look parochial. The entire world is not Christian. Many religions populate the planet. It is not hard to look at a religion from its perspective. These conversations are difficult because we go 'round and 'round in circles as Judaism fails to match up perfectly with the expectations of Christianity. Guess what? Every religion is different. If we are here to write an encyclopedia we obviously have to accept that the world's religions differ from one another. Bus stop (talk) 10:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The religion claims someone and all children forever, based on an arbitrary rule. This is the problem. If Scientology declared I was now a member because my sister converted, it would be just as specious. The religion can make any claim it wants, but when others give it credence and attempt to use those claims for evidence in secular areas, problems will inevitably occur. Lexlex (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that the principle argument of advocates of including the parameter is not that Milgram is Jewish by birth or by Jewish law. Rather, the principle argument is that there is a preponderance of verifiable public actions indicating that he practiced the Jewish religion. These are enumerated in the explanation above. Bus stop's birthright argument is not the principle argument in this RFP.
 * I should mention that I personally have no position on the RFP. There is a good argument that the religion parameter should not be included, because the relevance to his notability is questionable. On the other hand, he himself frequently referred to his Judaism as a motive force in his research, so there is also a good argument for including the parameter. That said, the argument that the parameter must be excluded because the policy requires "direct speech" is a complete misreading of the policy. There is extensive documentation of Milgram's public actions confirming that he was a practicing religious Jew, more than enough to meet the most stringent reading of the policy. Ravpapa (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lexlex—the sources are not only telling us that Stanley Milgram was born to a Jewish mother. If that is all the sources said, then you would have a point. But the sources tell us more. The sources also tell us he was Bar-Mitzvahed, married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi, belonged to a Jewish temple, raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed, and he has stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish, and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research, for which he is notable. Furthermore—there is a complete absence of detracting factors. There are no sources suggesting he abandoned the religion, renounced being a Jew, or converted to another religion.
 * In your Survey post you speak of "Judaism membership based on their religious rules". What other rules can be used? Can we measure in meters and call the units yards or feet? That is what we are doing here if we adhere to policy literally. Policy tells us that we must have sources supporting beliefs held. Judaism is not predicated on the holding of any specific beliefs. Do you see the problem? We must adapt policy so that it can apply to Jews. Of course we can convert meters into yards or feet. Alternatively we can update policy to include all religions. As for adapting policy, all we need to do is evaluate all factors supported by sources. Since we are discussing Judaism, we know that the person either needs to be a convert to Judaism or the person needs to be born to a Jewish mother. But of course there are other factors to be considered. What evidence is there that the person embraced Judaism in their lives? What evidence is there that the person rejected Judaism in their lives? All religions have to be evaluated on their own terms. And all sources should be given due consideration. We can't dogmatically demand that a person being considered for membership in one religion meet the standards set for membership in another religion. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, again you've said all of that previously, and others responded previously. Consensus is not decided by how many times an editor can repeat the same points. And once again please stop using "Jewish" and "Judasim" interchangeably. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet, you still can't show the policy that says a Jew needs to be a PRACTICING Jew. And Jewish and Judaism can be used interchangeably. Milgram's Jewishness and notability for this discussion is not that he was born a Jew. It is that he used his Judaism to further his career and career choices. That is why it is notable. And all the evidence that was already provided shows that he was not like other Jews who aren't religious and are just ethnic Jews. Going to Temple, marrying in a religious ceremony, having a bris, etc. is clear proof that he wasn't an ethnic or cultural Jew. Please stop trying to define Jews based on how Christianity might be defined. I really don't feel like repeating myself because apparently when I do I get banned but it does need to stop. Milgram is Jewish, and his religion is Jewish, he was not, repeat, was not just a cultural Jew. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You said all of that before. Repeat, you said it all before. Sundayclose (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but he also said it all before. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I may step in here with an attempt to be helpful, particularly to those who, like me, may be reading this discussion for the first time. I'm not very well persuaded when I see an argument that contains a significant number of cogent points, when the response is "you already said that before".  Right, ok, he said it before.  I understand you are frustrated with that.  But it might be helpful to answer what looks like a pretty good source-based argument - if you have a knockout argument that shows that he's wrong, that's fine - but lay it out for us.  (You may say you already have, but please, for the rest of it, can you make it clear.)  The salient points that I see are these: "the sources are not only telling us that Stanley Milgram was born to a Jewish mother. If that is all the sources said, then you would have a point. But the sources tell us more. The sources also tell us he was Bar-Mitzvahed, married in a Jewish ceremony with a rabbi, belonged to a Jewish temple, raised his children as Jewish, sending them to religious school and having them confirmed and Bar-Mitzvahed, and he has stated on numerous occasions that he was Jewish, and that his Jewish heritage was an inspiration for his psychological research, for which he is notable. Furthermore—there is a complete absence of detracting factors. There are no sources suggesting he abandoned the religion, renounced being a Jew, or converted to another religion."  That sounds pretty compelling to me - what am I missing?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , one thing you are missing is the recent RfC on this very issue, which determined that religion should be omitted from infoboxes for individuals whose religion is not a significant part of their notability. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, no I don't think I'm missing that, but I agree that it is a point that needs to be established. In this case, I believe the counterargument that has been put forward is that his religion is a significant part of his notability.  That is of course something that can be debated, and sources are really what is needed.  I'll also add that, on my talk page, I was just told that some of the claimed facts about his life (most importantly, his membership at a temple) have not, contrary to my previous understanding, been tied to sources.  I think that, more than anything else, is what I was missing - most of the debate here seems to be about philosophical points that I don't think are particularly relevant, or seem to be instances of people talking past each other.  For me, the basic questions here seem quite simple, and if the sources that are claimed to exist, actually exist, then I will come to a very different conclusion than if those sources don't exist.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability was discussed on this page already. His choice of career and doing his experiment was because of his Jewishness. He stated that several times and even said he should have been born in Europe rather than in the Bronx. His being Jewish clearly played a role in his career and that is why it's notable, but first we have to determine if he's Jewish for the notability question to come into play. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

and yet you both continue to fail to provide the policy that says a Jew needs to be a practicing Jew for Wikipedia to consider that person a member of the Jewish religion. Both of yours behavior is certainly not what I would expect from a Wikipedia editor. I am asking you to show me the policy. I've never seen it and you continuing to say "I showed" doesn't mean anything. Show me the policy and quit resorting to childish behavior. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We should follow sources. If sources say his religion is Jewish, we should say that his religion is Jewish. If sources say his religion is Judaism, we should say his religion is Judaism. That is as far as the article proper is concerned. As far as this Talk page is concerned, we should feel free to express ourselves according to the construction of our sentence, and according to what we are trying to express. You cannot assume that you can make a blanket prohibition on how another editor can use the language. But you can reply to point out a disagreement with the language that another editor has used. The aim here is to hash out factors that a variety of editors feel are applicable. There is a difference between the Talk page and the article proper. Let's try be respectful of others as they try to express the factors that they feel are applicable to the question posed by the RfC. Bus stop (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Already stated and responded to. Yes, Bus stop, please try to be respectful of others by not beating us over the head repeatedly with the same points. Sundayclose (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Membership in any club is up to the individual. If one can choose to join by converting, then one can also choose to leave. The lack of any reference showing definitive membership does not prove anything. The claim that a religious ritual or relationship to someone else is "good enough" evidence doesn't work. How do we know the status of his membership without any evidence? We don't know. Why not leave it at that? Lexlex (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, do you apply the same standards to everyone else on Wikipedia? Secondly, his performing religious rituals proves, if it's even needed, that he is a member of the religion. What more do you want? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is now a classic example of an attempt to apply religious beliefs to a person from another person's viewpoint. Milgram was clearly of Jewish ancestry, but for his religious beliefs to be notable enough for a Wikipedia infobox or categories, he would need to have self-identified in reliable sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * —please name one Jewish "religious belief". Bus stop (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Does the same policy apply to all infoboxes and religions or just Jews? I see tons of infoboxes with religions and I don't think any of the subjects ever "self-identified." Sir Joseph (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, it applies to all Wikipedia articles, including infoboxes, as you have been told repeatedly. If you see other articles with this problem, please put your effort into removing religion from those articles if it is not properly sourced rather than endlessly repeating the same arguments here, as I have done to dozens of articles, most of which were labeled with a non-Jewish religion. Sundayclose (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please see Talk:Richard_Nixon and tell me how that is not the same as here. Milgram not once denied his Jewishness and just the opposite, went to temple, had ceremonies, celebrated holidays, etc. It is ludicrous to say Milgram's religion is not Jewish. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of us can fix every page on Wikipedia in one day. Can you fix everything in one day? If you want to change Richard Nixon, then please do that instead of saying the same things again and again and again here. This page is about Milgram, not Nixon. Go focus on Nixon. Sundayclose (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you even look at the page? Guy Macon accepted the evidence provided, which is less than what we have here. So again, what is it with Milgram that you have a problem with labeling him as a Jew? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * there's one thing on which I agree with you. There are many, many articles that need better sourcing for or removal of religious affiliation. How many of those have you tried to fix in the last six months? Don't evade the question. A round number will be sufficient: 100, 50, 25, 10? How many? Please go work on those. Sundayclose (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * —please don't be dismissive of another editor. Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't say the same thing over and over and over and over. And your comment above has nothing to do with my question for . So again, Sir Joseph, how many articles have you tried to fix religious affiliation in the last six months? Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * —you said to another editor "Please go work on those". You are being dismissive of another editor. You obviously would like to win this argument concerning Stanley Milgram, and that other editor is disagreeing with you, and you are in effect suggesting that he go work on something else. And in the post before that post you said "Go focus on Nixon." Please don't be dismissive of another editor, even if you disagree with them. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem confused about the meaning of "dismissive". Asking someone to work on something which that editor has expressed concern about is not being "dismissive". Now please stop breaking up this thread. If you have issues with my requests of editors, take it up on my talk page. Again,, how many articles have you tried to fix religious affiliation in the last six months? Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one who seems concerned so much with your made up policy, so have you looked at other people's infobox? How many have you tried to fix to match up to your policy? Why not go to Nixon and delete his Quakerism from the infobox? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take your failure to identify how many as meaning zero. I've changed or tried to change religious affiliation on 46 articles in the past six months, none Jewish or Judaism; many more before then. Sundayclose (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you want a barnstar or something? Please stop being so antagonistic in your comments it is not the way we are supposed to act on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I never would have brought up my edits regarding religious affiliation except you have repeatedly complained about other articles besides Milgram having issues with religious affiliation, as well as demanding that I and others fix other articles. You have not denied your total fixes as zero, so I still assume that is accurate. And that's not antagonistic; it's addressing your complaints about other articles and what editors are doing about them, and your false assumption that some of us only focus on articles pertaining to Jews and Judaism. Sundayclose (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging is encouraged and widely done on talk pages to let an editor know that there is a response to his/her comment. As I do frequently with most editors, if I respond to your comment, I will ping you once. If you don't want to be pinged, don't make comments. Sundayclose (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm asking you to stop pinging me. I don't need it. This page is on my watchlist and I don't need your ping. Once I ask you to stop, your continuing to do so is harassment. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Very well. So I will assume if you don't respond to one of my comments that you are in 100% agreement. Sundayclose (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You can assume all you want that doesn't make it so. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The applicable policy is Verifiability. Specifically. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). See Citing sources for details of how to do this. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." As has been explained repeatedly, for a source that simply says says that Stanley Milgram was Jewish to be acceptable as evidence of his religion, one must establish as a fact (again through citations to reliable sources) that all Jews are religious. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * —according to reliable sources Stanley Milgram says numerous times that he is Jewish. It is also reliably sourced that he was a member of a Jewish house of worship. Please tell me how it could possibly be that his religion is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bus stop,keep in mind Guy Macon is all over the place. This is what he wrote on the Judaism project portal, "but who in adult life shows no indication of being religious (never says a prayer, never attends temple except when attending a wedding or funeral, doesn't keep kosher, never celibates any Jewish holidays) and who has never expressed any opinion about any deity or religion, should not be labeled by Wikipedia as a religious Jew. " Yet Milgram was none of the above. Furthermore, he again is using his made up policy that Jews need to be religious. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism. To say otherwise shows a competence issue with the Jewish religion and using Christian based theology and trying to apply it to Jews. We are not the religious police. You are now making up yet another policy and again, when I ask to show me the policy, you fail to do so. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism", WP:PROVEIT. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If I provide sources from Jews, you're just going to say that the source is not valid. But "everyone" knows that the definition of a member in the Jewish religion is not based on religious practice. It is you trying to use your Christian upbringing and using that for this religion. That is not how it works. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evasion noted. Instead of assuming bad faith why don't you just post your sources and see if I reject them? Could it be because your sources don't actually exist? By the way, I like Jewish sources just fine. Too bad they contradict your claims... --Guy Macon (talk)
 * , your first source is a one person blog, so is therefore not a reliable source. Your second source states, "Who is a Jew According to Halacha (Jewish Religious Law)? According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish." <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  20:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody is doubting that Stanley Milgram was Jewish. What is completely unsourced is the claim that his religion was Judaism. If you need sources establishing that not all Jews are members of Judaism, there are a bunch of them in our article Who is a Jew?. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

1) I and Bus stop have been doing this all along. Posting about his religious activities. In addition, on page 62 I think, in this book it quotes Milgram self-identifying as a Jew, https://books.google.com/books?id=u4ELhH9gbwwC&dq=%22Stanley+Milgram%22+synagogue Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exact quote that you think supports your claim that "You can be a member of the Jewish religion without being religious or practicing Judaism" please. I am not going to read an entire book just to find out once again that you are too dimwitted lack the basic competence needed to tell the difference between Milgram self-identifying as a Jew and Milgram self-identifying that his religion is Judaism. I already know that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon, please strike your personal attack. Thanks. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Now how about that exact quote from a reliable source that you think supports your claim? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sir Joseph has been blocked for a week because of his behavior here and thus can only post to his own talk page. He was asked for an exact quote from a reliable source that he thinks supports his claim there, but was not able to provide a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Can those who claim it is SYNTH to say Milgram is Jewish please explain? If one had a Bar Mitzvah, a Bris, a Jewish wedding ceremony, is a member of a Jewish temple, had his children circumsized and had his kids have a Bar Mitzvah, what religion is that and why is that SYNTH to say JEWISH? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Simple answer. YOU ARE LYING. Nobody claimed that "it is SYNTH to say Milgram is Jewish". You keep saying it but it is a lie. I and others said that it is SYNTH to say that Milgram's religion as an adult was Judaism based solely on the fact that, for religious reasons, you are willing to accept evidence of someone being culturally or ethnically Jewish as evidence that he is a member of the religion of Judaism. I believe that both Christians and Jews accept the commandment handed down by Moses about bearing false witness. Why don't you? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Oppose per WP:SYNTH" Now as for your claim that Milgram is culturally or ethnically Jewish, why are you constantly ignoring the evidence that points to him being religiously Jewish as well? Not once have you responded to the evidence. And since you told me to Fuck off before, perhaps you should take your own advice and stop responding to me. I am not in the mood to get banned again for claiming a Jew is a Jew, no matter how insensitive your posts are. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that points to him being religiously Jewish as well. If there was you would cite it directly instead of offering vague hints that you provided the citation some time in the past. Go ahead. Post a link to a citation by a reliable source that shows the adult Milgram to be religiously Jewish. No evasion, just a link to the evidence and an exact quote showing what part of the reference you are citing shows the adult Milgram to be religiously Jewish. [ Citation Needed ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "already asked and answered." Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evasion noted. You can't post a citation because no citation exists. Think I am wrong? Prove it. Post this imaginary citation that you falsely claim to have posted before. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Haven't I been asking you for ages for the policy that says Milgram has to be practicing Jew? As for my evidence, if someone does all that I already posted, that person's religion is Jewish. Certainly more Jewish than Nixon being a Quaker which you allow. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evasion noted. Lack of citatuion noted. Lack of exact quote from cited work noted. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * —the man's religion is Jewish. You even cited on 's Talk page: "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion in full compliance with Jewish law. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do." Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, you've said all this before (several times) and it was responded to. Sundayclose (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : We're starting to go round in circles here again. WP:BLPCAT encourages people to be cautious before adding religious beliefs to categories or the infobox of a living person. There have been too many cases of this being added on the basis of unclear or flimsy evidence. Milgram is dead, but the same core principle of WP:V applies.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

But in this case what evidence is unclear or flimsy? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't answer that because you have presented no evidence, flimsy or otherwise. Now would be a good time to cite a source and tell us which part of the source you think support your claims. But of course you won't do that because you don't have a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And this has been on Jimbo's talk page, which was only a matter of time. No-one suggested a special set of rules for Jews, this is clear misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint. What is needed is caution when adding a person's religious beliefs to the infobox or the categories. The rule should be "if in doubt, don't" due to the many long running arguments this has caused. This one is now approaching record length.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's only record length because Guy and Sundayclose refuse to drop the stick. It's not a misrepresentation at all. Milgram was religiously Jewish, went to Temple, had his sons circumcised and bar mitzvahed, got married in a Jewish ceremony and was a member in the temple. What more? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What more? How about a single citation to a reliable source that backs up your "religiously Jewish, and was a member in the temple" claims? The "had his sons circumcised and bar mitzvahed and got married in a Jewish ceremony" claims are irrelevant. Many Jews who are not members of Judaism do those things -- they are part of Jewish culture. Evidence, please. I await with baited breath your next evasive reply that once again fails to provide a citation that verifies your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be "bated breath", not "baited breath". Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it's not part of culture. Culture would be eating lox and bagels. Someone who attends religious ceremonies and has a bris, and bar mitzvah and sends their kid to Jewish schools is not merely a cultural Jew. You are once again trying to define Jews for Jews. User:Jimmy Wales, this is what I'm talking about. No proof will satisfy someone who doesn't want to see. You are the one failing to provide proof for your claims. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that he was a member of a temple, but refuse to provide a source for that claim? Who told you he was a member of a temple? What temple was he a member of? Diud you just make it up? WP:V is crystal clear. I don't have to prove that his religion wasn't Judaism or that he wasn't a member of a temple. You have to prove that he was. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Guy, I don't think it is necessary or desirable to get so heated up and say things like "Did you just make it up?" Think of the impact on Sir Joseph - is it likely to make him more helpful and cooperative or less?  I'm going to suggest, based on everything we know about wiki editing, that this kind of approach just creates more heat than light.
 * As I have pitched in here to try to calm things down and to learn more about the subject, I will say that your request for a source for that particular claim is an excellent request. Let's try to work back to first principles.  It is claimed that sources show a number of facts about his life that are absolutely relevant to the question at hand.  Some of them are more important than others.  One of the best points of evidence would be his membership in a temple.  For me personally, that would establish a pretty strong presumption in favor of including his religion in the infobox.  The other things are also relevant, taken as a whole, but I think it's time to briefly and concisely summarise the sources for those of us who are new to the issue and trying to mediate the conflict.
 * Sir Joseph, I don't think it is necessary or desirable to get so heated up and say things like "No proof will satisfy someone who doesn't want to see." I don't agree with Guy that the other things (religious wedding, bris, bar mitzvah, sending kids to Jewish schools) are "irrelevant" but I do think that the "membership in the temple" bit is pretty definitive.  If you have a source for that, then please produce it as soon as possible, or if not, then please acknowledge that we should drop it from the discussion.  What I'd like to see is a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, ideally from the both of you working together in a spirit of intellectual inquiry, rather than a pissing contest.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is time for me to pitch in here once again: 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). As for membership in the Temple, that is a conclusion - Riverdale Temple requires membership as a condition of enrollment in their religious schools (from their website: "Tuition for grades 4-7 (Sunday and Thursday) is $650, membership in the temple is required,"). So he would have had to be a member to enroll his daughter. Ravpapa (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Blass says that while later in life, Milgram moved beyond cultural identification with Judaism, developed an increasing interest in the religious and spiritual aspects of Judaism, and even studied the Torah from time to time, "he never turned into a practicing, observant Jew" (p. 257). That Blass says Milgram never turned into a practicing, observant Jew (which is what readers would assume if they read Religion = Jewish in the infobox) is pretty definitive to my mind, absent a statement by Milgram himself to the contrary.
 * I think Wikipedia should respect individuals' right to define or not to define their own religious beliefs. If someone has never deemed it necessary to state their commitment to a particular religious belief in communications to the public, and has never held religious office, then we should respect that sphere of their lives as private, rather than making inferences to assign them a religious label asserting that their relationship with god or life in general was based on accepting the tenets of one, and only one, particular religious tradition. Andreas JN 466 11:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 * [Copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales] Doesn't the text, "The Milgrams were not religiously observant, although their cultural identification was strong," suggest [...] that they identified as Jews but didn't see the Jewish religion as an important part of their lives? Remember that we are not debating here whether to describe Milgram as "Jewish"; no-one disagrees that that's an appropriate description.  The disagreement is whether we should set "religion=Judaism" in the infobox.    GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

 * [Copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales] For me, too, that's the best evidence so far that we should not set religion=Judaism in the infobox. This is why looking to sources is so important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "But now, during the last few years, he moved beyond what had been a largely cultural identification with Judaism. He never turned into a practicing, observant Jew, but he became increasingly interested in the more religious and spiritual aspects of Judaism. For example, he began to study the Torah from time to time." Bus stop (talk) 07:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thomas Blass (Milgram biographer): "The Milgrams were not religiously observant"; "He never turned into a practicing, observant Jew". (emphasis added). Jimbo Wales: " Doesn't the text, 'The Milgrams were not religiously observant, although their cultural identification was strong,' suggest to you that they identified as Jews but didn't see the Jewish religion as an important part of their lives? Remember that we are not debating here whether to describe Milgram as 'Jewish'; no-one disagrees that that's an appropriate description.  The disagreement is whether we should set ' religion=Judaism' in the infobox." Sundayclose (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Stanley Milgram


text:
The Crow: City of Angels

The Crow: City of Angels is a 1996 American superhero film directed by Tim Pope from a screenplay by David S. Goyer, and sequel to the 1994 film The Crow in addition to the second installment in The Crow film series. The film stars Vincent Pérez, Mia Kirshner, Richard Brooks, Iggy Pop, Thomas Jane and Thuy Trang.

Plot
In Los Angeles, drug kingpin Judah Earl murders mechanic Ashe Corven and his eight-year-old son Danny after they witness a gang of Judah's henchmen murdering a fellow drug dealer, with his gang dumping Ashe and Danny's bodies into the harbor.

The now adult Sarah Mohr works in a tattoo parlor by day and painting surreal images of death and resurrection in her apartment at night. She is haunted by disturbing dreams about Ashe and Danny. After a day's work in the tattoo parlor, Sarah is visited in her apartment by a large crow as she contemplates a ring that Eric Draven gave her.

Sarah follows the crow to the harbor at night on All Saints' Day, and witnesses Ashe's resurrection and frantic escape from his watery grave before taking him to her apartment. When Sarah tells Ashe he is dead, he panics and runs screaming into the night, ending up at his own home, where he relives the final moments of his life.

Sarah arrives there to find Ashe brooding, and she explains that the Crow resurrected him so that he can exact revenge on the criminals who killed him and Danny. Guided by the crow, Ashe starts killing Judah's henchmen, one by one. Ashe first visits Spider-Monkey in a drug warehouse and interrogates him as to who else was involved in the murders before killing him by blowing up the building. Another of Judah's lackeys, Nemo, is spending the night at a peeping booth. Ashe appears in the booth and kills him, leaving a doll stuffed in his pants and a paper crow in his mouth.

Judah has employed a blind prophetess named Sybil who is able to ascertain Ashe's link to Sarah and to the crow that is the source of his powers. Judah captures Sarah in order to draw Ashe to him and steal his power.

One of the murderers, Kali, goes to Sarah's apartment to draw Ashe out. While battling her, Ashe realizes that Kali is the one who killed Danny; enraged, he throws her against a wall that breaks her leg, and then out a window to her death, leaving a crow-shaped blood pattern. Ashe then pursues Judah's right-hand-man, Curve, in a motorcycle chase. Ashe shoots Curve's motorcycle, which blows up and throws Curve onto the road. Ashe then drags Curve into the nearby river, leaving him to die as parishioners cast down flower petals in the shape of a crow.

During the Day of the Dead festival, Judah captures the crow and impales its wings with knives before killing it. He then ingests the crow's blood, stealing Ashe's power. Suddenly mortal, Ashe nearly dies from the shock, but is revived after seeing a vision of Danny telling him to keep fighting. Ashe attempts to rescue Sarah by seeking out Judah in his lair, an abandoned church. Judah overpowers the weakened Ashe in the ensuing fight, tying a rope around him and savagely whipping him, intending to hang him.

Sarah rushes up and stabs Judah in the forehead, causing Judah to drop Ashe. Judah pulls out the knife and starts moving toward Ashe. When Sarah intervenes, Judah stabs her in the stomach. Ashe gets up and impales Judah on a metal pipe, which fails to kill him. Ashe calls upon a murder of crows that devour Judah. Sarah dies from her stab wound, a tableau reminiscent of a painting she completed earlier. Ashe returns to death, knowing that he can rest in peace with Sarah, and his son.

Cast

 * Vincent Pérez as Ashe Corven / The Crow
 * Mia Kirshner as Sarah Mohr
 * Richard Brooks as Judah Earl
 * Thuy Trang as Kali
 * Iggy Pop as "Curve"
 * Thomas Jane as "Nemo"
 * Vincent Castellanos as "Spider Monkey"
 * Eric Acosta as Danny Corven
 * Beverley Mitchell as Grace
 * Ian Dury as Noah
 * Tracey Ellis as Sybil
 * Alan Gelfant as Bassett
 * Kerry Rossall as Zeke
 * Deftones as Themselves

Production
After the success of the first film, producer Edward R. Pressman and Miramax saw the franchise potential of the film with David S. Goyer tasked with writing a sequel featuring a new protagonist.

During editing, producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein took the film away from Tim Pope with the intention of making it more like the first one. According to Pope, the Weinsteins directed the editors to structure the film like its predecessor to the point scenes were repurposed as "flashbacks" despite not originally intended to be. After Pope returned to the UK he was contacted by the Weinstein's who had constructed a "director's cut", with which he was not involved, and Pope refused to see it or contribute to any commentary on the home media releases. Pope's experience making The Crow: City of Angels was unpleasant enough that Pope avoided returning to feature films for over two decades.

Box office
The Crow: City of Angels opened at number 1 at the U.S. and Canada box office grossing $9,785,111 during its opening weekend, a record for the Labor Day Weekend. Its weekend accounted for 54.6% of its total gross. It also opened at number 1 in the UK. The final US and Canadian gross was $17.9 million.

Critical response
On Rotten Tomatoes the film has a 14% approval rating based on 37 reviews, with an average rating of 3.5/10. The site's consensus states: "The Crow: City of Angels is a sloppy pretender that captures neither the mood nor energy of the original."

Joe Leydon of Variety called it "Stunningly awful." Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly gave it grade "D" and wrote: "Even for teens hooked on the grandiloquence of death-metal masochism, the movie may seem closer to an endless Sunday in church."

Home media
On October 7, 2014, City of Angels was released on DVD by Lionsgate in a triple feature edition with the other two Crow sequels.

Marketing
A video game tie-in The Crow: City of Angels was made for the PlayStation, Sega Saturn, and Microsoft Windows. The game was to be initially released around the same time as the film but instead released in early 1997.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: The Crow: City of Angels


text: File:Teaserama poster.jpg

title: File:Teaserama poster.jpg


text: User talk:211.28.173.65

title: User talk:211.28.173.65


text: Talk:Mitral regurgitation

title: Talk:Mitral regurgitation


text:
Akasaka

Akasaka may refer to:

Places

 * Akasaka Palace, which functions today as the State Guest-House
 * Akasaka, Tokyo, a district of Minato, Tokyo
 * Akasaka Sacas, a facility in Akasaka, Tokyo
 * Akasaka, Okayama, a town in the Akaiwa District, Okayama
 * Akasaka-juku (Nakasendō), a post town on the Nakasendō
 * Akasaka-juku (Tōkaidō), a post town on the Tōkaidō
 * A district of Chihayaakasaka, Osaka, Japan

Other uses

 * Akasaka (surname)
 * Akaneiro ni Somaru Saka, a visual novel by Feng adapted into an anime series

title: Akasaka


text:
The Crow: Salvation

The Crow: Salvation is a 2000 American superhero film directed by Bharat Nalluri. Starring Eric Mabius as Alex Corvis and the third installment of The Crow film series, based on the comic book character of the same name by James O'Barr. After its distributor cancelled the intended wide theatrical release due to The Crow: City of Angels' negative critical reception, The Crow: Salvation was released direct-to-video after a limited theatrical run.

Plot
In Salt Lake City, Alexander "Alex" Frederick Corvis is framed for the murder of his girlfriend, Lauren Randall, and sentenced to death. Three years later he is executed in the electric chair, suffering a painful death due to lightning overloading the energy of the chair.

The Crow resurrects Alex and gives him supernatural abilities that would allow him to avenge Lauren's death. Alex follows the crow and finds evidence that Lauren was killed by a group of corrupt cops, including one that has a scar on his arm that match the one he saw just before his execution. Later he encounters Erin, Lauren's sister, who believes that he is guilty but Alex tells her that he will prove his innocence.

Later, Alex finds a witness in the trial who was bribed to give perjured testimony and forces him to confess that four members of the police force killed Lauren. Unbeknownst to him, there were actually five: Detective Madden, Martin Toomey, Vincent Erlich, Stan Roberts and Phillip Dutton.

Alex begins his road to vengeance killing Dutton while saving two young girls from being raped by him. He then confronts Erlich and hijacks and crashes his car, blowing both the car and Erlich up, while also blowing up a police helicopter in the process. Alex drops the list of the cops he is after and it is later found by Roberts and Toomey. With evidence found in Erlich's car, Alex and Erin find out that Nathan Randall, Erin and Lauren's father, is in business with the corrupt cops and is indirectly responsible for her death when Lauren uncovered the truth. Erin runs in horror from Nathan when she is confronted with the truth.

Erin confesses to Alex that she felt guilty for Lauren's murder because she told the cops where they could find her, thinking that they would only arrest Alex. With his powers, Alex shows Erin that Lauren fought off her attackers and that Erin should forgive herself. When she returns home, she finds her father has killed himself out of remorse. Later, Alex finds out from his lawyer, Peter Walsh, that one of Nathan's businesses was revealed to be a front for a drug smuggling operation and Lauren had witnessed Roberts killing a man in the Key Club, leading to her death.

Book and Madden kill Walsh and kidnap Erin. Alex starts a shootout at the Key Club. He impales Roberts with a pipe he breaks off the ceiling and kills the remaining police. Madden shows up and tries to kill Alex, but his shot accidentally shoots a broken gas pipe. The explosion kills Toomey. Alex walks out of the fire and sees an arm hanging out of the rubble with the zig-zag scar on it. The Crow leaves Alex after he feels he has "fulfilled his duty".

From a clue left by Walsh, Alex deduces that the 'King' is still alive. He heads to the police station to kill Book but, without his powers, he is stabbed by Book and dies from his wounds. In agony, Alex begins to believe he caused Lauren's death, accepting his demise. Book brings Alex's body to a room where Erin is tied with her mouth stitched shut and the body of Walsh is shown hanging and missing an arm. Erin manages to drop Lauren's locket and the Crow drops it next to Alex, being a promise of love and truth. It revives Alex, allowing him to set Erin free and kill both Madden and the secretary while Book runs after Erin. Alex catches up with them and exposes Book's arm, showing the actual zig-zag scar Alex saw during the attack the night of Lauren's murder, therefore revealing Book as the corrupt cop/crime boss who ultimately ordered the murders of Lauren, the guy Lauren witnessed get murdered, and also of Alex himself; ordering him to be framed for murder by the cops on his payroll.

Alex and Erin take Book to the electric chair and electrocute him to the point of cremation in the chair. Alex's soul is finally released to reunite with Lauren and Erin keeps Lauren's necklace with her.

Production
Following the critical and commercial under performance of The Crow: City of Angels, series producers Edward R. Pressman and Jeff Most set their sights on producing a third film in the hopes of salvaging the property. Initial development on a third Crow film was announced in August 1997, when it was announced Rob Zombie would be making his directorial debut with The Crow: 2037. White Zombie covered the KC and the Sunshine Band hit "I'm Your Boogie Man" for the soundtrack of The Crow: City of Angels, and after seeing Rob Zombie's work on the video he produced for the song, Edward Pressman offered Zombie the opportunity to helm the third Crow film. Had the film been made, Zombie planned to shift focus in tone from the revenge angle of the previous two entries, to a more horror based approach. The film would've began in 2010, when a young boy and his mother are murdered on Halloween night by a Satanic priest. A year later, the boy is resurrected as the Crow. Twenty-seven years later, and unaware of his past, he has become a bounty hunter on a collision course with his now all-powerful killer. While producers responded favorably to Zombie's proposal for a third "The Crow" film, producers Pressman and Most ultimately decided it wasn't the best fit for a Crow film and was better served as a standalone work. Zombie himself spoke of his frustration with experience spending 18 months working on the film often dealing with the indecisiveness of the producers who according to him would change their mind as to what they wanted on any given day which ultimately lead to Zombie leaving the project.

On the suggestion of Most, it was decided that the third film would focus on a younger incarnation of The Crow which would also make the film more appealing to a teen target audience. In September 1998, it was announced Bharat Nalluri would serve as director of the third film in The Crow series with the script being provided by Chip Johannessen. In October 1998, it was announced Kirsten Dunst had joined the cast. In November 1998, it was announced Eric Mabius was in negotiations to star as the lead in the film. Mabius had auditioned for the role of Eric Draven in The Crow that ultimately went to Brandon Lee as Mabius was deemed too young for the role, and also auditioned for Michael Massee's role as Funboy who fired the dummy cartridge that killed Lee. Unlike the previous two films, The Crow: Salvation did not use miniaturized cityscapes to create its setting.

Dimension had intended to release the film theatrically for a Halloween 1999 release. However, the film was only given some preview screenings in Sacramento and San Antonio in the Summer of 2000 before being released direct-to-video in January the following year.

Reception
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported an 18% approval rating based on 11 reviews, only 2 being positive.

Lisa Nesselson of Variety responded positively to the film, opining that it was "a reasonably suspenseful, adequately made programmer" with a "calmly and wryly effective" protagonist and "efficient f/x artillery." JoBlo's Berge Garabedian awarded The Crow: Salvation a score of 4/10, and concluded, "The film itself was definitely a little more entertaining than the second installment with some pretty slick gory death scenes, a loud but cool soundtrack, and a lead who doesn't throw you off with a cheesy accent. In fact, I credit Mabius for pulling off a decent outing despite my initial skepticism (A teen Crow? Never!). Unfortunately, you don't really care about ANY of the characters, especially the bad guys or the family left behind, so all you're basically left with is a low-rent Crow retread with a decent lead, a nice look, but plenty of bad dialogue, zero originality or depth." David Nusair of Reel Film Reviews had a similarly middling response to the film, giving it a score of 2/5, criticizing its casting and anemic violence, and writing, "While Salvation certainly isn't as bad as that first sequel, it still doesn't come near the sheer coolness of the first one."

Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club lambasted the film as "a repugnant exercise in emptily stylish ultraviolence that plays like the longest, most expensive Rammstein video ever made" and closed his review of it with, "Dour and humorless even as its over-the-top violence and awful dialogue propel it to the realm of high camp, The Crow: Salvation marks a nadir for a series that was never especially good to begin with." Jonathan Barkan of Bloody Disgusting counted The Crow: Salvation and The Crow: Wicked Prayer as being among the worst horror films that he had ever seen, calling them "deplorable" before going on to say, "Both of them felt like lazy, slapdash, thoughtless, cash cows and that feeling permeates in every scene, oozing out of the celluloid like some damn viscous disease." Nick Perkins of Coming Soon was similarly derisive of the film, ranking it as the worst in the series, and writing, "In theory, it's a good story. It should be, as it was written by Crow creator, James O'Barr. It's just the execution that left a lot to be desired. Mabius absolutely lacked the charisma that Brandon Lee possessed in spades. And though Kirsten Dunst also starred in this film, the supporting characters were generally as bland as the lead."

Home media
On September 9, 2014, Lionsgate re-released the film on DVD. On October 7, 2014, it was released on DVD by Lionsgate in a triple feature edition with the other Crow sequels, The Crow: City of Angels and The Crow: Wicked Prayer.

The Crow: Salvation performed well upon its release on home video.

title: The Crow: Salvation


text:
Category:Throwing weapons

Throwing weapons are, as the term says, weapons meant specifically for throwing. They were the first ranged weapons, developed before the adoption of bow and arrows, but have been used throughout history in many different forms from all over the world.

title: Category:Throwing weapons


text:
Talk:Ford FE engine

Archive 1

Archive 2

1964/1965 NASCAR information
Please note; the changes I made to the 1964/1965 NASCAR info is correct, as the Chrysler 426 Hemi was NASCAR legal for the 1964 season, as a minimum number of engines wasn't required that year, as long as they were put in assembly line built vehicles. The 1964 NHRA Super Stock Hemi Mopars were built on the assembly line, therefore making the Hemi NASCAR "legal" for 1964.

NASCAR outlawed the Hemi prior to the beginning of the 1965 season, therefore the comment that it was allowed that entire season is incorrect. They didn't lift the ban on the Hemi until the summer of 1965, in July. If wanted I can present exact dates & additional info on said rule changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesman Mark (talk • contribs) 01:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-reference "references", deletion of tags/templates
The Wikipedia has rules (such as WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE) for what counts as a reference. You don't get to just make up random factoids that you think sound good and then put whatever random junkola you want in between the tags, close your eyes and wish real hard, and turn it magically into a reference. This is not a reference. Go on, click it and see where it leads you...absolutely nowhere! And this isn't a reference, either. It's a web page that doesn't say anything at all to support the claim it's being used as a "reference" for. There's a reason why tags and templates get put up on an article. It's so people will come and fix the issues. Taking taking down the tags and templates and putting in bogus "references" doesn't improve the article, it damages it. Cut it out! 06:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)

===actualy, those ARE references. You don·t decide alone what are and are not ·references·. It should be discussed. Also, it is common courtesy to request a citation, and give editors time to provide the requested citation before arbitrarily deleting entire paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.137.141 (talk)
 * Dude, no. Actually, they're NOT references, regardless of whatever discussion you think is going to happen here. That's because "reference" is defined for Wikipedia-wide use. See WP:RS for starters, and, once again, one of your so-called "references", which formerly went to nowhere, now goes to an advertisement (not legal per WP:RS, and even if it were, it doesn't support the assertion) another goes to a web page that doesn't support the assertion. FAIL, those are not references. The tags and templates are staying until someone puts up real references. And the paragraphs you complain about having been removed, were not germaine to this article. This article is about the Ford FE engine, not a much later engine not at all related to the FE except both were made by Ford. That engine has its own article. 03:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)

Excellent
There, you see? The system works! The two new references added are ideal. The two non-reference "references" still don't get to stay, so I've removed them. Neither does the off-topic material about the non-FE engine, so I've removed that, too. The article still contains a whole lot of unsupported, questionable assertions, many of which look a lot like WP:NOR violations, so the templates at the top of the article need to stay put. 22:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.84.143 (talk)

 * References are Excellent! as long as they include Barry R's book? When that is replaced by a different reference, then suddenly you're unhappy again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.237.22 (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Oh, good, you're here. Look, it doesn't matter who writes the books used as references, it matters whether they're reliable sources as defined by this encyclopedia. References that meet WP:RS and support the assertions they're used on, get to stay in the article. "References" that don't meet WP:RS and/or don't support the assertions they're used on, don't get to stay in this or any other article. Off-topic babble about a 2010 engine completely unrelated to the FE engine also doesn't get to stay. If any of this bothers you, go participate in the ongoing effort to shape the Wikipedia rules and policies and perhaps your idea of how things should work will carry the day and the policies will change. Until that happens, nobody gets to singlehandedly decide the rules don't apply to this article, because guess what: Yes, they do. As for your disgust for the wording of the template which will need to remain at the top of the article until the indicated issues are addressed, take it up with those Wikipedians who work on templates. While you're taking the time to get at least a basic familiarity with how Wikipedia works (and how it doesn't), also read WP:UGH and WP:V and WP:BRDC. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * added relevancy. What will you be unhappy with now? Are you using this contretemps as a substitute for real person-to-person interactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.237.43 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * No, madam or sir, you didn't "add relevancy". All you did was state right out in the open that the 2010 Hurricane engine is completely unrelated to the engine that is the subject of this article, the FE engine, and make a bunch of unsupported assertions about the Hurricane/Boss engine using valvetrain geometry from the FE engine. Remember, content on the Wikipedia must be WP:V. The "V" stands for "Verifiable". Questionable/unsupported/dubious assertions are likely to be removed, and that's what has happened here. If you can find some WP:RS support for your claim that Ford reused 1950s engineering in 2010 on a clean-sheet engine design, by all means go ahead and provide the citations. Please remember to keep talk page discussions WP:CIVIL. That means discussing the article, not what you imagine other editors' personal lives are like. 24.87.84.143 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I added current references that refer to the Hurricane as the modern version of the 427 FE SOHC. Be happy.
 * As I asked above, I think some common courtesy is called for in your editing. The process, to my way of thinking anyway, should be to flag something as "citation needed" or "orignal research", and then allow some reasonable amount of time (I'm thinking more than a few hours), for other editors to note your concerns and take steps to address them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.238.42 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
I am here because I saw the posting at WP:Third opinion. I'm not sure that I'm clear about all the issues, but regarding references, there is definitely an issue and I tagged the article with the Template:Refimprove tag.

There are also now Template:Better source tags with the reason on several of the citations (See: this edit, because:
 * a forum or a blog was used - this is not an example of WP:Reliable sources because there is no editorial control to ensure that the information is accurate and verifiable.
 * a book was used, but there's no page number, which means that it makes it very difficult to verify (WP:Verifiability) the information
 * one of the citations is to a commons image file, that is not a verifiable source of information (e.g., a person could create an image file, with the information, what is needed is a secondary, published source, which would include the publisher, title, etc.)

A lot of the citations do not have the common parameters for the cite type. From what I can tell, all of the citations should be reviewed to ensure the content is reliable, verifiable, with secondary sources and correctly formatted per WP:Cite web, WP:Cite book, and for a magazine Template:Cite journal, with review of the common parameters used. (I used these links because it seems that templates are used throughout the article).
 * The interactive portion of Reflinks utility tool was run that cleaned up 12 citations.

I have a couple of other comments about the article, but first I'd like to stay focused on the reason for the third opinion request. Is there something else besides needing references that is an issue?-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 17:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * they are moderated forums. If you compare authors with the "published" sources you would find that they are the same...the forum provides them a place to discuss and expand on their published work.
 * many of the sources flagged as inadequate are merely secondary to the primary reference and were added to bolster the primary source, so, eliminating sources for appearance sake is the recommendation?
 * thanks, no comments about abusive editors? AT LEAST WE KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT PROBLEMS TO ADDRESS.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.107.105 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Added numbers to respond to the items. Please sign your comments by adding --~ at the end of the comment. When you "save" your response your user name/IP address will automatically be saved with a date/time stamp. Thanks!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A moderated forum still represents each individual person's comments without a true editorial function. And moderators are not likely to expect that content is properly reviewed (fact check, etc.) for use as a cited source. Further, if there is a question whether there are enough reliable sources in books, magazines, newspapers and other reliable sources, then you've got a WP:Notability issue. Since your saying that these people have written books - why not use the books as a reference? I'm confused.
 * Yep, it's best not to get in the habit of using non-reliable sources. It's a slippery slope. For instance a user might have gotten part of the information from a reliable source, and a bit from a non-reliable source. There should only be content from the reliable source - and adding unreliable sources is not needed. You just need one citation per cited text, so I am again confused.
 * If you have a complaint to lodge against someone's conduct, that's a different process. I am not seeing anything here, but most specifically on your talk page, that would be considered "abusive". If after reading the criteria you think the situation meets the criteria for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and you have specific examples of added content (link with compared text) that is abusive, click on the ConductDispute link and follow the process.-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ford FE engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bluebird-electric.net/tony_densham_commuter.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Windsor Engine List is Incomplete
The Small Block Ford (90-degree, Windsor V8) began with the introduction of the 221-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 260-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 289-CID version, which was supplanted by the (mentioned) 302-CID version. Production of the 302-version was interrupted by the production of a 255-CID version not mentioned in the article. All of these were "low-deck" Windsor small blocks (by contrast against the "high-deck" 351-CID version. The Ford Windsor engine Wikipedia page mentions both of these engines (viz. the 221 and the 255), and others.

I don't know why the Editing Talk page associated my comments with the Ford FE engine, to which they obviously don't relate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.86.48.33 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ford FE engine


text:
Eek-A-Mouse

Eek-A-Mouse (born Ripton Joseph Hylton, 19 November 1957) is a Jamaican reggae musician. He is one of the earliest artists to be described as a "singjay". Eek-A-Mouse is well known for pioneering his own style of scatting, differing from the-then toasting deejays in the 80s.

Biography
Born in Kingston, Jamaica, Eek-A-Mouse began his music career when he was in college, releasing two roots reggae singles under his own name, which were produced by his mathematics tutor, Mr. Dehaney. These early works were influenced by the music of Pablo Moses. He then went on to work for various sound systems over the next few years and also released a few more singles. He adopted the stage name "Eek-A-Mouse" in 1979, taking the name of a racehorse he always bet on; it was a nickname his friends had used for some time. He began recording for Joe Gibbs in 1979, having a hit straight away with "Once a Virgin", now showing the influence of Ranking Joe, and this was soon followed with "Wa-Do-Dem" (produced by Douglas Boothe), and "Modelling Queen", which began an association with Linval Thompson, who produced his debut Bubble Up Yu Hip album.

By the end of 1980, he had linked up with producer Henry "Junjo" Lawes, with whom he had big hits in 1981 with the likes of "Virgin Girl" and a recut "Wa-Do-Dem". In 1981, he was the star of the Reggae Sunsplash Festival, cheering audiences still mourning over the death of reggae icon Bob Marley. His association with Lawes led to a string of successful singles and albums, and in 1982 his hits included "Wild Like a Tiger", "For Hire and Removal", "Do You Remember", and "Ganja Smuggling". The same year he released his second album, Wa Do Dem. The "Operation Eradication" single showed Hylton's serious side, the song inspired by the vigilante killing of close friend and fellow DJ Errol Shorter. Skidip was released before the year was out.

Further albums followed with 1983 Mouse and the Man, produced by Linval Thompson, and 1984 Mouseketeer, again produced by Lawes. He also featured on several of the live dancehall albums from the era, including the Aces International and Live at Skateland collections. In the second half of the decade his popularity began to wane slightly, and he targeted the United States with the Assassinator album in 1985 (his first US release), produced by Anthony and Ronald Welch. He also travelled to the United Kingdom to record The King and I the same year, the album targeted at the rock crossover audience to which he had begun to appeal.

His 1988 album Eek-A-Nomics saw him begin to establish himself with an international audience, spawning a club hit with "The Freak", and he was signed by Island Records in 1989. He returned to prominence with 1991's U-Neek album, which continued the rock-oriented style, including a cover version of Led Zeppelin's "D'yer Mak'er", and from which the hit single "You're The One I Need" was taken. He went through a period of relative quietness before returning in 1996 with the Black Cowboy album.

He also has a performance in the 1991 gangster movie New Jack City playing a drug-dealing Rastafarian named Fat Smitty. That same year, he also had a performance in Out for Justice playing a chauffeur of a pimp.

Eek-A-Mouse was a regular performer at Reggae Sunsplash, often teaming up with reggae duo Michigan & Smiley. An album of their 1982 performance was released by Sunsplash Records.

He performed in Jamaica for the first time in eight years in August 2015 at the Marcus Garvey Festival in Ocho Rios.

Apart from his distinctive vocal style, Eek-A-Mouse has been noted for wearing often flashy costumes during his performances. In a 1985 interview, he explained: "Entertaining is not just singing and rapping to audiences. People want to see you in costume and dancing."

Collaborations
Eek guests on Roger Kellaway's 1984 release Creation, contributing his voice to the title track. He was also featured on nu metal group P.O.D.'s album Satellite, lending his vocals to the rock-reggae track "Ridiculous." He can also be heard on OPM's album, ForThemAsses, on the track "Perfect Day." Eek-A-Mouse recorded a song with hip-hop recording artist Ditch, called "Smoke it up" (2007, released in 2009), which is featured on Ditch's CD Public Intoxication. The song by Ditch and Eek-a-Mouse is featured on the Jack Herer documentary as well. Eek was featured with background vocals on the hit single "Khaki Suit", also featuring Bounty Killer, from the Grammy-award winning album Welcome to Jamrock by Damian Marley. Eek was also part of the recording of one of the most important German hip hop albums Blauer Samt by Torch (German rapper). He can be heard on the track "Auf der Flucht" ("On the run").

Legal issues
On 16 August 2008, Eek-a-Mouse was arrested on charges of rape and narcotic possession. He fled the United States and an arrest warrant with a million dollar bond was issued. These charges were filed in Dare County, North Carolina after a performance at the Port O' Call restaurant. He failed to appear at the first hearing and was given a failure to appear charge, with the court issuing an "order to arrest". He was discovered to be in the Netherlands in 2010, but was unable to travel due to either an expired visa or the volcanos in Iceland.

On 21 November 2012, Eek-a-Mouse was found in Paraguay without a proper visa and was eventually extradited to the US. He was initially charged with felony rape, felony kidnapping, felony cocaine charges and misdemeanor relating to possession of marijuana. In July 2013 he was released after a plea agreement, having pleaded "no contest" to misdemeanor charges for assault on a female and attempted crime against nature, with his time already spent in jail covering his sentence. He was then deported back to Jamaica.

Discography

 * Studio albums:
 * Bubble Up Yu Hip (1980), Greensleeves
 * Wa-Do-Dem (1981), Shanachie
 * Skidip! (1982), Shanachie
 * The Mouse and the Man (1983), Shanachie
 * Assassinator (1983), RAS
 * Mouseketeer (1984), Greensleeves
 * The King and I (1985), Original Sounds/(1986), RAS
 * Eek-A-Nomics (1988), RAS
 * U-Neek (1991), Mango
 * Black Cowboy (1996), Explicit
 * Eeeksperience (2001), Coach House
 * Mouse Gone Wild (2004), Sanctuary
 * Eek-A-Speeka (2004), Greensleeves
 * Eekziled (2011)
 * Put Food On The Ghetto Youth Table (2022), Irie Ites

 * Live albums:
 * Live At Reggae Sunsplash (1983), Sunsplash (with Michigan & Smiley)
 * Live in San Francisco (2006), 2B1

 * Compilations:
 * Mouse-A-Mania (1987), RAS
 * The Very Best Of (1987), Greensleeves
 * Ras Portraits (1997), RAS
 * At His Best (1998)
 * The Very Best Of Vol.2 (2003), Shanachie
 * Most Wanted (2009), Greensleeves
 * Ganja Smuggling (2009)
 * Reggae Anthology: Eek-Ology (2013), VP

title: Eek-A-Mouse


text:
User:Andrewa/monobook.css

body { background: Yellow; }

title: User:Andrewa/monobook.css