Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:20, 9 January 2015

Template:Infobox person is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Biography Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Archives

Template:Infobox actor was merged here following a discussion at Templates for discussion. The talk archives for that template are listed here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Archives

Template:Infobox journalist was merged here following a discussion at Templates for discussion. The talk archives for that template are listed here: 1

This template (Template:Infobox person) was considered for merging with Template:Infobox artist on 14 June 2014. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep".

For pending merger proposals (2009 to date) see Template talk:Infobox person/Mergers

Bad example

The example shown uses <br /> to separate list-items, contrary to parameter descriptions which state:  Separate entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. The 'plainlist' doc explains that this is preferred to linebreaks, and adds:  Detailed reasons for using this template can be found at WP:UBLIST.  At any rate, an "example" should be a "good example". It's not that I intend to be nit-picky, it's just that it would have been nice to have an example to go by instead of tracking down documentation elsewhere. ~Thanks for your attention, ~:71.20.250.51 (talk)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.20.250.51 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Death date and age template

Any reason why the (aged xx) part of this template is now appearing on a line break when used in the death date field? eg. Never used to do this until recently... can it be fixed? Connormah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the template in common in both examples is template:death date and age, so perhaps you should ask there? Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

death_name paramter

Would it be useful to have a death_name parameter? This would cover for cases where the person is not now commonly known by the name they had on their death. Yaris678 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't | other_names = cover this on occasions when it is needed? (Though if significant it ought to be in the lede anyway). Do you have any examples in mind that could benefit from adding a death name parameter? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The case that made me think of this is Joan Clarke. Famous for her code-breaking during WWII, she late married Jock Murray. It seems she took his surname name but kept her maiden name as a third middle name.

I'm open to suggestions of a better way to summarise this in an infobox.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Since work by User:Pigsonthewing later that day, our biography Joan Clarke handles this with parameter value/setting |other_names=Joan Clarke Murray (1952-1996) (prefer dash to hyphen).

--P64 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

First Lady of Japan?

I'd say that's the Empress of Japan. The "second lady" would be the Crown Princess. Akie Abe is neither. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article First Lady says nothing about Japan but clearly disagrees (as it did in October). See especially its top WP:HATNOTE which says, "This article is about the unofficial title for the spouses or partners of elected heads of state."

The lead section of our First Lady is strictly limited to the United States, which mismatches the page grossly. Beside the top hatnote, section 3 covers "Use in other countries" including 13 others by enumeration 3.1 to 3.13.

--P64 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

labelstyle's padding-right

Having just passed by Pythagoras, I'd recommend increasing labelstyle's padding-right from 0.65em to e.g. 1.0em. Anyone know if that would cause a malfunction somewhere..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on Children parameter

Is the Children parameter intended to display a number of children, or names of the children? The template docs are lacking appropriate explanation. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically only numbers, names if the children are particularly notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Nikkimaria. Do you think there's any benefit to clarifying the template docs? If a preference for number vs name is split, I think at least the docs should contain some explanation that non-notable minor children should not be named, since that does come up quite a bit. (Can't remember the exact shortcut, but I remember it being a BLP concern.) Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable" seems fairly clear to me - what would you propose to add or include instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap I am an idiot. I was looking at the template, and somehow missed the text about the Children parameter. I think perhaps because there are no embedded notes in the blank template with all parameters. Anyhow, my fault entirely. I think maybe an embedded note summarizing the doc text might be helpful for idiots like me. Ack! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to doing that, but if we were going to I would think we would for more than just that parameter - "relatives" and "parents" both have a similar note in the doc text, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not an idiot. It's a long page. As I visit now (on a desktop, not mobile) our section 3 heading Parameters shows up at the bottom of the fourth screen and our parameter documentation table shows up on the fifth. It's reasonable for a new or occasional visitor to suppose that sections 2. Usage, 2.1 Blank template with basic parameters, 2.2 Blank template with all parameters --which headings all show up on the second screen for me now-- constitute the gist of the documentation. Subsec 2.2 displays 17 of those "embedded note summarizing the doc", enough to support a hasty naive presumption that that is the only doc we provide.

We may improve subsec 2.2 with a prose note such as "The brief embedded WP:COMMENTs displayed here are not the documentation (see below), merely an occasional reminder." --P64 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

When should party field be included in the infobox?

Should the political party field be included for a non-politician who has self-identified with a party, absent any other support for the party or its candidates or affiliation with the party? There’s a debate going on over at Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F I believe that self-identification isn't enough to make it relevant (particularly in this case where there's a bit of ambiguity), that some real connection with or support for the party and/or its candidates is necessary, but others disagree. Bennetto (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I suppose you and I have the experience to judge what the documentation means by "relevant", which some other editors lack. Even if so, we may be able to improve the documentation and so forestall such misjudgment. --P64 (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

I was wondering whether the concept of citizenship could be brought to more prominent positions in the infobox listings.

In comparison to "nationality", "citizenship" gives more flexibility:

• In the case of someone from the UK, an editor could use:
  • British (even though a large chunk or the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, is not part of the UK) or
  • United Kingdom.

• In the case of someone from the US, an editor could use:
  • American (even though the US only constitutes one of the 55 nations in the Americas albeit with the US consisting of ~one third of the American population) or
  • United States.

On a POV basis and, while not claiming to be an expert, I would be much more inclined to promote Patriotism than Nationalism.

Being a patriot the example I checked through was Paul McCartney (no prizes for guessing where I'm from). Although I did not do an extensive search, the parallel article in the majority of other languages tended to name the nation at the end, or following, the birth section of text.

A notable difficulty with the proper noun terms is that they frequently link to disambiguation pages:

• Chinese (disambiguation page), Indian (disambiguation page), American (disambiguation page), Indonesian (disambiguation page), Brazillian (disambiguation page), Pakistani (> Pakistani people), Russian (disambiguation page), Japanese (disambiguation page).
• American (disambiguation page), British (disambiguation page), Canadian (> Canadians), Australian (disambiguation page), New Zealander (> New Zealanders).

As examples:
>The code for "Chinese" can either be written: ] or ].
>The code for "American" can either be written: ] or ].
>The code for "British" can either be written: ] or ].
Both types of option are used so, I guess, some editors have the priority to indicate nation even under the name of nationality.

At the moment the:
Blank template with basic parameters
reads:

| residence    = 
{{Infobox person
| name        = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->
| image       = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing ] -->
| alt         = 
| caption     = 
| birth_name  = <!-- only use if different from name -->
| birth_date  = <!-- {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Birth-date and age|birth date†}} -->
| birth_place = 
| death_date  = <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Death-date and age|death date†|birth date†}} -->
| death_place = 
|  nationality = 
| other_names = 
| occupation  = 
| known_for   = 
}}

Can citizenship replace nationality or at least be added?

At the moment the:
Blank template with all parameters
reads:

...
| residence    = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  = 
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
|  citizenship  = 
...

Can this be reordered as follows?:

...
| residence    = 
|  citizenship  = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  =      (a section that I suspect is rarely used)
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
...

I think it makes sense for citizenship to follow residence and for ethnicity to follow nationality. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

I've been adding some audio and IPA pronunciations to various articles lately, and it occurred to me that while in some cases the information is very pertinent in the lead - say, for example, in the case of Maya Angelou, whose name is often mispronounced - it's often useful-but-not-required, and can sorta break up the flow of the article. So for example, I recorded the name Hadley, which is an intuitive-enough name to pronounce, but it doesn't hurt to have it there (presumably particularly useful for non-native speakers, who wouldn't have the same intuitions about how people pronounce names). I'd rather be adding these pronunciations to an infobox than the lead. Can we add a pronunciation parameter, similar to the "signature" parameter that already exists? 0x0077BE 14:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE this has been discussed before in this thread. not sure if there was ever a conclusion. Frietjes (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer Frietjes. That discussion sure seems to have been scattered across many, many different pages. Surprisingly, it seems like there's broad support for the idea of decluttering the lead sentences, but no implementation. The most substantive discussion seems to be here and here. Honestly, I think we can implement a "pronunciation" or "pronounced" field in this template without any sort of requirement that the pronunciation be moved from the lede. Infoboxes usually tabulate information that is scattered around the article. For some articles maybe you'll want it in one place or the other. If I work something up do you think it would be a major issue to implement it? Otherwise, we can try to bring this to an RfC at the Village Pump to see what people think. 0x0077BE 21:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, implementation is easy, if there is consensus concerning how/where it would appear in the infobox. Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend that the IPA pronunciation either go under "native name" or above or below "signature". I can see the audio file going one of two ways, either you include it in the IPA template, like this: /ˈɡɪl/ , or have the audio file as a separate parameter in the infobox. The advantage of doing it the second way is that even if we want the audio file included in the IPA template, we would always have the option of switching to a full audio player just by changing the back-end. The downside is that IPAc-en, the preferred template, takes individual arguments for each phoneme, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to incorporate those into this template.

One technical question is about multiple pronunciations. Often you'll get pronunciations in multiple languages, and very frequently we'll use both IPA and pronunciation respelling for English. Should each of these get its own line / entry? Should we just add support for up to say 6-10 languages under |pronounced-1, |pronounced-2=, and |pronounced-lang-1= , or should we try to enumerate the items like |pronounced-us, |pronounced-ca, etc. My guess is that the first approach is preferable, but maybe there's an even better way.

Either way, is this the right venue for this? Should I be taking this to Village Pump or something to get consensus? 0x0077BE 18:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

this is probably no better than any other place for the discussion. however, given that you probably want this change in more than just this template, you probably want to start an RFC and add pointers on other talk pages (e.g., {{infobox musical artist}}, and others). Frietjes (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus in favour of this proposal. The matter's so obvious that I'm not sure whether it's strictly necessary to have a formal closure of this RFC, but it's appeared at WP:ANRFC and I think it's probably simpler to close it than to quibble.

Some editors discuss whether to remove the pronunciation from the lede when added to the infobox. No real consensus is reached in that discussion, but the commonsense view is that it should not normally be necessary to repeat the same information in the lede. However, when dealing with ethnic or hard-to-pronounce names it may be a good idea, so the matter is left to editorial judgment.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

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.

RfC: Proposed addition of pronunciations to infobox person

There has been discussion before on this sort of thing, but mostly focused on whether pronunciation information should be in the lead or in the infobox. Without any bearing on the MOS question of whether the pronunciation belongs in the lead, I propose that we add a "pronounced" argument to this infobox, which can be used either in lieu of pronunciations in the lead, or in addition to a pronunciation in the lead, depending on the preferred style convention (either globally or article-by-article). I suggest that it be included under "native name", and preferably there would be slots for multiple pronunciation arguments, separated by language and/or country as appropriate.

The discussion that spawned this RfC took place here (hist link), and previous discussions have taken place in a variety of venues, the most substantive of which is here (hist link).0x0077BE 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Per the discussion above, I have left notices on all the derivative infoboxes I could find. I have also notified WP:Manual of Style/Biographies and WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, as previous discussions have taken place there. Finally, notifications have been left at WP:Village Pump (proposals) and WT:WikiProject Biography. 0x0077BE 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nominator. My impetus for this RfC was that I have been adding pronunciation information to a number of town and people articles, and while there are many cases where the pronunciation should probably be in the lead because the pronunciation may be counter-intuitive, such as Maya Angelou (pronounced /ændʒəloʊ/ - an-gel-oh, not /ændʒəluː/ - an-gel-oo), there are also a large number of names which are mostly intuitive to native speakers, but where it would be useful to be able to provide confirmation about pronunciation and syllable emphasis. In situations where it's useful but not critical information, putting pronunciation in the lead seems disruptive in a way that putting it in an infobox doesn't. 0x0077BE 17:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, proving clear documentation is provided, encouraging the use of IPA rather than "an-gel-oh" style, as above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, echoing Andy above. I've seen some past discussions regarding names in the lede, but I'm not sure if I'm familiar with any arguments against having them in the infobox. Is this controversial? — Ƶ§œš¹ 21:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think that it's controversial, but Frietjes encouraged an RfC to get consensus for addition above, and since Template Talk is generally not heavily watched, but this template is transcluded on a huge number of pages, it seemed like a good idea. I think similar earlier proposals were problematic because they were undertaken unilaterally, which put a lot of people off, and because they tended to be tied up with the question of removing the pronunciation from the lead, which, I gather, is a much more controversial proposition. 0x0077BE 01:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having pronunciation in the infobox is useful. However if this would lead to removal of pronunciation from the lead, I would retract my support. −Woodstone (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Provisional support*. If this is tied in with microformatting or wikidata, I think that the benefits would outweigh the risk of softening the policy rationale on pronunciations in the lede. If this is just slapping a new field into the infobox without integrating it into some of the larger efforts at organizing encyclopedic information, then I don't think it's worth it. VanIsaac_WS 04:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly the latter in its current incarnation. Can you clarify what you see as the downsides of adding new fields without microformatting or Wikidata? I'm not opposed to those things, but again I think they are generally independent of the decision of whether or not there is to be a new field, and I don't really know how they would work. Ideally, any feedback you can provide on how best to integrate it into the infobox in a way that may prevent future duplication of effort when merging this with wikidata and microformatting would be useful if this is indeed implemented. 0x0077BE 06:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: and no concerns about having pronunciation in both the lede and the infobox. No different than stuff like birth date. Not an issue. Montanabw 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Preferably only in the infobox. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with Andy Mabbett provisions. Prefer no pronunciation guides (among other things, eg E. E. Smith) at or near the head of the lead sentence, prior to or within lifespan parens. --P64 (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I would have liked this to be an RfC about removing pronunciations from the lede at the same time as adding it to infoboxes. Also, WP:WikiVIP may also be relevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I didn't do it this way is that I see the two things as orthogonal. Infoboxes tend to summarize a lot of information that is included in the article, particularly information in the lead (dates of birth, dates of death, etc), so I think that whether or not the pronunciation is in the lead, it is also worth putting in the infobox. I felt that tying the two questions together risks muddying the waters, which can be a death knell for consensus in an RfC. 0x0077BE 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding WP:WikiVIP, excellent project - I had a similar idea myself when I was preparing a lot of these pronunciation files. Personally, I think that the voice introductions should likely be a separate entry in the infobox, at the bottom, near the "signature" parameter. 0x0077BE 17:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is room for common sense omissions where there can be no debate on how a name is pronounced for any variant of English (eg Matt Smith). --MASEM (t) 23:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I once knew someone called Smith, pronounced Sm-eye-th. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think more importantly is that from an international perspective, it might not be obvious to non-Westerners how to pronounce even uncontroversial names. I know a Chinese guy whose name I've been mispronouncing for months, because when I first asked him if I was doing it right, he figured that it was close enough. Presumably there's only one way to pronounce the name "Ramachandran" or "Sudhapalli", and no Indian person would think to put IPA in a very common name, but it would still likely be useful information for non-Indian readers. I'm thinking that we could take these "uncontroversial" names on a case-by-case basis and remove IPA if the infobox is becoming over-long or cluttered. Having the infobox option where it definitely doesn't need to be in the lead (like Matt Smith), opens up a useful place to put potentially helpful but not critical information. 0x0077BE 15:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not a concern, we have lots of stuff in the lead or text narrative that's also in the infobox (number of children, job, birth date, etc.) the two do different things. I don't see a problem here at all. Montanabw 17:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Many times an infobox is not created until long after the article, so if a pronunciation is helpful, it may need at times to be in the lead paragraph. Also, pronunciations are needed for many other things besides people, so unless all of the infoboxes are changed, pronunciations will sometimes be found near the beginning of the article whether or not this change is made to the infobox. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think the question of pronunciations in the lead needs to be addressed in this RfC any more than the question of birth/death dates in the lead need to be. My position is that it is not at all uncommon for the infobox to duplicate information from the lead or the rest of the article anyway. If people want to have a separate RfC on the question of pronunciations in the lead, I think that's entirely a separate issue. 0x0077BE 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Implementation

Given that it seems like there's a pretty strong consensus for inclusion, I think it might be worth discussing the actual implementation. I'm in favor of implementing it below "native name", with "|pronounced#" and "|pronounced_lang#=" parameters with "|pronounced=" and "|pronounced_lang=" as aliases for "|pronounced=" and "pronounced_lang1=" respectively. The field name in the infobox would then be "Pronunciation (country)" (e.g. US, CA, etc).

The documentation should specify that for English {{IPAc-en}} with no language parameter is the preferred mechanism for adding pronunciations. I think we'd have to see the implementation, but if people are going to use {{respell}} in addition to the IPA template (often useful), I'm guessing just {{IPAc-en|aɪ|.|p|iː|.|eɪ}}<br />{{respell|eye|pee|ay}} is the best way to do it, rather than having a separate parameter. 0x0077BE 20:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Given there's not much discussion on this matter, I think we can go ahead and implement the scheme I mentioned above. Should I try and prepare an edit request with the actual code, or would it likely be better to just have one of the technical people more familiar with the template make the requested changes? 0x0077BE 15:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Four of the labels

Any support for / objection to the following label amendments, please?:

1. "Notable work(s)" → "Notable works" or "Notable work" or "Key works" or "Key work" or something else not including bracket symbols;
2. "Opponent(s)" → "Opponents";
3. "Spouse(s)" → "Spouse" (may be more than one, but meant to be only one at any one time);
4. "Partner(s)" → "Partner" (may be more than one, but usually only one at any one time).

Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to plural form for (1) and (2) but No to singular form for (3): there are parts of the world where polygamy is practised: Noyster (talk), 12:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No to all of them because the labels must account for either one more or of each. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes to all four, offhand. Evidently I don't know {infobox person} as I have presumed. I think I know {{infobox writer}} (only now learned they differ in this respect) and prefer its labels as far as I do know. See eg Judy Blume whose {infobox writer} shows label "Notable awards" altho we list only one and label "Spouse" altho we list three. --P64 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Judy Blume's {infobox writer} uses embedded template {{plainlist}} for both its 3 "Notable works" (label plural) and 3 "Spouse" (label singular). As I understand, when {plainlist} is used the label can be designed to interact with the number of listings (plural label iff more than one listing); evidently the {infobox writer} labels are not so designed, which is ok with me. I dislike the internal spacing of those listings long enough to wrap, which {plainlist} may generate (contrast the display of those 3 Notable works and 3 Spouse with that of 2 "Genre"). --P64 (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth and baptism dates

The parameter |baptised= "will not display if |birth_date= is entered". However, where we know a subject's approximate birth date (i.e. the exact month), and an exact baptism date; we should be able to display both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Political party parameter in non-politician bios

I thought it might be worth having a discussion on this issue as there seems to be an inconsistency with the use of the political party parameter. I recently undid this because although the subject is on record as supporting a political party, she's not a politician. But I soon became embroiled in a discussion about whether or not its use was relevant for non-politician bios, and there seems to be some indecision now over whether or not to include it. I've always understood that particular parameter is reserved for politicians, but it seems to be used in other bios. Several people in the public eye have spoken of their support for one or other political party, or undertaken fundraisers for various individuals or causes. Adele and Cheryl Cole have voiced their support for the UK Labour Party, for example, while William Roache is well known as a Conservative supporter, who spoke in support of William Hague during the 2001 UK general election. Sean Connery has publicly and financially supported the SNP, while Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Obama. Gwyneth Paltrow also famously endorsed the US President recently. Yet not all of the articles about these people have the parameter. Any thoughts on this? This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If the subject is a politician or their political stances are particularly notable, I would say it's worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, no, though there may occasionally be exceptions such as Oprah, whose political endorsements are quite notable (emphasis on may - I'm not completely sure it belongs in her infobox). For the likes of Adele, Cheryl Cole, and Goop, it's a definite no. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is marvelously inconsistent. IMHO, party is more likely to be relevant in the body of a biography than in an infobox, but sometimes the "political persona" of the subject seems exceedingly strong. In the US, one can track donations, but that often is misleading, as $5,000 donations are not major sums to the very wealthy. Best source would be self-categorization, as always. Collect (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion over at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Orson_Scott_Card. In this case the only connection to the party was an (occasionally qualified) self-catagorization; nearly all other expressions of support were aligned with the other party. Most of the opinions were that party should be removed from the infobox, and it was.

I agree self-catagorization is necessary but I don't believe it's sufficient. Anyone can say they are a member of a party (at least in the US); it doesn't imply any real connection. It seems to me the appropriate standard is that there be a reciprocal relationship, e.g., the subject has won a primary, been employed by the party, held a formal volunteer position, or been given a podium. Bennetto (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For Card, the "occasional self-identification" is quite a bit more than "occasional." And yes, self-identification on such matters is the strongest source. In fact, he specifically seems to support a variety of socialism. That noted, I know of no case where a person who does not self-identify with such a group should be labeled as part of such a group on Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Religion means what?

There is a discussion at Talk:George Will regarding the meaning of the religion category. I think it means a person’s public position toward religion, which can include the category atheist. Another editor says it should be blank because atheism is not a religion. This, in my view, suppresses the information available about a person’s stance toward God, and verges on POV suppression of atheists.Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial question; atheism is not a religion, just as "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby. As an atheist, I don't want "atehism" listed as my religion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct, atheism is not a religion; it's the absence of a religion. (And on another topic, the Category "atheists" must be substantiated in the article by a quote from the subject publicly identifying as an atheist.) Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Atheism is not "the absence of a religion". To the contrary, it is only an absence of belief in gods. Many atheists are also religious and/or spiritual; some belong to organized Religions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed at length at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

Per WP:V, If anyone insists on putting "Religion = Atheist" in any Misplaced Pages infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual in question is is A self-declaired atheist, and considers atheism to be a religion.

Evidence that a significant number of atheists object to calling atheism a religion:

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/06/atheism-is-not-a-religion.html

http://factschurch.com/sermons/sermon004.html

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2013/03/18/for-the-last-time-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=131

https://blevkog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/why-atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.ibtimes.com/atheism-not-religion-we-dont-want-your-tax-breaks-ffrf-feds-1396635

http://noscope.com/2014/atheism-is-not-a-religion/

http://www.nyu.edu/clubs/atheists/faqs.html (Question #3)

BTW, the claim above that "Another editor says it should be blank because atheism is not a religion" is factually incorrect. I changed it to "Religion: None". I did not blank it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" would be the correct entry. Leaving it blank can imply that editors have not got around to adding that bit of info, or are unsure. Atheism is not a religion under any circumstances, for any of the dozens of reasons listed already. --Dmol (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

"Leaving it blank can imply that editors have not got around to adding that bit of info, or are unsure." No, it would mean their religion was not relevant, which is the case in the overwhelming majority of bio articles. That parameter is relevant in only a very very small fraction of infoboxes; e.g. people whose life revolved around religion or whose public life actively included activity in or regular mention of a religion. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. If the subject's "religion was not relevant, which is the case in the overwhelming majority of bio articles", then simply leave that whole field undisplayed in the infobox. If you display a |Religion: field, but leave it empty, it can indeed mislead the reader. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Religion: None is the only sensible way to go here. Blank for cases where the information has not been reported in reliable sources etc. pablo 12:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Give the readers a little credit here. If we list "atheist" under religion, no one will conclude that the person worships every week at the local atheist temple. In that circumstance, the average reader will understand that "atheist" describes a person's religious view rather than membership in a religion. Listing a person as "atheist" under religion is much more informative that putting "none"; none may mean atheist, or agnostic, or deist, or may designate a nondenominational Christian. As an agnostic myself, I would certainly not object to having that listed under my religion. But I must hurry off now, because I'm studying for the Agnostic priesthood. Plazak (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It may give readers more information, but it is giving them false information. We should not do that. Stating "Religion: Atheist" is simply untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• To repeat yet again, anyone's religion is only to be mentioned in the infobox if it is relevant (per the template guideline) -- that is, if it is or was an important part of their public life. If Wills is notably and publicly an atheist, then put either "Atheist" (if that's what he repeatedly calls himself, publicly), or "None" (if that's what he repeatedly says about himself). If on the other hand he has only ever mentioned his lack of a belief in a deity once in some obscure interview or publication that someone has had to dig up from the bottom of the barrel, then don't put anything. Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be correct if the parameter were "Attitude towards religion". His "attitude" could be correctly summarised as "Atheist". But the infobox does not say that; it says "Religion" - to which the answer is "None". If you want to change the wording of the parameter, or the meaning of the word "religion", this is not the place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. His attitude toward the existence of deities can be described as "atheist". His attitude toward religion is something else entirely - not "atheism". Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The primary question is whether or not self-identified, sourced, relevant atheism should be included or excluded from the template. If the consensus answer is "no" then I agree with Rjensen that this amounts to a clear cut case of POV suppression of atheists. Someone expressing that they are an atheist when discussing religion is demonstrating that it is relevant. If instead the answer to the question posed above is "yes", then the second question is how/where should it be included in the template?

• There is some circular logic being used to exclude the information by stating that it is the absence of religion and therefore the only possible entry is "none." (See Guy Macon's requirement above, which ironically is being flatly rejected by another editor on the one page that has directly linked the two per the criteria.) But this "none" is not a singularity as suggested. It has multiple flavors, including atheism. Clearly "atheist" represents some persons' views of religion and therefore is noteworthy in the context of this template entry. So "none" works where no specific flavor is given but is misleading with respect to atheists.
• One can have no professed religion without being atheist. So qualifying "none" with a subset such as "None (atheist)" seems an appropriate entry that addresses the problems simultaneously and does not mislead or "shock" the reader as some have suggested.
• The only flaw I see in the "None (atheist)" solution is when the person considers their atheism religion. This is a gray area that is hard to address because it is at odds with "none" as an entry. It is a matter of consensus definitions and might require an exclusion to allow the entry "Atheist" alone according to the , test above.
• Religious sects that actually feature atheism can be listed by their specific names. They do qualify as religion, whether or not atheism in general is considered to be a religion.

In this way all options can be addressed without suppressing information or adding undue external POV to the subject. Red Harvest (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "The primary question is whether or not self-identified, sourced, relevant atheism should be included or excluded from the template", Consider what would happen if multiple reliable sources showed that Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox. A reliable source that shows that Lady gaga considers her birth date to be Banana would not justify a "birth_date = Banana" entry in the infobox. It would have to be in the text of the article where there is room to give necessary context. In other words, the fact that the text on the right side of the equals sign is self-identified, sourced, and relevant. is not enough. The text on the left side also has to be sourced. If I were to edit the Lady gaga page infobox to say "occupation = March 28, 1986", the best sources in the world saying that she was born on that date would not suffice. I would also have to establish that March 28, 1986 is an occupation. In like manner, to edit a BLP infobox with "Religion = atheist" or "religion = None (atheist)" the best sources in the world saying that the LP self-identifies as an atheist would not suffice. I would also have to establish that atheism is a religion. (Religion = None (atheist)" is better that "Religion = atheist" -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" in unambiguous.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's what you are going with? Birthdates have nothing to do with bananas, while atheism is a central issue concerning religion (hence, all that "non-believer" rhetoric witnessed from a pew.) If someone says they are an atheist there is no doubt that they are referring to a religious viewpoint and not some random subject as you chose above. The template option is "Religion" and atheism is by definition directly related to that, even if one concludes it is not itself a religion. If you are trying to illustrate how weak the argument is against listing atheism in some form in the template, just continue with that banana line.

The assertion/POV that it is impossible to list atheist for religion aside, there are those who consider atheism a religion and, as has also been pointed out, even religious sects that are atheist. So "Religion = None" is itself ambiguous and in some cases misleading. It is fine when it represents a person's expressed view, but not fine when it doesn't. In encyclopedic context it appears more an effort to hide the person's religious view, rather than to inform the reader of them. And that is the central concern and objection I have to the claimed existing consensus on this matter--a "consensus" that appears quite dubious in looking at discussions and reverts.Red Harvest (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think that there is a consensus for atheism being a religion, I suggest posting it in an RfC. Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion would be a good place for such an RfC. I am confident that the consensus is that atheism is not a religion and that "those who consider atheism a religion" are simply mistaken -- even if that is a common opinion among evangelical christians.

As for your "hide the person's religious view" argument, it mirrors the many times that someone has come to Template talk:Infobox person and argued that putting information in the article and not in the infobox is somehow "hiding" it, as if a significant percentage of readers readers only read infoboxes and not articles, and thus we must cram every detail and nuance into the infobox. Good luck trying to sell that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Atheism is not a religion, and stating "Religion: Atheist" would be misleading and wrong. However, one part of the current issue is whether the words "Religion: None (atheist)" (as opposed to simply "Religion: None") imply that atheism is a religion. In my opinion they do not. Adding the word (Atheist) simply provides additional neutral information to readers as to the particular stance adopted, but does not suggest that atheism itself is a religion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon, the question is, is the information relevant to the box, as relevant as a religion: If you think there is consensus for not allowing "atheism" in some form in the "Religion" box then you haven't actually read that prior MOS discussion you linked to (and created the discussion about.) It looks like there was more opposition to your interpretation there than consensus with it.

The "it has to be officially a religion to include it" argument doesn't stand scrutiny because as noted, classifying atheism as a religion is not a necessary condition to informing the reader. As several said in that other discussion, atheism is linked to religion and relevant to that box, whether one defines it as a religion or not. I've not seen any good rationale for excluding the term altogether from the infobox, which seems to be your sole aim. A rather simple compromise provides the distinction from religion that you desire: "None (atheist)" which of course leaves you without an argument for excluding the term. It is less ambiguous than simply putting "None" for the plethora of possible alternatives, when the alternative is actually known. Wasn't avoiding ambiguity one of your primary stated concerns? Your current interpretation is doing the opposite, essentially equating everything else with atheism. Does everyone who doesn't have a religion want to be equated with atheism? I doubt that. If someone is a self-avowed atheist, then I would expect a mention of that in the Religion entry, not simply "None" which provides little information.

If it is so unimportant to have it in the box, then why have the box at all (not just the "Religion" entry, the whole thing?) Answer: Because the boxes provide a ready summary that draw a reader's attention to some key information. Rjensen is correct in noting that this "verges on POV suppression of atheists." By your logic above, the religion entry should be removed for everyone because we can't "cram every detail and nuance into the infobox." But deleting the religion option doesn't have much support, and it isn't clear to me that you support it either. In the interest of shortening the infoboxes we could require all religions to be listed using only 4 ambiguous characters as suggested for atheism. Or perhaps just: "Yes or No". From here, it appears that you want to keep the nuances for some groups, and for others allow only "None." Do you not see how prejudicial and generally screwed up that looks regardless of the group? Red Harvest (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to deleting the entry, Changing the "religion =" part of it to something else, or any other alternative that cannot be read as implying that atheism is a religion. I don't care how the problem is solved, as long as the solution isn't "ignore it and use wording that some will interpret as implying that atheism is a religion."

I agree that "Religion = None (Atheist)" can also be read as not implying that atheism is a religion, but I do not agree that that is the only possible reading. I assert that "Religion = None (Atheist)" is ambiguous and it is my considered opinion that a significant percentage of readers will read it the way I did when I first read it. Furthermore, I find zero harm in using a simple, accurate and 100% unambiguous "Religion = None" in the infobox with a fuller explanation of the person's views in the article.

I really wish that others would stop trying to read my mind and telling me what my motives are. My motive is to not imply something that is not true and offensive to many people. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I think a relevant example is within this very template; where: we wouldn't show the |party= of a self declared anarchist as Anarchy. That field is for a "Political party", of which, anarchy is not; as equally as atheism is not a |religion=.—John Cline (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Red Harvest raises a valid point that a person's belief (or lack thereof) in deities is often discussed in the same conversation as a person's religion (or lack thereof), but I am unpersuaded by Red Harvest's argument, based on that point, to allow the word "atheist" into a field designated for a person's Religion. I would be equally opposed to someone using that same faulty reasoning to suggest "|Religion = Catholicism (anti-abortion)" should be allowed. Yes, it may provide the reader with more info, and yes, abortion is often discussed in the same conversation as religion, but it is still inappropriate for that field. Further, Red Harvest asserts, Example text - which is not only unsubstantiated, but is false. "Religion = None" is exquisitely succinct, unambiguous, and never misleading - and that holds true regardless if the person is also an atheist or not. "Religion = None" has only one meaning, and can't be misunderstood (unlike Atheism, which has several ambiguous and competing definitions and nuanced applications). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus to change the current practice of not using |religion=atheism, arrived at as consensus after many previous, long discussions. This section should be considered closed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are arguments for regarding atheism as legally a religion in the United States. See Derek H. Davis, "Is Atheism a Religion—Recent Judicial Perspective on the Constitutional Meaning of Religion", The Journal of Church and State 47 (2005), 707–23. Srnec (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There are arguments for a lot of things in many places. I don't think that a discussion over whether atheism could be treated as a religion for legal purposes in US courts makes atheism a religion though.
Also - on BLPs particularly - the two part test as mentioned above applies; the subject would have to both self-identify as an atheist and state that they consider their religion to be atheism. pablo 13:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that for the words "None (atheist)" to be included, a person has to "consider their religion to be atheism". I doubt very much if any atheist would "consider their religion" to be atheism, or indeed anything else - they have no religion. Take someone like Polly Toynbee, who describes herself explicitly as an atheist and a humanist. Of course she doesn't claim that those are her religious beliefs, because they are not religious beliefs. But, it is still of great value to readers of the encyclopedia to include statements that she is an atheist and humanist - that is, "Religion: none (atheist and Humanist)" (using the capital H that such humanists prefer) - in the infobox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please cite the Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says that putting such statements in the body of the article is somehow not good enough and that they must be in the infobox. Because it sounds a lot like your personal preference that you wish to force on others against a clear consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was where we having a discussion? The idea that there is a "clear consensus" on this point is not my perception. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Please ignore my assertion that there is a clear consensus and answer the question asked: Please cite the Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says that putting such statements in the body of the article is somehow not good enough and that they must be in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never suggested that it must be in the infobox - just that it is helpful to readers for the infobox to contain that information where it is important to an overall understanding of the person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the only absolute we are hearing is that it cannnot be in the infobox, no matter the relevance. A reasonable person should see that it deserves consideration and be possible to include it there in some fashion. But the other side of the discussion does not seem to want to even consider that possibility, else they would be trying to propose a change to the template that would address the problem and satisfy their professed concerns. I would like to see consensus on a solution. The status quo is not consensus and is not a solution. Red Harvest (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would this need to be stated in the infobox under the category of "Religion"? They are not, as you say, religious beliefs. pablo 14:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Where else in the infobox do you think such fundamental information should go? I'm not necessarily opposed to removing the parameter entirely in cases like this - what I am against is removing information useful to readers, which is the case when "Religion: none (atheist)" is changed to "Religion: none" even where someone has self-identified as an atheist. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does it need to go in the infobox at all? I can see that for some subjects it is simple: the Pope, the Chief Rabbi etc but the infobox does not need a religion field at all for atheists. pablo 15:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not a point of disagreement with me, but it is a point on which other editors disagree with you. My disagreement is with edits like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if we take as granted that atheism is not a religion, then "Religion: none (atheist)" blurs the meaning of that field. "Religion: none" has no such effect. The infobox need not go into a description of the sense in which the person has no religion; that is better addressed in the article where there are no space limitations, rather than oversimplifying by using a single word. Surely anyone interested in that would read further. Omnedon (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but why take that for granted? As my reference was designed to show, there are good reasons to sometimes regard "atheism" as a religion. Srnec (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I was speaking to one part of this argument, but as for considering atheism as a religion, I'm not convinced that there is ever a good reason to do so. Omnedon (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Establishment Clause should not prohibit establishing atheism as the state's official position? Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Exactly that. We should not assume that 'having a religion' is a default position for humans (or other animals). The reverse is true. pablo 20:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor should we assume that the reverse is true. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems a silly argument. There is only one word that I am aware of that describes what a person's affiliation, attitude, or alignment is, and that word is "religion". Just because an atheist doesn't practice a religion, or doesn't believe in a god, doesn't mean that they don't have an attitude or alignment about the subject. In the US, on the American Religious Identification Survey, atheism, agnosticism, and humanism are all reported, (see Table 75). It's an inclusive survey about religious attitudes, not just about people who attend Acme Tax Exempt Worship Inc. Those who are arguing that "atheist" doesn't belong in |religion= are using a far too literal interpretation. Would we create a new parameter called |non_religion= so that atheists can be mentioned? Why is knowing someone's religion more important that knowing that they are atheists? It's a biased position. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't think someone's religion is important unless it somehow figured into their life in some meaningful manner (as supported by RS, of course). My suggestion would be that the field not be used at all unless there's some information more significant than "Person X has claimed to be a (insert religious affiliation, or lack thereof, here)". If someone's made a lot of noise about being an atheist (as noted by RS) then maybe it's appropriate for inclusion. If it's just a matter-of-fact situation, I say keep it out. DonIago (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this sensible approach. Dawkins would be a notable atheist because he's known for being one. Jackie Mason would be a notable Jew because much of his comedy is about Jewish culture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion, and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.

(e/c) The problems with Cyphoidbomb's argument are (1) it draws exclusively on US experience - and the rest of the world seems to see these things rather differently - and (2) the US census does not report someone's "Religion". It reports their "Self-Described Religious Identification" (Table 75). It categorises those with "No religion specified", including "Atheist", "Agnostic", and "Humanist". Now, if someone here were to suggest that the infobox parameter should read "Self-Described Religious Identification", or even just "Religious Identification", we would be having a slightly different discussion. But it doesn't - it says "Religion". And (at least to everyone outside the US), atheism is not a religion.

There are three acceptable (and at least one unacceptable) alternatives when it comes to summarising someone who either self-describes as, or is described in reliable sources as, atheist.

1. The infobox "Religion" parameter is left blank
2. We say "Religion: none"
3. We say "Religion: none (atheist)"
4. - the unacceptable one - "Religion: atheist"

My opinion remains that the third of these is acceptable, and gives the most useful information to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I might be willing to support that (I assume that "atheist" is a placeholder, i.e. that "agnostic" would be used if that was the appropriate term), with the stipulation I proposed above, which is to say that we shouldn't include the Religion parameter just to include it; we should include it because the person's religious identification is linked with their general notability in some manner. DonIago (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see it as a placeholder, "atheist" is only the most obvious subset of "None."

If the religion/view of religion is in the body (which is already a requirement for an infobox entry that nobody has suggested be removed) then it likely already meets that notability threshold. The infobox provides a summary. However, it should not be used as another burden-of-proof hurdle, one that other religious views are frequently not subject to. The current system has served as a double standard, no need to create another double standard that allows the same sort of systematic POV editing. To get an idea of the difference in Misplaced Pages practice at present compare a couple I picked out randomly, unaware of their religion/religious views: Walter Cronkite and Janeane Garofalo's pages and infoboxes. One has a religion box and one does not, the one that does not actually discusses the affiliation in the article body, the one that does have the religion entry doesn't discuss it in the body of the article. Care to guess which is which? Red Harvest (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You may have just made a case that all statements of an individual's religion should be removed from articles unless the RS included something beyond a matter-of-fact mention. Was that your intent? DonIago (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing to the hypocrisy of implementation at present. The major point is that this is being handled in a one-sided fashion, and I'm calling "foul." If "atheism" is the description given by the person with regards to his/her religious views, then it is being excluded and held to an intentionally impossible level of scrutiny to achieve that end. On the other hand, incidental information is being included for religions in the info box without nearly as much concern for checking RS in the article. Red Harvest (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would not support it because it can be read two different ways -- one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- while "Religion = None" is unambiguous. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support the use of "Religion: none (atheist)". It clearly shows the person in question has no religion and identifies themselves as an atheist instead. -- Calidum 00:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Guy: But it could be read to be saying that the subject had no religious stance or opinion one way or the other, was apathetic or ignorant. An atheist has a definite religious stance. "None (atheist)" is good compromise. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy Macon: "Please cite the Misplaced Pages policy or guideline that says that putting such statements in the body of the article is somehow not good enough and that they must be in the infobox." Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Couldn't that be said of anything in the infobox? Birth/death dates are in the lead. If he was president, it's in the lead also. Where he was born is also in the article text. It's all redundant. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are employing a logical fallacy that has been discussed above. Red Harvest (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All infobox information is redundant, but not all infobox information is disputed. If for some reason a significant number of editors thought that having birth/death dates are in the infobox implied something that is not only false but a major talking point of religious fundamentalists, we would remove birth/death dates from the infobox. Infoboxes are for noncontroversial and nondisputed summaries of properly sourced and notable material that is in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not buying the "major talking point of fundamentalists" as a valid reason for exclusion. Instead it appears of more value to them and other traditional religious views to exclude atheism, even when qualified as "None (atheist)". No matter how tortured the logic for excluding it, one thing is certain: you are unduly suppressing atheism from the infobox in favor of other religious viewpoints. This is a matter of fairness and therefore all the religion entry's are in dispute. By the reasoning you provided this is coming down to either allowing further delineation of "None" or removing the religion infobox entries from all persons, because its purpose is disputed and misleading. Red Harvest (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

None (atheist) meaning: There is a claim that this causes confusion because although "atheist" is obviously subordinate to "none", it implies that atheism is a religion. I don't see that as being a reasonable reading. Accounting for someone's misreading is a dubious requirement. Instead there is a strong claim that "None" alone hides relevant information. That is why this whole section was created. "None" does not equal atheism, but it is an equally valid misreading of current practice since all atheists = "None" by present Misplaced Pages usage. Atheism is entirely relevant to the religion box, whether or not one asserts that it is a religion (and I don't, but some disagree and I respect that--others here do not.)

Is such a change ("None (atheist)") going to redefine atheism as being a religion? No. Is it relevant to the "Religion" topic? Yes. Red Harvest (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I and others disagree and are of the opinion that "None (atheist)") is ambiguous and can be read in such a way that it does redefine atheism as being a religion. Infoboxes are for summaries of non-disputed information from the article, not for implying that atheism is a religion. The fact than some people don't think it implies that is irrelevant. The fact tha some people do is an established fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It is your opinion/claim that some will misread it as you suggest, not "established fact". It's an indefensible position that we can't have something written accurately in a box, because someone will intentionally choose to misread it as you are doing. The current ambiguous nature of "None" alone is unacceptable, and compromise is possible. It is established fact that atheism (and other forms) is a relevant viewpoint on religion and that various users recognize that in the use of the infobox. Everything has been done to accommodate your views, yet you remain intransigent in respecting those of others. You don't get a golden veto. Red Harvest (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"None" is not ambiguous. It simply states that the person has no religion. More detail can be provided in the body if it is relevant; it need not be in the infobox. Such things as date of birth and death cannot be compared to this field, as they are simple facts that are easily expressed; the fact that we are having this discussion indicates that the issue of religion is not simple. Omnedon (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is ambiguous on several levels. It is the equivalent of allowing only "yes" as an entry for those with a "consensus accepted" religion. First of all, "None" reflects a wide range of beliefs, lumping them as one--by definition ambiguous. Second, it implies (often incorrectly) that the person has no view on religion. Third, None can be passive or active--again ambiguous. If the information is neatly summarized by a descriptor such as atheist or other, then there is no reason not to put that in the info box. By censoring that out as is current practice, relevant information is being intentionally hidden from quick discovery which seems to be the intent. The question is why? If there is enough notability to put it in the article, then there is usually enough for it to be in the info box. Instead, we are being told that it cannot be in the info box because the person's view of religion doesn't belong in the "religion" section. Red Harvest (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Instead, we are being told that it cannot be in the info box because the person's view of religion doesn't belong in the "religion" section." No, that's not a valid characterization of what's being said, because the field descriptor is not "view of religion" it is "religion", alone. As such, any reference to atheism next to a field just labeled atheism, even as a parenthetical, inevitably implies atheism is a form of religion. Were Misplaced Pages to have an article on me and placed atheism next to a field for religion I would find it incredibly offensive. The only way "Atheism" could be used in the infobox properly would be next to a different field descriptor.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

While I disagree, I can accept this on one condition: either the religion field is changed to be more inclusive, or a separate descriptor be included for counter views. Because there are still essentially three major groups: those with an identified religion, those without (as in unconcerned/haven't considered/etc.), and those with some other ideology that is counter to it. Simply suppressing "atheism" is not a valid answer. It is time to make some sort of change so suggest what field descriptor is appropriate. "Religion/Irreligion" would cover everything wouldn't it? Red Harvest (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Keep it simple and equivalent & go with Religion = Yes or Religion = None. Afterall, if anyone wants to learn anything about the person, they should read the article, not look at the info box.

Keep it simple would mean leaving it blank, just as the overwhelming majority of fields in any given person's infobox are left blank. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not where there is relevant piece of information directly tied to the descriptor. Red Harvest (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't likely to be a consensus on this, because it is clear that a number of editors don't want to see "atheist" entered into the infobox, period. That means that the section name can't be changed to reflect something like "belief" etc. in the case of atheism or any other irreligious ideology. Because again, that would allow some info in the box that they don't want readers to easily find.

There might be another solution because "None" is unduly ambiguous and non-descriptive. Instead, make "None" a link to the ideology the person has self-defined as eg: "None." That way they've labeled the religion as none and at the same time made a link to what "None" means in this person's case. Red Harvest (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The "solution" is to leave it blank, just as the overwhelming majority of fields in any given person's infobox are left blank. Softlavender (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not where there is relevant piece of information directly tied to the descriptor. Red Harvest (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In agreement with Softlavender. The article Bill Maher is an example. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Red Harvest, you're assuming bad faith by saying that some editors do not want readers to find some information, and by accusing editors of wishing to censor information. Please focus on the issues rather than attack editors. "None" in the "religion" field is not ambiguous. You refer to beliefs -- but this field is not about beliefs, it is about religion. If a person has no religion, then "none" is clear and unambiguous. Of course more can always be said about a person's chosen religion or lack thereof -- but the infobox is not the place to do that. Omnedon (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Omnedon, "None" is ambiguous. A number of us disagree with the assertion that the box is limited only to what certain editors define as a religion. This disagreement remains a major sticking point that cannot be summarily dismissed. The subject matter is directly relevant to that box. Some are taking a narrow view of the descriptor, others wider. There is no clear agreement. Attempts have been made to accommodate both views into a solution, and rejected by the side espousing the narrowest view. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not ambiguous; you're using some other definition of that word than is common. "None" simply does not tell the whole story, any more than "Catholic" or "Methodist" or "Buddhist" does. The infobox cannot tell the whole story. If a person has no religion, "none" is a quick and accurate one-word summary. To go further is to cloud the issue which is best handled in the body of the article. Omnedon (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it is intentionally ambiguous by intentionally excluding fully relevant information that can be added with no difficulty. The level of ambiguity is the same as if the only option for Religious affiliation of "Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, etc." were "yes." "Yes" is accurate, but it isn't particularly helpful to the reader when more specific information can easily be included. It still remains a matter of equal treatment. With no option allowed for other views on religion, the infobox is being intentionally skewed. This could be addressed one of two ways: 1. By providing an "Irreligion" descriptor option or some other that could be used instead when appropriate. 2. By altering the current descriptor to "Religion/Irreligion". I'm open to either of these two style options as one of them is necessary if the ambiguous "None" is chosen as the only answer allowable. Red Harvest (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again -- it is not about "views on religion". It is about the person's religion. When it comes to religion, Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, and none are all valid. To add "views on religion" to this field is not what the field is for. Omnedon (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again, others disagree with you on that, and that's not going to change. Your view is narrower than ours of what the descriptor means. And "None (atheist)" is every bit as valid as any religion. It is apparent that your real intent is to exclude "atheist" in any form from the infobox, regardless of proposed descriptors and wording. The fact that no discussion is coming from your side about alternatives that would eliminate your final fallback position (as mentioned in my previous post), points to the real motive: suppressing information, not being super careful about how it is presented. Red Harvest (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You continue to use personal attacks. Accusing editors of trying to suppress information is not acceptable; please stop it. I have no interest in suppression; as I have explained before, details regarding this subject can be dealt with appropriately in the body of the article. Why are you so focused on trying to force it into the infobox where it doesn't fit? Omnedon (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The topic is about the suppression of information (see the very first post) and that is unacceptable to some of us. That is why the topic itself was created. With the "None ()" form it fits fine in infobox at present. But some are not satisfied unless they can remove it from the infobox altogether, hence the topic and continuation thereof. I would like for someone to prove me wrong by proposing actual solutions to satisfy their demands while also including this relevant information (as relevant as a given religion.) So far that has not happened, and it undercuts the credibility of the removal argument which rests completely on not one, but two narrow definitions. Upon entry into the discussion I noted the real primary question was whether self-identified, sourced, relevant atheism should be included or excluded from the template. The only answer I'm getting from your side is that is should be excluded. period. I'm not seeing responses saying, "it should be included, but the template terms don't fit, so we need to change them."

Contrary to the strawman argument: "Why must it be in the infobox?" It isn't that it must be in the infobox, the question is why can't it be? That has not been satisfactorily answered. Descriptors can be changed or added, yet those relying on the "it's not a religion and saying 'None (...)-means-yes'" defense offer no solutions for inclusion. They've not offered criteria/changes that would allow inclusion according to their own arguments. One side is asking for a solution and has compromised, the other side has offered only obstruction to any solution. That's not a personal attack, it is simply where we are on this. If you are uncomfortable with that then please propose a solution that answers the concern. Red Harvest (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If it doesn't fit, it shouldn't be included. And it doesn't fit. So no, I am not offering alternatives that involve mentioning atheism in the context of the person's religion, because it's not a religion. The name of the field is not "religious views" -- it's "religion". And the personal attacks came in the form of repeated accusations of suppression and censorship. You refuse to address the issue that if the information is handled in the body of the article, that's far from suppression or censorship. This complex topic is too complex to be handled reasonably in the infobox -- so don't try. Do it where it can be done properly: the body of the article. Omnedon (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 01

• I think we have to step back and think about what percentage of infoboxes actually contain the person's religion (or lack thereof). I'd guess about 2%. In essence therefore I believe this discussion is a bit of a tempest in a teacup. Why on earth does anyone think someone's cosmological/religious/spiritual beliefs are generally important enough to put in an infobox, and an BLP infobox of all things? Unless that editor is pushing an agenda. If someone is pushing an atheist agenda (or a religious agenda -- I've seen that too on infobox edits), they need to step right back and let this go, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth reminding ourselves that the issue raised itself as a result of edits like these, and the hundreds of similar edits that followed by the same editor, to change "Religion: none (atheist)" to "Religion: none" in infoboxes, with identical edit summaries and (where used) talk page explanations. That editor's view that atheism is not a religion is, in my view, entirely correct. However, the assertion that including the words "none (atheist)" in the infobox implies in some way that atheism is a religion is, in my view, quite wrong. And, as much as anything, it was the manner in which such wholesale changes to existing infoboxes were undertaken, as though they were uncontentious corrections, that was borderline disruptive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I will note that while this discussion has been going on Guy Macon has reverted scores of "None (atheist)" or similar with a very wordy, dubious edit summary. So the POV pushing has been blatant. Had it not been, I wouldn't be here. I don't have any strong opinion about atheism/atheists, but I do believe in fair play. And Guy Macon is posting warnings in peoples pages when they discuss his faulty edits. What a piece of work. Red Harvest (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The above is completely off topic on Template talk:Infobox person. but for those who are wondering what Red Harvest is talking about, the user warning in question is here, and concerns this edit. The previous warning to another user that Red Harvest is complaining about is here. If anyone wishes to discuss this further, please pick an appropriate venue. It does not belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your attempts to bully at least two others in this discussion (including the creator of it who left it) is symptomatic of the POV pushing problem. My "agree" response was originally to Softlavender, but I was beaten to the post so I edited. I'm still looking for a solution to the problem that several of us here still see. Perhaps if you turned your attention to working on a solution, rather than obstruction and bullying, we might find one. I'm not seeing evidence of good faith on your part. Red Harvest (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Take it to WP:ANI. Discussions about user conduct do not belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Softlavender, it appears that your excellent suggestion cannot be implemented without administrator intervention. Ghmyrtle really. really wants those infoboxes to imply that atheism is a religion.it to WP:ANI. Discussions about user conduct do not belong here.170&diff=prev   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As I have made clear on numerous occasions, atheism is not a religion. We clearly agree on that point. What is at issue is your assertion - not widely supported - that the words "None (atheism)" imply that atheism is a religion - they don't - coupled with your determination to impose changes before any consensus has been reached. Again, borderline disruptive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So after targeting at least two of us, you've decided to go after another? That is not what Ghmyrtle has said and that is not what those edits imply. Sheesh. This is ridiculous. Red Harvest (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the issue of how we want the template parameter to be handled rather than user conduct matters which are best brought up elsewhere? For the purposes of this discussion, it shouldn't matter why the issue was raised. The point is that the issue was raised and based on the ensuing discussion it seems evident that clarification is needed as to how this parameter should be utilized. That should be the thrust of the discussion here. Thanks. DonIago (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll "force" the matter. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• It is significantly POV to slot every bio-subject into a "religion"—that assumes that religiosity is some kind of norm, whereas many people see it as an aberration nowadays. The slot should be retained with an invisible comment in the template to the effect of "Use only where a subject's religion is of clear relevance and significance". Tony (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Definition of atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

Definition of agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"

It is blatantly obvious that neither atheism nor agnosticism can be considered as a religion. FF-UK (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Straw poll

Trying to distill the above discussion down. Please select which options you consider most appropriate... Regarding the options with the stipulation regarding significant attention, the gist is that sources simply stating "Person has said they are (insert religion or lack thereof here)" is not significant attention. We're talking about a religious officiary, someone who has actively promoted (religion or lack thereof), someone whose religious affiliation is a significant factor in their notability, etc. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A) In general:

1. Discontinue usage of the parameter
2. Allow usage of the parameter as long as it's supported by a reliable source
3. Leave the parameter blank unless their religious affiliation has received significant attention from reliable sources

B) For non-religious affiliations:

1. Don't use the parameter
2. Religion: none
3. Religion: none (atheist)
4. Religion: atheist
5. Religion: none (atheist) but only if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources
6. Religion: atheist but only if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources

!Votes

• Option 3 in general, option 1 or 5 with regards to non-religious affiliations DonIago (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• General-Option 1 remove the parameter. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, Option 5 for atheists and related affiliations per my comments and others above. -- Calidum 15:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option described below by me in all cases Collect (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general. Option 1 or 2 for the heathens. pablo 15:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in section one and option 1 in section two MarnetteD|Talk 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• 2 in general, 1 specific, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, option 2 or 1 with regards to non-religious affiliations. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• As I wrote on 4 December: There is clearly no consensus to change the current practice of not using |religion=atheism, arrived at as consensus after many previous, long discussions. This section should be considered closed. What a waste of people's time this is being. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would guess the straw poll is probably consuming less time from the contributing editors than the precipitating discussion did... DonIago (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that doesn't indicate any preferences as between options 1, 2 or 5. Do you have a preference? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 3 in general, Option 5 for atheists and similar (agnostics, Humanists, etc.). Options 4 and 6 are clearly wrong; option 1 is unacceptably uninformative "if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources"; and option 2 is ambiguous and also omits information helpful to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, Option 3 or 5 for "non-religious" affiliations. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, option 1 for non-religious affiliations, but would invite a new parameter where atheism could be used without the problem of it being displayed next to "religion" (should 1 be overwhelmingly out, then 5).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with this poll, as in 98% of the cases, the parameter should be left blank no matter what the person's affiliation or lack thereof is. Why have people disregarded this most important factor? Clearly people who generally want the parameter filled out are pushing some sort of agenda, which is against Misplaced Pages policy. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that I created the poll and I'd be perfectly happy to see the parameter left blank, I really don't know what you're talking about, but I'm wondering whether I should be vaguely offended. DonIago (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a fourth general option: Leave blank (and therefore invisible) in all cases unless there is Talk page consensus to fill it out it. See Bill Maher, an article which has already been given as an example. Softlavender (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't need to be said that an article-specific Talk page consensus can override a Template guideline, but if that's in dispute I have no objection to it being explicitly stated in the Template documentation. DonIago (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 3 in general, option 1 or 2 for non-religious affiliations. I strongly object to options 4 and 6, and also object to 3 and 5, since atheism is not a religion. Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, option 2 or 1 with regards to non-religious affiliations. For non religious affiliations, options 3, 4, 5 and 6 are a joke. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, Option 3 or 4 For non-religious affiliations (when supported by a reliable source). It shouldn't have to be related to notability, any more than birthplace or number of children, or anything else in the Infobox. Nightscream (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, option 1 wrt no affiliation. Since "atheism" is vague and ambiguous - it can mean either (1) not believing in the existence of gods or (2) believing they don't exist - we shouldn't use the term in the infobox (or even use it in the body of the article without making clear what is meant). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general, option 5 for the non-religious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 (leaning towards 3) in general... Option 2 for non-believers. With the understanding that for most people, we would simply omit mentioning their religion in the info box completely. Blueboar (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 in general, option 1 or 2 for non-religious affiliations. Not a fan of options 4 and 6, and also object to 3 and 5, as atheism is not a religion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• 6 Whether atheism is a religion or not is a philosophical point. It is of no relevance to metadata handling within WP articles. Our need is to define a slot to record this. So far we have labelled this "religion". WP may be philosophically inaccurate on this point, but that doesn't matter. There is a clear advantage for WP in defining a single, single-valued slot for this question of beliefs. Separating atheism out as something different, or qualifying atheism as "atheism (not a religion)" is inappropriate, and somewhat judgemental. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Stating that atheists have a religion is not merely a philosophical point; indeed, it is beyond inappropriate, and somewhat judgemental, it is (if done in in articles) an egregious breach of WP:BLP and WP:V. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Atheism is something different. Omnedon (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, 6 for avowed atheists only People over in philosophy of religion generally hold that people who avow atheism do act as if they had a religious faith, so for them I would have to go for 6. People saying that "atheism is not a religion" are overreaching, because the further problem is that some people do not espouse religious views, or they say that they do not care. That is irreligion, but it is not atheism. Those latter people should not be noted at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • People over in philosophy of religion are not reliable sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Obviously, academics in the field of philosophy of religion are the reliable source, your claim to the contrary. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Even assuming that everyone "over in philosophy of religion" is an academic; academics are not reliable sources; their peer-reviewed work may be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Those academics are the source, after all, of their works; but more to the point, the people here who keep asserting that "atheism isn't a religion" are certainly not their peers. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You want to know how people who avow atheism act? Sorry, you want the people over in sociology. Different building. NebY (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, B5 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, B5. Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 in General, Option 3 for non-religious affiliation If person’s religion were not important to the person, that person would presumably not have put it out in the public sphere with WP:RS available for citation. Is it trivial? Certainly it is no less trivial in most cases than the person’s place of birth, exact birth date, or burial place, none of which seem to offend people by taking up space in the infobox. The None (atheist/agnostic/humanist/deist/theist/nondemoniational) option best balances informing the reader with the distaste that some apparently feel to having their nonreligion thought of as a religion. Plazak (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 2 in general (RS required), option 3 (actually "None (Atheism)"). I'm OK with just Atheism, but the more complex form addresses the concern over calling atheism a religion. —— 14:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A1 , B1 forcing complex, personal and frequently changing identities into prescribed boxes is practically guaranteed to problematic, overly simplified, contentious, misleading, still potentially lethal
• A2, B2 sound like the most practical choices. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, B2. I don't see a lot of difference between A2 and A3, so my !vote can also be seen as A2–B2. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in General, Option 1 for non-believers and absolute opposition to any use of the term "atheism" or "atheist" in any category relating to religious affiliation. RolandR (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 3 in general, and to indicate "non-religious" stance option 5 for significant RS'd athesism like Dawkins, option 1 otherwise - Pointillist (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3 (noting that in practice, without thorough and determined policing and repeated arguments about "significant attention", A2 will remain common) and B2 (atheism is not a religion, and it is not reasonable to tell Misplaced Pages's editors and readers that in infoboxes, "religion" doesn't mean "religion", it means "attitude towards religion" or some other weird redefinition - we aren't Humpty Dumpty) since the optimal B1 is probably impractical. NebY (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1 in General, Option 1 for non-believers. We have literally hundreds if not thousands, of bios on politicians and other notable persons from the Balkans for whom religious belief parameters in infoboxes are constantly being filled in by drive-by anons, without even the slightest bit of effort on their part to reference the claim, let alone discuss the otherwise reasonable requirements of significance for notability, or a well sourced self-description by the article subject. In 9 out of 10 cases this parameter is abused, and hence should simply be deleted from the infobox. If somebody's religion needs to be stated, editors can do it in article body, which would then require adding more context and sources, rather then just entering an unreferenced word in the infobox template. As for non-believers, the way I see it "religion" is an organised belief, with organised usually meaning belonging to some congregation, or having some sort of a priest, which generally includes participating in some kind of communal activity. Therefore atheism is not a religion as it is not nearly as organised as any other theist belief system. Another thing is that the label itself carries negative connotations in many religious societies, and as such is also abused a lot on Misplaced Pages. I think the pros of having the belief parameter in the template are vastly outweighed by the cons of constant vandalism that it attracts, and nowhere is this more apparent than in Balkan-related bios, where ethnicity and religion are often (wrongly) seen as inseparable. Timbouctou (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option 1. Discontinue use of the parameter in both cases.—Editor2020, Talk 19:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A2, B1. --John (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, B5. --Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Option A2 in general, option B3 for non-religious.
• Option A3 in general, Option B5 for atheists and similar (agnostics, Humanists, etc.). Options B4 and B6 are clearly wrong. The parameter should not be filled in at all unless the person is notable for their religion. Being ostensibly a member of a religion because of an accident of birth, even (especially) if the person doesn't practice or believe in it, should not result in us declaring them to be a member of said religion, because of some magazine article or no reference at all. Bastun 23:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• A2, B3. Atshal (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, B5 with second preference being B3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• A1, B1. For 99.99% of bio articles the religion field is nothing but clutter as their religious beliefs are not not known or not a notable part of their person. so if people want to consistently battle over it, just dump the entire parameter. But for athiests, agnostics and those we do not know, absolutely leave the parameter out. There is a bloody good reason why fields like this are optional. Resolute 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• A2, and with both B2 and B3 permitted (and the choice depending on the individual, since some people have no religious affiliation but are not atheists). --JBL (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, and B1 or B2 If the subject has no religious affiliation, and reliable sources convey that fact as significant, then "None" may be inserted. If the subject has no religious affiliation, or is agnostic, or is undecided, or is atheist, or "believes in a god but not religion", or had beliefs but doesn't now, etc., the field remains blank. Adding "atheist" or "agnostic" to a field reserved for "Religion" does not add "more information", it only adds confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, and B5 Religion (positive or negative) should only be part of the info box if significant secondary sources think it's interesting. On the specific issue of atheism (or agnosticism), I think "None (atheist)" is correct (because atheism is a rejection of religion) and also informative (because there are different types of non-religion). In terms of informative categorization, I think it works in exactly the same way as "Christian (Methodist)" does. --Merlinme (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you if that was the way the field was used, ie if the field read Religion: Christianity (Methodist)/Religion: Islam (Sunni)/ Religion: Christianity (broadly Catholic but shaky on transubstantiation) etc for various religions. But it is not. So why must 'None' be qualified in this way? pablo 09:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• A3, B 1.. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• A2 B1 BethNaught (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• A2, B3 Gives the maximal information while not conflating atheism with religion, Second Quantization (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• It's A1, B1 for me, although not by a large margin over A3, B5. I suppose A3/B5 might prove to be a good "middle ground" solution, but it still may turn out to be problematic: some editors are bound to add this param indiscriminately, others will remove it, and this may generate constant low-level conflict (albeit not worse than what we have now, I suppose). Let me just note the following: B4 and B6 are not acceptable, for reasons that are already amply described above. Those who are not convinced by that well-known saying ("If atheism is a religion, then bald is hair color"), might find more arguments here:  :-) GregorB (talk) 12:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• A3, and B5 Atheism only means "no gods exist" but such a person can be deeply involved in religious beliefs (such as an afterlife or universal soul) Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comment is correct (the great many in the Buddhist religion who are also atheist is just one example), but seems an argument against using B5, and in favor of B1 or B2. Was that a typo? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

For any affiliations, I would add only where directly relevant to the person and self-categorized. Collect (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the questions, though, was how atheism (and agnosticism, et al.) should be handled, with editors expressing opinions ranging from "don't include them at all" to "Religion: Atheism". Your response is helpful in the general sense but unless I misunderstood it doesn't address that scenario. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If the subject says "I am an Agnostic" then that is self-identification, and, I suggest, should carry substantial weight. And if the categorization is not particularly germane to the person, then omit it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it can't be useful in terms of getting a snapshot of editors' views. And IMO the above discussion had stopped going anywhere, unless delving into user conduct issues counts as going somewhere. DonIago (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is already clear that there is no consensus to change current practise, it serves no useful purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I got a chuckle out of the use of "heathens" above by pablo. I assume the comment was tongue-in-cheek, but it reminded me of several instances of understandable shock some folks I know have experienced in attending some evangelical services and hearing the minister refer to "Catholicism and other heathen religions." It was an eye-opener to those who happened to be Catholic and had not been exposed to this before. Red Harvest (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

it was - I realise that there's a danger of a sub-debate of the meaning of the word "heathen", but we certainly don't need that!  pablo 11:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is an essay on this that I think is rather good: Misplaced Pages:Disinfoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's a pile of mendacious crap. It also has nothing to say about the fact that atheism is not a religion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, come on. Tell us how you really feel! Don't hold back -- if you don't like it, just say so! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• FWIW I'm an atheist with zero interest in religion -except its use as a political tool. Timing problems with a baptist church resulted in me being declared a heathen by the Catholic church when I married ..which amused me! I often put heathen down on official forms rather than atheist.

Having a mathematical background, atheism is to me as much a religion as 0 is a number and "Religion: Atheism" is precisely what I would like and believe people are entitled to. The Babylonians recognised zero, the mathematically inept Romans did not. In database terms the NULL religion is "Religion: Agnostic". I'm aware of politicians who declared Christianity on the grounds that it wins elderly votes & is ignored by others -their choice -and I'm also aware that many people don't declare their religion & the box is often vandalised. JRPG (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• The underlying (and unasked) question here is "What do we mean by the parameter: Religion? Do we mean a) Religious viewpoint, or b) Religious affiliation?

If we mean viewpoint, then narrow distinctions such as "Catholic", "Episcopalian" and "Southern Baptist" are not really appropriate... as these denominations share a common broad viewpoint (belief a Trinitarian concept of God). However, judging by what is usually put in the parameter (the subject's religious denomination) I think we really mean affiliation. In which case, views like "Atheist" or "Deist" are not appropriate, as they are not affiliations. Blueboar (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Is "Religion: None (atheist)" inherently problematic?

Guy Macon, Omnedon, Fuhghettaboutit: You've all expressed concern above that "Religion: None (atheist)" can be read two different ways, blurs the meaning of the field, or implies atheism is a form of religion. This seems to be a critical point of disagreement in this discussion. I'm trying, but I just can't understand your point of view. To me, if a person's religion is given as "none", and it is stated that the same person is an atheist, then logic dictates that atheism is not a religion. If atheism were a religion, then you could not call someone an atheist and in the same line give their religion as "none". Can anyone explain exactly what problem is posed by "Religion: None (atheist)" for people whose atheism is well sourced and germane to their notability (eg Ophelia Benson, Vladimir Lenin, Ayaan Hirsi Ali)?

First, it elevates religious adherence in a most unfortunate way. And defining the field by "Atheism" does the same thing, by casting the norm as religious following ("a" = not). Do not retain unless you put fields also for skier/non-skier, dog owner/non-dog owner, left-handed/right-handed, and lots more. Second, nowadays it's personally invasive unless religion is clearly relevant to the article's subject. Tony (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It can't be personally invasive because we demand publicly-verifiable sources for all this stuff. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You're joking, Srnec, right? I've seen religious categories added willy-nilly to hundreds of articles with no RS to back it up, or the most spurious straw-grasping reference at best. As for infoboxes? Almost never backed with a reference. Bastun 16:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking. He said "personally invasive" and that's bullshit. If an RS tells us a subject's religious persuasion, then it is not personally invasive to mention it. This has nothing to do with whether in any particular case, or the vast majority of actual cases, this fact is backed up by an RS. If it isn't, remove it. Srnec (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that parenthetical information is widely included in infoboxes. For example, in Charles Darwin, I see "Institutions: Cambridge (BA)" even though BA is not an institution, "Awards: Royal Medal (1853)" even though "1853" is not an award, and "Spouse: Emma Darwin (married 1839)" even though "married 1839" is not a spouse. Adrian J. Hunter 12:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Imagine for the sake of argument a world where Charles Darwin's enemies were of the opinion that saying "married 1839 is just a spouse like any other spouse" completely refuted his theories, and it came up every time any evolutionist debated a creationist. In such a world, would it be unreasonable to change "Spouse: Emma Darwin (married 1839)" to "Spouse: Emma Darwin" and document the year they married in the body of the article? That's the situation we are facing with "Religion: None (Atheist)". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• No brainer. I Concur with every one of Andy Mabbett's statements. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

For one, Adrian, you're thinking like a native speaker and a person with excellent and automatic English language reading and parsing skills. To you, parentheses have a set and immediately understood meaning—"(atheist)" prefixed by "none", is sparklingly clear—and you will never skip the punctuation as meaningless and always reads both words in conjunction, punctuation included, to come to the proper interpretation. That's not going to be true across the board. Think about the number of times you've seen people come to outlandish conclusions or misinterpreted what was said because their reading skills are not highly trained. Just as an example, I've seen a few different threads over the years where people were offended at being called "creeps" when someone told them something about instruction creep. Imagine a classroom with one thousand people of all different backgrounds, ages, some native speakers some not, emulating a cross section of our readership. They're all given a sheet of paper with a sample, populated infobox on it, with the religion field present stating "None (atheist)". They are told to study the information. They are then given a test which includes the question "what is the person's religion?" I guarantee you some percentage are going to write down for their answer atheist/atheism. I can't guarantee they wouldn't get that from the article's text, but are far less likely to when context and nuance is presented and "atheist/atheism" is not given in immediate association with the specific definer of "Religion:". The religion field is a religion field. It should only be filled out and thus displayed at all if a person's religious identification is important enough to their biography that it is vital summary information. The same it true of atheism but it should not be round peg, square holed next to "religion" at all.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is inherently problematic. It is the wrong answer to the question. Suppose for a moment we reverse the issue and instead of "Religion: None (atheist)" put "Atheism: None (Jewish)" or "Atheism: None (Catholic)", I would hope anyone would see how absurd this discussion is. People may be religious or they may be atheist, but very few would consider themselves both. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about whether my preferred option B2 (Religion: none for non-religious affiliations) is really better than B1 (Don't use the parameter for non-religious affiliations). My original thought was that not filling in that entry sort of implied "unknown" or that we haven't taken the time to research the answer, but something User:Tony1 wrote made me rethink that. He wrote:

"It is significantly POV to slot every bio-subject into a "religion"—that assumes that religiosity is some kind of norm, whereas many people see it as an aberration nowadays. The slot should be retained with an invisible comment in the template to the effect of "Use only where a subject's religion is of clear relevance and significance"."

We don't routinely point out that someone doesn't know how to ride a bicycle, doesn't believe in ghosts, doesn't attend Elk's Lodge meetings, doesn't play chess, or any number of other negative (meaning "none", not "bad") information. Perhaps in certain situations something might be notable because it is expected -- the president of a bicycle maker not knowing how to ride a bicycle or a pope who is an atheist, perhaps -- but is it NPOV to assume that religion is the default? What if the press makes a big deal of it, as they commonly do with atheist politicians? Are we then just following the sources? I could argue it either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

An atheist believes there is no God. He doesn't just lack belief. He disbelieves. The new definition of atheism, by which even rocks are atheists (lacking, as they do, any belief in God), seems to originate with Flew. (Who himself did not lack belief sufficiently strongly and later converted to deism.) It has become popular among the so-called "new atheists" and is especially popular on the internet (like here). It should not be taken for granted. J. J. C. Smart defined atheism in the SEP as "the denial of the existence of God". This is not some form of agnosticism. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if we accept your definition (in BLP infoboxes we should use the definition that the LP uses, not some other source) that does not address my concern. Most people deny the existence of ghosts, yet we would never put something like "Ghost-Believer = No" in an infobox, simply because not believing in the existence of ghosts is assumed to be the default. We don't point out those who do not believe in the existence of ghosts. Again, are we assuming that believing in the existence of god is the default when we point out those who do not believe in the existence of god? I can see reasonable arguments on either side of that question. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First point is that atheism is not a religion. However, if there is to be a section for a subject's religion in an infobox, then I don't have a problem with an entry reading "None (atheist)". That does not state that atheism is a religion. It states that the subject has no religion, and that the reason why they have no religion is their lack of belief in gods. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Sam, what you said in those 4 sentences is fine and reasonable -- until that last part of that last sentence. "the reason why they have no religion is their lack of belief in gods" is absolutely not what is conveyed to the reader when you add the ambiguous "atheist" word to that field. It only conveys that the person also lacks a belief in gods. Indeed, Buddhist atheists, Jainists and the like, would find your assertion curious. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I take issue with Srnec's POV definition "An atheist believes there is no God".

Firstly: an atheist "believes" that there are no gods - the capitalisation suggests a particular monotheistic god, whereas it is far more likely that "disbelief" refers to all supposed gods - plural, and lower case. Otherwise we could be discussing a polytheist that only rejects the Abramaic "God"

Secondly: An Agnostic Atheist believes there are no gods, while a Gnostic Atheist knows there are no gods so claiming atheists believe something isn't particularly helpful. Of course the same can be claimed of theists, since they also fit the Gnostic/Agnostic pattern. FanN | talk | 11:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to using accepted definitions of the words in question, not making up your own. It makes for a more meaningful discussion.

Definition of religion: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods"

Definition of atheism: "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

Definition of agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God"

It is blatantly obvious that neither atheism nor agnosticism can be considered as a religion. FF-UK (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that neither atheism or agnosticism are religions, we have to accept that different people will use and understand those words in different ways - something the Oxford University Press dictionaries acknowledge by being descriptive rather than prescriptive. For example, the online Oxford Dictionaries description of "agnostic" is different in the American English version: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." The full Oxford English Dictionary carried two main meanings of "atheist" in its first edition: "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God" and "One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man." It cites, among others, Coverdale and Gladstone for the first and Milton for the second. I expect the third edition has more extensive descriptions, accurate though it is about Coverdale and Milton's meanings.

This means that we have two reasons not to use "none (atheist)": not only is atheism not a religion, but also we don't know what we are communicating when we describe someone as an atheist with no further explanation. An editor might know what s/he means when s/he inserts it, but s/he cannot know whether a reader will understand that ambiguous term as intended and it will normally be utterly WP:UNDUE to go into any detail in the body of the article. "None" is enough, even excessive, but more than that is too often misleading. NebY (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

In the context of NebY's opinion above "('None' is enough, even excessive, but more than that is too often misleading), the body of the article still contains "Atheist", so no information is lost or hidden from the reader. I agree with NebY's reasoning. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not think "Religion: None (atheist)" is inherently problematic. The main category of "Religious belief" is "None". There are however subcategories of "no religious belief", the subcategory in this case is "atheist". I think this works in exactly the same way as "Religion: Christian (Methodist)". The main type of religious belief is "Christian", the subtype is "Methodist". --Merlinme (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. "atheism" is absolutely not a subcategory of "no religious belief". To the contrary, there are numerous members of named religions who are also atheist. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What would happen under someone who is entertainer

• "I'm not religious. I am spiritual."(source)
  • Religion=None (spiritual)
  • Religion=Spiritual
  • Religion=Nonreligious, Spiritual

Forcing square pegs into round holes just because some people require things in little boxes is a terrible practice. Religious beliefs are far too complex to generalized as single words. It should not be included at all. Where it is important to the person for it to be relevant in the info it will show up: under the "occupation" (Pope) or "known for" (Advocate for atheism)

Given that people are still BEING KILLED for religious belief this is NOT something we should be tossing off lightly.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Results and interpretation

Activity on the poll seems to have dropped off. This is an imperfect tally as there were some results that didn't fit neatly into any of the options. I tried to honor multiple choices where possible, and with 45 respondents included here hopefully we can at least draw general conclusions.

Results are as follows:
Generally:

• Do not use the parameter (6)
• Use the parameter as long as there is proper sourcing (15)
• Only use the parameter if it's sourced and the individual's religious affiliation has received significant attention (27)

For non-religious affiliations:

• Do not use the parameter (22)
• Religion: None (11)
• Religion: None (Atheist) (8)
• Religion: Atheist (1)
• Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention (14)
• Religion: Atheist, with above stipulation (1)

Based on those results, my interpretation would be that generally the parameter should only be used if an individual's religious affiliation has received significant attention, and for non-religious affiliations (atheism, agnosticism, etc) the parameter should not be used at all.

That said, there's no way you're going to get me to try to pass off my tally and interpretation as representing consensus. (grin) DonIago (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my interpretation (done independently before I read the above) as well, even though my preferred position did not "win". It also lines up with the multiple times and multiple venues where this has been discussed previously.

Regarding the second-place finisher, based on the results for "Religion: None" and "Religion: None (Atheist)", it seems quite likely that "Religion: None (Atheist), if their affiliation has received significant attention" would have gotten fewer !votes if "Religion: None, if their affiliation has received significant attention" had not been inadvertently left off the list as a possible answer. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the vote tallies, and focusing instead on the weight and merit of the arguments presented above, DonIago's interpretation still appears to be the best of the imperfect solutions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Another option on Religion=Atheist/None/None (Atheist)

This whole dispute could be defined as a problem with the "|Religion=" parameter. Instead of jumping through hoops trying to make Atheist or None fit the Religion= parameter it would be far easier to just fix the parameter. Replacing Religion= with Spiritual_belief= would solve this problem, and not cause any change of meaning for those Infoboxes that have a 'real' religion specified. If replacing the parameter is a bridge too far, then add Spiritual beliefs (note plural) as a new parameter. As we're talking about optional parameters this shouldn't cause any issues - unless it's with the suggested parameter name.FanN | talk | 10:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, atheism is not a spiritual belief, it is the absence of a spiritual belief. "None (Atheist)" would be as appropriate against this parameter as it would against any other irrelevant parameter.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course atheism isn't a spiritual belief, but the parameter doesn't assume a spiritual belief in the same way that "Religion=" does. It is asking if there is are any spiritual beliefs (for which the answer could easily be "None", or "None (Atheist)" or "Atheist"), and as I'd already suggested that we might need to find a more suitable name than "spiritual beliefs" ... what exactly are you disagreeing with? As far as "irrelevant parameters" are concerned; "religion=None (Atheist)" is irrevant, as is "hair_color=None (Atheist)" or "shoe_size=None (Atheist)" - "spiritual_beliefs=None (Atheist)" is not in the same league.

FanN | talk | 11:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a good-faith attempt to solve the problem, but in my considered opinion "spiritual belief = None (atheism)" has the same problems as "Religion = None (atheism)". In fact, it may have more, as some atheists may very well respond with "hey, I have spiritual beliefs! I just don't believe in any god or gods." This theoretical person would have spiritual beliefs, but atheism would not be one of them because atheism is not a spiritual belief. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If a putative and noted atheist has spiritual beliefs other than a belief in a god then that should be what is put. Buddhism and Scientology spring immediately to mind. Or did you have something else in mind? FanN | talk | 19:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Such belief is common and often doesn't involve adherence to an organised belief system like Buddhism or Scientology. It can, for example, involve explicit belief in a soul or a less definitive belief that there must be some "energy" that persists after death, unaccompanied by any belief that there are gods, boddhisatvas or thetans. NebY (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

How about |spiritual_belief=Other for uncommon beliefs? —— 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I would almost consider this a good argument for not trying to summarize such things via an infobox parameter to begin with. I think "Other" as a parameter value is...sloppy looking, myself. DonIago (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Deprecate "Religion=" in favour of "Religious views="

I agree with the section above "Another option on Religion=Atheist/None/None (Atheist)". The problem (to the extent that one exists at all) is that "Atheism" does not fit neatly into a "Religion" field. The name of the "Religion" field assumes to some extent that the person has a religion, in the normally accepted sense of the word, which is why at the moment we end up having to put "None" and then put the more specific category (Atheist) in brackets. I would suggest that we need a more inclusive category, which can be used both for the values "Christian" and "Atheist". My personal suggestion is that having a field "Religious views" would solve this. "Religious views=Atheist" makes perfect sense to me; what is this person's view on religion? They do not believe in the exist of gods. "Religious views=Buddhist" also makes perfect sense to me; what are this person's views on religion? They are Buddhists. Anyone who doesn't have views on religion which are clearly defined in the secondary sources shouldn't have this field anyway.
I am open to suggestions as to the exact wording of the new, more inclusive field name. I think "Religious views" works better than "Spiritual beliefs", which was the version suggested above. I also considered "Religious stance", but I think "Religious views" works better. The important point however is that the field name is renamed to be something which can accommodate views on religion which do not map neatly to a particular religion (such as Atheism). --Merlinme (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This is similar to what I've been suggesting as an alternative and I'm glad to see a section devoted to it. Unfortunately, if "religion/religious" etc. is part of the descriptor then I suspect is going to draw many of the same objections as before. For that reason it looks like to move toward a global consensus, an additional alternate descriptor should be applied to any view of spiritual beliefs that is going to draw such objections as being non-religious in character. "Irreligion" seems to be the catch all for "non-religious affiliations", but I don't know that it is the best term or one that the average reader is going to recognize. Red Harvest (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this proposal is more representative of both religion and irreligion than what I was hoping to achieve with my previous suggestion of "Spiritual beliefs", and I'm now supporting "Religious views" instead. FanN | talk | 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Expanding on Merlinme's above thoughts, "atheism" does not fit in the "|Religion:" field, neatly or otherwise. Not even if we try to shoehorn it into that inappropriate field by prefacing it with "None". While academics may differ on subtle variations of definition (lack of belief in gods -vs- affirmative denial that gods exist), they all agree that "religion" is not a factor in the definition. The community has already reached consensus on that fact, as evidenced by the solitary (unpersuasive, in my opinion) argument given in support of the just 2 !votes (out of 49) to allow just "Atheism" into the field reserved for religions. The community also appears to be mostly in agreement that having an infobox field for a strongly source-supported indication of adherence to a named religion is a good thing. The only discussion generating disagreement is "can we please be allowed to also stuff info about a subject's belief (or lack thereof) of gods into the already existing field reserved only for Religion"? The solution is rather obvious. Keep the "|Religion:" field for affiliations/memberships in named religions (regardless of belief in gods), i.e.; Buddhism, Christianity. If the Misplaced Pages community eventually decides we should also start including a subject's much more nuanced belief or disbelief in gods (or other supernatural) somewhere in the infobox, which can only be sourced to self-declarations by the subject, then we should create an appropriate field for that information. Trying to allow descriptions (theist, atheist, deist) other than named religions in the field designated for named religions will only generate more confusion than clarity. Keep the Religion field for named religions. If we really want to also try to include supernatural beliefs of a subject in the rigid infobox (asking for trouble, in my opinion), then create a field for it. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I favor the first half: Deprecate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually agree with aka T-PROD here. Seems quite reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Count so far:

Count as of 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC):

In General:

• A1=5 (Discontinue usage of the parameter)
• A2=12 (Allow as long as it's supported by a reliable source)
• A3=19 (Leave blank unless religious affiliation has received significant attention from reliable sources)

For non-religious affiliations:

• B1=16 (Don't use the parameter)
• B2=8 (Religion: none)
• B3=6 (Religion: none (atheist))
• B4=1 (Religion: atheist)
• B5=11 (Religion: none (atheist) but only if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources)
• B6=1 (Religion: atheist but only if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources)

(Why was there no option for Religion: none but only if their atheism has received significant attention from reliable sources?) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

That option doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, since the thrust of the question generally seemed to be whether atheism should be included at all... In any event, I guess if it had come up earlier I could have modified the poll easily enough, but I'd be a little afraid to muck about with it now.

In any case, thanks for tallying! I was intending to do so myself at some point, and decidedly don't mind having someone do my work for me. :) DonIago (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I don't think it would have been in the top 3 anyway.

For those who are comparing the top two !votegetters, note that one !vote was "B1 or B5", so one of those B5 !votes is OK with B1. Also note that when this was discussed at length at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes, the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" (our B2) and removing the Religion entry entirely (our B1). Based upon all of this, I think we have a clear consensus for A3 and B1 (For the religious, Leave blank unless religious affiliation has received significant attention from reliable sources. for atheists and agnostics, don't use the parameter).

My recent series of edits (B2 Religion: none) does not match this consensus (they did match the consensus at the time they were made, which consisted of the MOS discussion and the first few comment of this discussion). If they are to be changed, I think I should be the one to change them. Does anyone have a problem with me starting on that some time tomorrow? Note that there are three editors who have reverted multiple pages back to B3 (Religion: none (atheist)) and I have zero confidence that any consensus we arrive at here will change that behavior. Any suggestions for dealing with that? It is my personal policy to always follow WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing the religion field in various articles, claiming there is a consensus, when there is clearly not. You have removed the religion field for Vladimir Lenin, despite his religious belief (or lack of it) clearly being highly relevant as a progenitor of Marxism/Leninism, and despite editors on the page disagreeing with you. The straw poll above would support the inclusion of keeping the Religion field (by 27:16 votes) and since his atheism has clearly received significant attention the field should be kept as Religion: None (atheist) - options B3-B6 would all support this classifications (or Religion: Atheist)

The discussion is clearly still ongoing, so you should respect the discussion that is taking place here, and stop making these edits. Atshal (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't get consensus by counting votes in a - flawed - poll. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Only utterly uncontroversial facts lend themselves to inclusion in an infobox, facts which don't need any explanation or discussion – that's why |influences=/|influenced= have been removed from {{Infobox writer}} and why |associated_acts= in {{Infobox musical artist}} and |genre= in various templates are a frequent source of distraction for many articles. Removing this parameter from this infobox will solve the whole mess. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

that would resolve a minor issue in a tiny number of articles - albeit given far to much time here - and remove valuable information from infoboxes in thousands of articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My preference would be to simply allow it to be decided by consensus on the talk pages of the article concerned, by editors who know about the subject. There is clearly not going to be a consensus here, and I do not think it is desperately important that there has to be complete consistency between articles for this particular field - it is optional for a reason. The importance of religious belief to an article varies from individual to individual and it is hard to have a steadfast rule. Clearly the religious stance (atheist) of the likes of Stalin and Lenin are incredibly important, and the editors of those pages are have chosen to include what they believe are the best, but differing, representations for those articles, while clearly religion (or lack of it) is crucial to the article on Richard Dawkins, and those editors choose not to include it at all in the info box. I see no problem with this at all, and it is actually a strength of Misplaced Pages Atshal (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously correct. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that an article-specific consensus can override a guideline, which is what this would be(?), in any case. I don't see the harm in having a general theory of how the infobox field should be handled if we can form one, and while there have been differing viewpoints expressed so far (what else is new?) I think most of the editors who've weighed in generally seem to be aligned to some degree. But hey, one editor's opinion. DonIago (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be nice to make explicit that there is not consensus for a global default, for the following reason: in the current situation, someone can drop in at random on an article, make long pseudo-templated posts on talk pages with no article-specific content, and claim a global consensus for making changes that overrides any local consensus. (Hypothetically speaking, of course.) So it would be nice if there were a clear statement about the lack of global consensus, in order to discourage this sort of disruptive editing. --JBL (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point.

Among the pages I edited, there are three classes.

First, there are the ones where the editors who had already been working on the page jumped in and did something like opposed, reverted, supported, re-reverted after discussion, etc. Those are no-brainers. I simply present my reasoning on the article talk page and let the local consensus decide without any edits or long arguments from me.

Second, there are the ones where nobody responded in any way. Often these pages have gone months or years with no edits. For those, I am seriously considering making another edit to reflect the consensus we have come to here. I am open to advice on how best to handle those.

Third, there are the ones where nobody who had previously worked on the page responded in any way, but one of two specific editors who had never previously shown any real interest in the topic (I don't count a single typo fix or cat addition as a significant contribution) reverted my edit back to "Religion: None (atheist)". These are the tough ones. I am an outsider who made a change. Then another outsider reverted that change. I can't just make another edit to reflect the consensus we have come to here, because that would violate WP:BRD, but they are forcing something on the page that does not have local consensus or follow the consensus we have arrived at here. What to do? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The point JBL is making is that you should not parachute into dozens of articles you know little or nothing about and change the religion field, claiming that a non-existent consensus overrides the edit made previously by an editor on the page. I fully support him, and my suggest to you would be to self-revert the mass edits you have made over the last few days. Atshal (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As, I guess, one of the editors about whom Guy Macon is so concerned, and in whom he has apparently "zero confidence", I confirm that (of course) I'll abide by the guidance eventually reached in this (very interesting and useful) discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JBL and Atshal, there is not a global consensus, but instead two groups with highly differing views. The views about inclusion won't change unless field descriptors are changed/added to specifically address one side's views, and there has been little interest expressed by that side in changing or adding descriptors. Red Harvest (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

There is clearly not going to be a consensus here, and I do not think it is desperately important that there has to be complete consistency between articles for this particular field

That is an interesting bit of fortune-telling. I disagree, and note that consensus is already developing on several of the concerns raised above, albeit not all of them. I would also note that standardization of the syntax and data parameters for this field is worth achieving, as bots and sorting software make use of this information. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Based on the straw poll (flawed as it is) there obviously no clear consensus. Atshal (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus based based on straw polls, and there never has been; that's not how consensus is determined. In fact, you are specifically cautioned in the policy's first paragraph that consensus is not the result of a vote. Consensus is developed by weighing the pro & con arguments, objections and agreements, and the reasoning behind them -- not vote tallies. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion there is not terribly much consensus on the issues discussed based on the straw poll results Guy Macon posted above:

On the question of whether to include the Religion field in general:

Strong consensus in favour of including the Religion field (By 31 to 5 votes)

Mild-consensus/split on whether to require "significant attention" to include religious belief (19 votes for requiring significant attention versus 12 for only a reliable source)

On the question of whether to include the Religion field at all for non-religious people:

Mild-consensus/split for including the Religion field (27 votes for, 16 against )

If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description include the word "atheist" in some form:

Medium consensus for including the term "Atheist" (19 votes for, 8 against)

"If Religion is included for non-religious people, should this description be of the form 'Religion: Atheist' "

Strong consensus against (2 for, 25 against)

Given this, and the discussion so far, I would suggest the following guidelines: The religion field should be included for religious people in general, and editors on the page should decide whether a single reliable source is enough or significant attention to religious belief is required. For non-religious subjects, it is perfectly acceptable to either include or exclude the religion field, but if it is included it should take either the form 'Religion: None', or 'Religion: None (atheist) if there is a reliable source describing the subject as an atheist. Editors should decide if significant attention to the subject's atheism is required (similarly for agnostics). The format 'Religion: Atheist(ism)' should be avoided. Atshal (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What were your !vote counts for the "...if it is included it should take either the form 'Religion: None', or 'Religion: None (atheist)..." clause in the above? The rest looks solid, but I am not seeing a consensus for that bit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I took that by adding B2, B3 and B5 together, all of which are of the form "Religion: None' and 'Religion: None (atheist)' (25 votes) and compared to the only other option in the poll which was B4 and B6 "Religion: Atheist" (2 votes). The split between 'Religion:None' and 'Religion: None (atheist)' was 8 votes to 17 votes, but depends on whether significant attention or just a reliable source is required, which were again split. Atshal (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Does anyone have any objections or suggested changes to Atshal's conclusion? If not I think we can write it up as a guideline and close this. --00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It sounds kind of wishy-washy to me (I'm reminded of situations where SCOTUS, rather than establishing a firm judgment, threw something back to the states to determine on their own initiative), and I think if the straw poll is going to be used to draw conclusions then it has not been allowed to run a proper course yet (i.e. it's less than a week old). That said, I only got drawn into this because of a single instance on a particular article, and to be blunt, despite the efforts I put into getting the straw poll set up to the best of my abilities, I'm not really all that invested in it. So, if others are generally fine with this, don't hold matters up on my account. DonIago (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree about letting the poll run its course. The paragraph was just my interpretation of where things stand now. I agree it is wishy-washy, but I think that is the result of there not really being a consensus here at the moment (and I personally doubt there is going to be). Atshal (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You must be looking at a different discussion, because I see a lot of clear consensus already. There is still some disagreement on some finer points, but nothing insurmountable, in my opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

So... where do we go from here? Do we adopt Xenophrenic's approach up above - which I read as not including the religion parameter except where sources demonstrate the subject's adherence to a religion - or is there a better way forward? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do a tally of the votes myself and provide my interpretation, but time has been lacking. That said, I think it's been long enough now to say that the poll has run its course. Personally, whether or not the poll strictly supported the approach you mentioned I'd be amenable to it, but I would like to know how the numbers panned out. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect to Guy Macon, Atshal, DonIago and others who have coordinated the straw poll and vote tallies, that's not where you will find the consensus results. !Votes ≠ consensus. As noted above, the poll is incomplete & flawed; it has a lot of unhelpful "me too" responses which are unaccompanied by reasoning or argument; many editors who presented comments or reasoned argument did not "cast a vote" (Kudpung, Dmol, John Cline, Tony1 and others) in the straw poll. If we want solutions to the question of how best to handle the use of the |Religion= field, I would suggest that instead of comparing "numbers", we should be weighing the merit of the points and counterpoints expressed in the above lengthy discussion. Yeah, it's not as easy as counting a show of hands, but it is the only real way to develop consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for moratorium on editing Religion field in info boxes

I would like to request that editors involved in this discussion refrain from editing the Religion field in any article until this discussion is complete. Three editors involved in this discussion - User:Guy Macon, User:RolandR and User:xenophrenic - have chosen to remove the religion field from the Vladimir Lenin article during the course of this discussion despite the fact that the discussion here is still ongoing, and the current majority opinion is against the removal of the religion field for non-religious individuals. I attempted to revert the content to the fairly stable state of "Religion: None (atheist)" until the discussion is complete, but the changes are repeatedly reinserted. I am now going to refrain from editing this article. In my opinion, edits based on the discussions in here should not be made until the discussion is complete. Anything else suggests to me Wp:point . Atshal (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You were reverted by three editors and have reverted to your preferred version four times.. And now you are WP:FORUMSHOPPING in an attempt to get your way. Also, as has been explained to you before, local consensus on an article talk page overrides any consensus on template talk. I have placed a warning about edit warring on your talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Guy. I was genuinely making those reverts as I felt this was the reasonable thing to do - it is not right that what is a general discussion here should spill over onto a specific subject page. I was simply reverting the changes that editors from this discussion had made to the page, as they felt very Wp:point, given that the discussion here is ongoing . I reverted to the version that existed prior to your original edit, not because this was my preferred version. Your accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is clearly inappropriate - I am trying to prevent THIS discussion spilling into other articles, not the other way around. Atshal (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And another reason that the changes to the Lenin article are entirely inappropriate is that the the Vladimir Lenin article was linked to directly from this discussion as an example of the religion field use, and immediately a number of editors from this discussion who disagreed descended on the Lenin article to change the field. Exactly the same thing happen to the Ian Paisley article - it was referred to in this discussion, and then suddenly editors from this discussion start disruptively editing the Ian Paisley page. Clearly WP:point and clearly not acceptable in either case in my opinion. Atshal (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea that three editors dropping in and making pointy edits represents a talk-page consensus is totally nuts, particularly when the information in question has also been restored repeatedly by a (incidentally, larger) number of different editors. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not "descend on" the Lenin article in order to prove a point in this discussion. I have been editing the article for many years. Indeed, I made exactly the same edit that is now contested, removing the word "atheist" from the religion field, on 29 June this year, long before this discussion started and even before Atshal registered as an editor at all. This may not prove that I am correct, but it certainly refutes the implication that I am somehow disrupting the article in order to make a point. RolandR (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

And your edit then was reverted by editors on that page and did not stick. You then attempted to insert it again after the article was linked to from this ongoing discussion as an example, along with two other editors from this discussion. How can you possibly think this is ok? And incidentally, I have been an editor long before 29 June this year. Atshal (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please cease from such personal attacks and imputations of nefarious motives to me. Focus on the edit, not the editor. RolandR (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

A proposal to radically change this template at Idea Lab

Please see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 15#Infoboxes of people to discuss ideas on changing this infobox (or other infoboxes) to better work with people with multiple careers. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tangential question related to religion parameter

If the purpose of the religion parameter is to list the religion the subject subscribes to, and as many have argued above that we cannot change the meaning of the word religion, then isn't the appropriate value for |religion= the literal religion the subject subscribes to? That is, the correct values would be the noun "isms" like Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, Catholicism, Islam, Episcopalianism, and not the adjectives like Catholic, Muslim, Jain, Hindu, and so forth. I believe that warrants clarification in the template instructions. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, "Catholicism" (for example) is equivalent to "the Catholic religion" in this context. Omnedon (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not help to confuse religion with denomination, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic", a denomination of Christianity. The term catholic refers to the "church universal" and is a concept which is as important to many protestants (it is part of the universal creed) as to Roman Catholics. Episcopalian and Presbyterian are simply subdivisions of the protestant Christian church and refer to their organization, Episcopal relates to being governed by bishops and Presbyterian relates to being governed by a "presbytery" or assembly of elders. Denominations should not be mentioned in the religion box at all. FF-UK (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "The term catholic refers to the 'church universal'", many denominations have names that imply that they are all of christianity; Assembly of God, Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Orthodox Church... What christian church doesn't claim to be "of Christ", "Orthodox" or "Catholic"? So the literal meaning of the denomination name is of little use in making classifications on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, simply picking the most specific name doesn't always help the reader much. As Emo Phillips once said:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!"

He said, "Nobody loves me."

I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"

He said, "A Christian."

I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"

He said, "Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"

vHe said, "Northern Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."

I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."

I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

So "Religion: Baptist" or even "Religion: Northern Baptist" might be a better choice than "Religion: :Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912" in the infobox. Some details are best put in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a great story, and makes a very good point, but 'Northern Baptist' is still only a denomination, not a religion. In the case described, the correct word in the infobox is 'Christian'. FF-UK (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the denomination is crucial to the subject's life and identity; for example, Ian Paisley is listed as Free Presbyterian and it would take a brave editor to change that. (Of course, there is the oft-told story from 30+ years ago of the man stopped by masked armed men in a Belfast street one night. "Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?" "I'm a Jew." "Yes, but are you a Protestant Jew or a Catholic Jew?) NebY (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the denomination can be very important, but that does not make it appropriate to use against Religion in the infobox, unless as a subsidiary term. I have accepted your challenge regarding Ian Paisley. FF-UK (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a dare, and "brave" was a euphemism. NebY (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It seemed like an exercise worth trying, but I have to say I find this reversion truly depressing, back to an incorrect statement, removal of the reference itself (Paisley clearly stated "I am a Christian), and all done on the basis that the entry for Margaret Thatcher is also wrong! Score: Ignorance, 1 - Properly sourced fact, nil. FF-UK (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is precisely 0 chance that Misplaced Pages will ever give the religion of a prominent Unionist as "Christian." If you don't understand why this is, you probably shouldn't be editing articles relating to Northern Ireland. --JBL (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an idiosyncratic view about the (ill-defined) difference between denomination and religion -- it is certainly not a consensus of human beings generally, and I doubt it is a consensus of Misplaced Pages editors. --JBL (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hardly, denomination is a well defined term: "A recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church", there may be some ignorance from some people, but I do not think that ignorance is a factor in judging consensus. FF-UK (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm ignorant of the fact that Paisley was a Christian (or, at least, thought of himself as being one)? Or is it that my ignorance bars me from helping to establish consensus? Maybe you think that people like Dr Paisley shouldn't edit wikipedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, founded by Ian Paisley, is very clear that it regards itself as a Christian Church. It follows that, if you are not ignorant of Paisley's involvement with the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, then you will not be ignorant of that fact that he regarded himself as a Christian. If another editor then corrects the religion infobox and provides a clear source for the claim, then having read that source there is no reason, other than a preference for the state of ignorance, for you to revert it. As far as establishing a consensus, if the description were changed to "religious denomination" then the present entry would become valid, but as long as it is "Religion" then providing the name of a denomination is just plain wrong. I used to be a great fan of Emo Philips and attended a number of his live shows. But in the last one that I saw, probably about ten years ago, he tried to localize it to the city he was performing in without having any obvious knowledge of that city. His demonstration of ignorance, when there was no need for him to have attempted the localization, destroyed the humour and resulted in a very unsatisfied audience. Such is the effect of ignorance. FF-UK (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Guess it depends on what you mean by "corrects". Poor Emo, eh? Seems his ignorance knows no bounds. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nowrap birth/death fields

Can we get nowrap tags on the birth_date and death_date fields? With the recent padding change it has forced the (age xx)/(aged xx) portion of the death date/birth date and age templates on a separate linebreak, which I find makes it harder to read and unnecessarily bloats the infobox. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

fixed here? Frietjes (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Still seems to have the problem on some pages. I don't really see a problem with nowrapping these fields by default - even the longer months won't stretch the infoboxes that excessively. I'm just not sure how to do it, haha. Connormah (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes:/@Redrose64: - I think I found the problem - a few fields (death_cause/predecessor/successor?) seem to be pushing the right column over a bit more (see Mary Ann Mobley/Ken Weatherwax). Is there any other solution? Connormah (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mary Ann Mobley has the date and age on one line in my browser, but Ken Weatherwax is on two lines. I am indifferent as far as how (or if) this should be fixed. I, personally, don't see it as a big problem. Frietjes (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO it looks messy with the linebreak and clutters the infobox up. Connormah (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:Infobox person. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Hi,

proposed change . See User:Taketa/Wikidata Images. This will show pages that have no image but have an image on Wikidata. It adds all articles without image to a category, and once an image is addded it is automatically removed from the category. No visible change to the articles.

Taketa (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Template-Class biography pages
• Misplaced Pages template-protected edit requests