Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox person

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 23 April 2015 (Arbitrary section break 004: You can change your support !vote at any time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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) [reply]

Religion means what?

This fascinating discussion concerns how to summarise a person's religious views, or lack thereof, as a one-word entry in an infobox. Unsurprisingly, there is a consensus that this is unwise in many cases and impossible in others. The consensus is that for most people, the "religion" parameter should not be displayed. When someone's religious position receives attention in reliable sources, then it may be permissible to display the parameter.

There is also a consensus that the phrase "Religion: Atheist" should not appear, being a contradiction in terms. The preferred phrase would be "Religion: None". This begs obvious questions. From the discussion below, I would tend to think that "Religion: Agnostic" should also be avoided but "Religion: Humanist" or "Religion: Secular humanist" would be permissible if based on a person's self-description from a reliable source; but there is no actual consensus on that point.

I hope this helps.—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This was discussed at length at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual in question is is [A] A self-declaired atheist, and [B] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 [B] 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 [A], [B] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you think that there is a consensus for atheism being a religion, I suggest posting it in an RfC. Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please cite the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fine. Please ignore my assertion that there is a clear consensus and answer the question asked: Please cite the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Establishment Clause should not prohibit establishing atheism as the state's official position? Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nor should we assume that the reverse is true. Srnec (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb, Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] 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.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Yes, they are employing a logical fallacy that has been discussed above. Red Harvest (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not where there is relevant piece of information directly tied to the descriptor. Red Harvest (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not where there is relevant piece of information directly tied to the descriptor. Red Harvest (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with Softlavender. The article Bill Maher is an example. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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.[20]it to WP:ANI. Discussions about user conduct do not belong here.170&diff=prev[21][22][23][24][25][26][27]   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Option 3 in general, Option 3 or 5 for "non-religious" affiliations. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia policy. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Option 2 in general, option 5 for the non-religious.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • A3, B5 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3, B5. Herostratus (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A1 , B1 forcing complex, personal and frequently changing identities into prescribed boxes is practically guaranteed to problematic, overly simplified, contentious, misleading, still potentially lethal [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30288137 and of little actual encyclopedic value. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2, B2 sound like the most practical choices. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
  • Option 1. Discontinue use of the parameter in both cases.—Editor2020, Talk 19:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2, B1. --John (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3, B5. --Myxomatosis57 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A2, B3. Atshal (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A3, B5 with second preference being B3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It can't be personally invasive because we demand publicly-verifiable sources for all this stuff. Srnec (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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(talk•contribs) 12:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [all] atheists believe something isn't particularly helpful. Of course the same can be claimed of theists, since they also fit the Gnostic/Agnostic pattern. FanRed XN | talk | 11:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.FanRed XN | talk | 10:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
FanRed XN | talk | 11:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? FanRed XN | talk | 19:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
How about |spiritual_belief=Other for uncommon beliefs? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. FanRed XN | talk | 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

I favor the first half: Deprecate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually agree with aka T-PROD here. Seems quite reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia Atshal (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously correct. --JBL (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Based on the straw poll (flawed as it is) there obviously no clear consensus. Atshal (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You were reverted by three editors[29][30][31][32] and have reverted to your preferred version four times.[33][34][35][36]. 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[37]. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Now this has been to WP:ANI, and as I expected, the discussion there made it clear that my changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: none" is supported by global consensus, and that the closing summary above, specifically " 'Atheist' should not appear" and "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None' ", does indeed apply to my edits.

Quotes from the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guy Macon posting large identical text blocks in growing number of venues:

  • "The whole of the discussion is summed up in the closing statement. The closing statement says that "Atheist" should not be used because it is not a religion. That's undisputed. "Atheism" is not a religion. Period. The closer read the discussion for us. We don't need to revisit it. If you find fault with S Marshall's closing statement, take it to AN. If not, just drop it. To try to rehash the same thing again and again, contrary to the closing statement of a lengthy debate is real battleground behavior, and reminds me a bit of Collect." --Kraxler
  • "The appropriateness of Guy's article edits in this regard seems pretty clear" --Rhododendrites
  • "If it is something backed up by a large discussion, then I don't see how you, or anyone else, has the right to say he should find better things to do with his time. That's pretty offensive, if Guy is doing something that matches a more global consensus." --Lukeno94
  • "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. ... Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot." --Kraxler

I strongly urge taking any remaining disputes over this to WP:ANI instead of edit warring to push a version that is clearly against consensus.

Also, the following public thanks I received for changing "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)" to "Religion: None" reflects the strong consensus on this across multiple Wikipedia pages.

Extended content

Note: This count does not include the much larger number of public thanks supporting edits changing "Religion: Atheist" or "Religion: Agnostic" to "Religion: None".

  • Rhododendrites thanked you for your edit on Danny Ledonne.[38]
  • Carptrash thanked you for your edit on Emma Goldman.[39]
  • Dr.K. thanked you for your edit on Alexis Tsipras.[40]
  • Mlpearc thanked you for your edit on Alan Alda.[41]
  • David in DC thanked you for your edit on Aaron Swartz.[42]
  • WWGB thanked you for your edit on John Gorton.[43]
  • NebY thanked you for your edit on Benito Mussolini.[44]
  • Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Slobodan Miloševic.[45]
  • Gerda Arendt thanked you for your edit on Template talk:Infobox person.[46]
  • RolandR thanked you for your edit on Karl Marx.[47]
  • Editor2020 thanked you for your edit on Abu Isa al-Warraq.[48]
  • Plot Spoiler thanked you for your edit on As'ad AbuKhalil.[49]
  • Timbouctou thanked you for your edit on Zoran Milanovic.[50]
  • Binksternet thanked you for your edit on Yuri Andropov.[51]
  • Ugog Nizdast thanked you for your edit on Sanal Edamaruku.[52]
  • HiLo48 thanked you for your edit on Eric Idle.[53]
  • Rms125a@hotmail.com thanked you for your edit on James Gunn (filmmaker).[54]
  • Bastun thanked you for your edit on Ray D'Arcy.[55]
  • Demiurge1000 thanked you for your edit on Colin Challen.[56]
  • Herostratus thanked you for your edit on Joseph Stalin.[57]
  • BullRangifer thanked you for your edit on James Randi.[58]
  • MarnetteD thanked you for your edit on Ophelia Benson.[59]
  • TJRC thanked you for your edit on Michael Newdow.[60]
  • Alison thanked you for your edit on Sheila Jeffreys.[61]

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, the entire discussion on AN/I is about whether you are too aggressively pursuing the point! It also includes S Marshall, the closer of the discussion, suggesting that local consensus could in principle override the wider consensus, if there were good reasons (which you do not seem to accept). It also includes people expressing unease about you pasting pre-prepared arguments and then not engaging with responses; and disquiet about the unnecessarily provocative edit summaries used.
If or when this whole battle dies down I should hopefully have time to advance a possible compromise. Point scoring is not aiding me in that goal. --Merlinme (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

Hi,

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

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

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just automatically display the image listed in the Wikidata entry, if none is entered locally? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian Wikipedia uses automatic display of Wikidata images in all their templates. In my opinion it would be good, if Wikidata were up to it, and only ofcourse with the approval of the Wikipedia community.
I don't think Wikidata is ready. Alot of bad images (low quality, a group instead of 1 person, someones work instead of themselved, a wife instead of themselves etc.). Also hundreds of images removed on Commons are still on Wikidata due to the automatic removal system, which removes images from projects after it is deleted from Commons, not working on Wikidata.
But I see alot of improvement and growth by Wikidata. They are working on differentiation between different types of images. So someones work or family are being put in different sections. They currently have about 600-700.000 images. And are processing 5 million+ more.
However for the moment, I would advice against automatically using Wikidata. All the best, Taketa (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also note that there are many pages that use 2 or more templates. Sometimes an article about 2 people has a template for both. It would be unwelcome if an image appeared in these templates. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of those issues, while real, seem surmountable. Indeed, exposing such issues is likely to lead to more prompt resolution of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not easy to fugure out where to change the image if its directly from wikidata. There should be an edit button like the ones we have for navboxes. Christian75 (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boxwidth

given the lack of articles in Category:Infobox person using boxwidth parameter and the general deprecation of a fine-grained per-article infobox width, I propose we remove this parameter. the common method for increasing the box width is to either (1) use a wider image or (2) sparingly use {{nowrap}} on lines that are breaking in bad places. any objections to removing the parameter? Frietjes (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note, it looks like it was first introduced in this edit. Frietjes (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. In the past I tried to remove it from other infoboxes too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
done. Frietjes (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation parameter

I see that above the consensus was pretty clear for adding a "pronunciation" parameter to the inbox. I definitely concur, but has anybody made any progress in actually adding it? Just now I was adding pronunciation info to Anita Ekberg, and decided that because she's a rare case where three languages are relevant, it would be pretty distracting to put it in the lede. I stuck it in the footnote field in the infobox, and I rather like the result. Of course, it would be better to have the actual header be Pronunciation:, but it will do for now. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work

At present we have a |notable_works=, resulting in "Notable work(s)". What do people think of simply

  • drop "notable" in both parameter and display, because it should be understood that only notable work would be listed
  • drop the awkward "(s)", for a simple "Work", - it should be evident that it is more than one if several are listed, or a list of works appears

Looking at Chopin, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only change that should/could be made is to drop the parentheses. But, specifically looking at Chopin, it has a link to "List of compositions", but that doesn't really work (no pun intended). The Notable works parameter is for a short list (about 3) of the most notable works (obviously). --Musdan77 (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Can "work" mean "output" also, on top of "one work"? (I would think so, but perhaps that's German thinking.) The title of the list could be changed to "Compositions" or whatever. Dropping the brackets would be better than nothing ;) - Same was done in {{opera}} for |librettist=, - you will notice when it's more than one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly different track, I propose to allow singular and plural input separated (|notable_works=, |notable_work=). This does not address the its meaning, as you do here. See section below. -DePiep (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Work" might be confused with profession, so no. However, work is also a mass noun, so we can drop the "(s)". Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chopin looks better that way! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No credit(s) for the hurried conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter |credits= resulting in "Notable credit(s)" appears to have superseded |notable_works= but template documentation wasn't updated? Still has |notable_works=. Damon Mah (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plural/singular input options

At the moment, there is |spouse= that produces label Spouse(s). I propose to add input option |spouses= that shows label Spouses. The old situation should stay unchanged, because of current usage.

The same can be done for other could be plurals -(s):

current parameter current label to add note
|spouse= Spouse(s) |spouses=
|partner= Partner(s) |partners=
|parent= Parents(s) |parents= added 19:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
|notable_works= Notable work(s) |notable_work= inverse, add singular
|opponents= Opponent(s) |opponent= inverse, add singular
|children= Children (not needed)
If this has support, I'll work out the code proposal. -DePiep (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, wiki is not lead by 'need' but by 'improve'. You just confirmed [62]. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please don't use multi-colon indentation, after asterisk-style bullet-points. We do not need this change because it is not an improvement. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, here you say it is not needed and above you made the edit to remove an (s). You are contradicting yourself within a minute. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And talkpage threads are build: a bullet unindented starts a new subtopic, subsequent responses are indented by colons. My "Anyway" reply was indented two colons, because it is a response to your !voting bullet. (Instead of OD you could do three colons, in style). Having a bullet and an extra indent is double. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that uncommon: User talk:Jimbo Wales. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person to tell you that your idiosyncratic indentation style is broken and harmful to accessibility; as it is here, where you jump straight to a four-colon indent. Once again: please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's grammar, not just style. Of course "complexity" is handled within the template, seamless, and is no reason not to improve language & readability. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why "child" is not needed but "opponent" (sing.) is? Alakzi (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have the "(s)" construction. When reading, having to go back to pick the -s or not is awkward reading. 'not needed' is just my opinion, you may propose different and we could apply that. -DePiep (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing especially curious about the "(s)" construct, but this can simply be "Opponents". Where might confusion arise? If only one opponent's listed, then it must be the only (notable) one. Alakzi (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Writing plural when its plural - why not? Why don't you acknowledge the obvious? I don't mind "curious" or not, that is just a distracting qualification (as was you opening judgement "minor", then it was "complexity"): not relevant. Would you write "spouse(s)" in the prose in an FA article? Or in a stub even? It is an improvement. The scale of it does not matter. -DePiep (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it important, or even useful, to toggle infobox labels with singular and plural parameter values? How do the labels differ from established section headings such as "References" and "External links"? --P64 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep evading my point, now introducing "important". I say: it is an improvement. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's useful if only to avoid "which end of the egg" arguments like the one currently at Talk:William Burges#Subsection 2. It's not important, but it's still something which can be easily accomplished.
DePiep has already offered a possible solution that I'd be willing to support as it would avert these sort of arguments. It does suffer from the problem that if both parameters |parent= and |parents= are present, both values appear. Using | data59 = {{{parents|{{{parent|}}}}}} would allow |parents= to override |parent= should both be present. Examples are at User:RexxS/sandbox#Infobox person. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
by the way RexxS, pls mrevert your recent change. As PigsontheWing noted in a very similar case: not the outcome of the discussion. Strange that P{igsOntheWing did not contemplate reverting you. (though I do not copy his personal idonotlikethis argument that it is 'unnecessary'. How could he know?). -DePiep (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's how BRD works. As you're aware, the labels "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", "Notable work(s)", and "Opponent(s)" were already in use. My change from "Parents" to "Parent(s)" was in line with current practice and seemed to me to be uncontroversial - and indeed undiscussed. If you feel that the change was not an improvement, you are at liberty to revert it and discuss why you think it was not an improvement here. --RexxS (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, there is no BRD going on here. First this discussion was started, after that you can not claim to follow BRD. Your edit was simply jumping the gun. After I refined it (less boldly I say), then Andy came along saying that was not discussed, and with the argument "idontlikeit", (note that, even if you check for non-applicible BRD, did not engage in the D). In other words: arguments-for-the-occasion. It appears that Andy can disrupt processes this way when the outcome fits a certain agenda ("bad edit, bit the outcome suits me, so we don't need to correct"). -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's complete bollocks and you know it. I came here from the discussion on William Burges to try to find a solution to the problem there of the label "Parents" not matching a singular parent. It was immediately obvious that the (s) was used on the other parameters, and I checked the talk page (which was this version)] to see you were proposing adding another parameter and Andy was disputing it. My judgement was, and still is, that making a quick fix to bring the label "Parent(s)" into line with "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", etc. had no bearing on the addition or not of a new parameter. Subsequently, I have expressed above my disagreement with Andy's position and my agreement with your proposal to add a new parameter and to produce code to switch labels (going so far as to test out a mock-up in my sandbox). But that's not good enough for you, is it? You have to make it personal and manufacture another excuse to attack Andy. Now, if you don't like my BOLD edit to add '()' around the 's' - which was not under discussion at the time - you can REVERT it and we'll DISCUSS it on this talk page. Otherwise, let's get back to finding a consensus for your proposal. (Hint: attacking both your opposition and your support is a pretty shitty way of looking for consensus.) --RexxS (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TL,DR: This is creating argumentation afterwards. Not interested, esp from your opening line. I'll spell out the timeline in diffs to prove, later (it is in the history, you can find that yourself, but I might take the effort). Prime fact: you edited when the discussion "D" was already opened. Then you can not claim to be "B". -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Short version as you're having such difficulty with comprehension. Fact: Nobody was discussing changing the LABEL "Parents" to "Parent(s)". It's a lie to claim otherwise. Got it now? --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tone down. Bold down. Stop barking. (Fact: you even mentioned the discussion in your es). But listen RexxS: if you don't change your tone of discussion, I'll spend my time differently. Could be spend on your edits still, but differently. Why can't you build and maintain and perform a wiki discussion? In this thread, can you point to a word (mine, yours) that, say, allows you to pull the leash this way? Why did you not add a single reasonable reasoning for edits & issues at play? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can go over it again:
1. My edit to this template was at 17:20, 5 March 2015. Do you dispute that?
2. I came here to solve a problem I was discussing at Talk:William Burges. Do you dispute that?
3. The talk page here at that time looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person&oldid=649609396#Plural.2Fsingular_input_options and I already linked it in my penultimate comment. Do you dispute that?
4. On that talk page, you were making a proposal "to add input option |spouses= that shows label Spouses." Do you dispute that?
5. In that proposal, at the time that I looked, 17:20, 5 March 2015, there was no mention of the label "Parents", although you noted "Spouse(s)", "Partner(s)", "Notable work(s)", "Opponent(s)", and "Children" in a table. Do you dispute that?
6. At 17:20, 5 March 2015, my edit changed the label "Parents" to "Parent(s)", making it similar to the other labels in use at the time. Do you dispute that?
7. At, 19:08, 5 March UTC, an hour and a half after my edit, you added mention of "Parent(s)" to your table. Do you dispute that?
Can you not see that I'm understandably miffed by your insistence that my edit ("Parents" to "Parent(s)") was under discussion at the time I made it, when it's absolutely clear that it wasn't?
Your proposal was to add a further parameter, |spouses= and that was what was under discussion. What impact did my edit have on your proposal to add that parameter - absolutely none. Don't you see that asking me to revert my edit under the circumstances would be seen as simply provocative - you don't really think that reverting my edit would improve the template or the discussion, do you? So don't be surprised when you provoke and I respond strongly. How we proceed is up to you, now. Ball's in your court. --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your first line: "... Do you dispute that?". Attitude. Did not read more. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Time for you to get back under your bridge then. I won't bother attempting to debate with you again. --RexxS (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're supposed to revert, by now. With or without talk. 'I won't discuss' is what you started out with in the first place, obviously. (lest we forget, here there is still the Andy Mabbitt behaviour to discuss. 'I don't like this' is not an argument). -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twice Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbitt) has disrupted the discussion by premature reverted.
[63]: es notes personal opinion by PotW. "Unnecessarily" is a personal opinion only, because edits are not made for necessity only (rarely even). If it is an improvement, that's a valid reason too. In the timeline, this objection was made on this talkpage against PotW's only contribution, after which PotW did not respond at all. (in other words, that argument already was disputed and PotW did not engage in talkpage discussion). Also in the es, "no consensus for this" self-contradicts the fact that PotW did not revert the preceding edit [64] by RexxS, for which exactly the same objection is valid (i.e., argument is used selective by PotW).
[65] with es "See talk" does not point to a talkpage consensus or outcome.
PotW/Andy Mabbett has twice disrupted the running talkpage discussion by enforcing personal opinion & halfway discussion instead of striving for a talkpage outcome. PotW did not engage in talkpage discussion to base their action or opinion. I request that [User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] reverts his last reversal, and engage constructively to this thread. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing did not respons in any way. I conclude that Andy twice edited the template out of consensus, twice introduced personal observation and conclusion in the es, without actually going to this talkpage. Also, the reverts were selectively POV, as described: applying 'conclusive reasoning' at random. Since Andy did not come to this talkpage, and me reversing could be interpreted as me editwarring, I have no option left. This behaviour is not fitting an editor with TE level. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

Once we handled "Work" (see above), how about current label "Spouse" instead of "Spouse(s)". If you see two, you will conclude that it's more than one (but not normally more than one at a time ;) ), and if you see the normal one the "(s)" is irritating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean singular always? As a, ergh, mass noun? -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean singular in the label, because in many cases it will be true, in other cases it can be easily seen that there was more than one spouse. It's about the opposite of mass noun, because a singular spouse is a singular person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that. The question remains: why not allow for singular/plural in the label as I proposed? "One can easily see" is not a good guideline to produce easy readable text. In regular prose we would not accept that at all. -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even see that you made a proposal, and after looking still think this is simpler. It was taken that way for |librettist= in {{infobox opera}}, for example, where you also normally just have one, and the "(s)" looks strange in all those normal case. See Carmen for an exception with two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent does the development of this template govern related ones such as Template:Infobox writer?

See also Category:People infobox templates (3 subcats, 68 pages). I suppose the answer may be that this template governs strictly the Category:Templates calling Infobox person (15 pages).

--P64 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it doesn't "govern" the former set, but it would be foolish in the extreme for any of them to diverge in the way they handle common parameters, as that will just confuse editors. Is there a specific concern you had in mind? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

There is a discussion about the nationality at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Nationality "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". — Sebastian 19:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect infobox photographer

Hi. Shouldn't Template:Infobox photographer redirect to Template:Infobox artist rather than here at Template:Infobox person? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 20:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Template:Infobox artist is a custom wrapper for Template:Infobox person, wouldn't it seem sensible to cut out the middle-man? --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS: I see what you're saying, but a wrapper isn't the same thing as the root template. "photographer" isn't the same thing as just "person" in this case; however, a photographer is an artist. So the middleman is the actual target. :) — Smuckola(talk) 23:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconversion

Autoconversion subtemplates have been added to make adding a person's height and mass without having to use {{convert}} in the page mark up. This will make it easier for editors to input data into the template. Instead of |height={{convert|5|ft|3|in|abbr=on}}<ref>some book</ref>, for example, users can now simply write |height=5 ft 3 in<ref>some book</ref> (same for metres, centimetres, kilograms, pounds, and stone and pounds). Jimp 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sophisticated. Can documentation be simplified now? -DePiep (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the documentation should be simplified. Good point. Jimp 07:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking, those specific |weight_kg= params could be moved to a less-prominent place (below, but not removed). In top, we can promote with a "|weight= accepts everything!" banner. The reference is handled fine too. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update on religion field in BLP infoboxes

I have pretty much finished my effort to bring the religion field of BLP infoboxes into conformance MOS guidelines -- Specifically:

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox.

Also see the closing summary at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?.

I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [66], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

Extended content

I could probably come up with another hundred or so if I checked more than 500 pages.

I spot checked a couple of dozen, and the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me. This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages that I found when I started this project.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[67] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[68] in article space and found five pages:

I have made a nominal effort to bring those pages into compliance with MOS and with consensus, but I have no strong feelings one way or the other on this, so I am not going to bother going to dispute resolution over it.

There are no remaining BLP pages using "Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Atheism", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion: Agnosticism", "Religion: None (Agnostic)", or "Religion: None (Agnosticism)".

If anyone has any other suggestions for infobox work, please let me know. Otherwise I am going to jump back on the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fix common mistakes --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change wording and avoid "holy wars" (pun intended)?

I wonder if it wouldn't be much better to simply change the wording of the religion parameter so that both religion and attitudes towards religion (atheist, agnostic, irreligious, etc.) can be covered under it. Samsara 03:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did review the lengthy discussion up above, right? If so, I'd recommend you propose a very specific change, as I don't think anyone will be eager to revisit this matter. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A change like that would make edit wars far more likely rather than less. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Samsara 06:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You would be opening things to a wider interpretation than they already are. All you have to do is read past discussions on this (as Doniago suggested) to see how contentious an issue this is. MarnetteD|Talk 12:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support making such a change. (Deciding exactly what to propose is the difficult part, because it has to satisfy a far wider audience than the "None"-only bloc.) The current extremely narrow interpretation by some is contentious. Red Harvest (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious to whom? The original discussion occurred 4 months ago, resulted in a consensus that nobody went on record as disputing, and this is the first time I've seen anyone poke the hornet's nest again. That doesn't seem especially contentious to me. DonIago (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago I was, in part. referring to how contentious it has been in the past not now. The other part that I was referring to is the edit wars that I have seen at various infoboxes over the years. At this point it is also worth mentioning the instructions for the current field "Include only if relevant. For living persons please refer to WP:BLPCAT. Be sure to support with a citation from a reliable source, in the article body." These instructions are an attempt to keep the items in the field "objective" - A widening the field to include "attitudes towards religion" makes it subjective. There is the potential for WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as editors would be trying to interpret what a given person had said. Also, all to often statments by a person are taken out of context. Along with that it is not unknown for a persons attitudes to change over the years so which ones would be included? IMO the field is fine the way it is now. MarnetteD|Talk 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marnette, I was actually questioning Red Harvest's labeling of the current "extremely narrow" interpretation" as contentious. But thanks anyway. :) DonIago (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers from one who is still missing things after all these years :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Harvest: I seriously doubt that the English language has a suitable word or very short phrase that we could use. I don't remember anyone suggesting one in all the massive discussion of options above. Samsara hasn't suggested any, nor have you, I haven't spotted anything in my thesaurus and I don't think MarnetteD is proposing "Attitude to religion" literally. But it's an interesting example; if we used it in an effort to include atheism and agnosticism, we'd probably offend many other people who wouldn't find "Attitude to religion: Christian" or "Attitude to religion: Muslim" at all acceptable. (Admittedly, "attitude to religion: Buddhist" might work a little better and I've met people who would embrace "Attitude to religion: Jewish" with a wry smile.) "Philosophy" and "belief system" would run into similar problems and add some - will we admit "instrumentalism" and "objectivism"? Unless someone can suggest a word or phrase that they really think will have general acceptance, then I fear this thread is nothing but arguing about wishful thinking. NebY (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wheel you seek has already been invented. Just find out what they use on census forms, and use that. Rocket science is not involved. Samsara 03:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that the info on individual census forms is private and cannot be shared don't you? See United States Census Bureau#Data stewardship. MarnetteD|Talk 03:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of the question is public. Samsara 03:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is. In England, it was "What is your religion? This question is voluntary. No religion / Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations) / Buddhist / Hindu / Jewish / Muslim / Sikh / Any other religion, write in."[69] So far as I can tell, the 2010 US Census did not ask a question about religion. I haven't checked the censuses of Australia, Canada, Jamaica, New Zealand or any other English-speaking countries. Perhaps, as it is your proposal, you would care to do that? NebY (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is image_size still needed??

If the image_size field "should not normally need to be set", then why do we still have it? Can we remove it altogether? I keep encountering users who set this field in infoboxes thus, thus having their image choices over how mine are set in my user preferences. Tabercil (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How should "Atheist" be included in an infobox?

I am aware that there have been endless discussions on this subject. I personally thought that "Religion = None (atheist)" was a perfectly reasonable compromise, and I actually thought a significant number of editors agreed me on that, however I am aware that other editors did not think this was acceptable. What I find strange with the current situation is that you can apparently describe someone as "Free Presbyterian" (see Ian Paisley). You can describe them as "Russian Orthodoxy" (see Vladimir Putin). You can describe them as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" (see Mitt Romney). You can say that someone is "Hinduism, with Jain influences" (see Ghandi). But apparently there is nothing interesting we can say about the spiritual beliefs of Vladimir Lenin, Bertrand Russell, Isaac Asimov, or Richard Dawkins. This seems odd to me.
By far the most interesting thing I have seen Guy Macon say on the subject is that although there is no support for changing the name of the "Religion" field, there might be support for introducing a new field. For example, would other editors support something like a "Spiritual views" field? I don't particularly care what it's called, but I do think there should be some way of getting different flavours of non religious views into an info box, assuming of course that they're significant and properly documented for that individual. "Non religious spiritual views" would perhaps be better, although that seems rather long for a field name.
Or, alternatively, suggest a different acceptable way of getting Atheist into an infobox. The current situation, where you can get endless sub-categories of organised religion, but cannot get any recognised types of non-religion, seems unsustainable to me. --Merlinme (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that "atheist" belongs in the religion field. "None" is a valid entry in that field for an atheist. But that's not to say that the issue cannot be described in the body of the article, where it is possible to do so without trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Omnedon (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A) Atheism does not belong in the infobox at all. B) Atheism is not a spiritual belief so the field you are proposing still does not work. Omnedon's assessment hits the nail on the head. MarnetteD|Talk 00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While there has indeed been "been endless discussions on this subject", by my rough count well over 200 editors support changing "Religion: None (atheist)" to "Religion: None" and somewhere in the range of 10 to 20 support changing "Religion: None" to "Religion: None (atheist)" The most commonly expressed reason for this is that Mormonism, Orthodoxy, Hinduism and Presbyterianism are religions while atheism and agnosticism are not. Of course I don't expect anyone to take my word on that (and besides, my "rough estimating" ability may very well have an unconscious bias), so when I get time I will give a detailed count with diffs.
Getting back to the topic of a new entry, I of course have no problem with it as long as there is a consensus that what is on the left side of the "=" doesn't contradict what is on the right side. How about "known for"?
There appear to be two camps that support changing "Religion: None" to "Religion: None (atheist)". The first, like you, appear to have a good-faith disagreement over whether something that is a major part of a persons life should be excluded from the infobox. It's a valid argument, and a new field should be an agreeable compromise.
The second camp appears to believe that atheism is indeed a religion (one individual even argued that ""Atheism is their religion"), which is one of the standard talking points that fundamentalist Christians learn in apologetics class, presumably presuppositional apologetics. I don't see that group ever agreeing on any compromise, but I also suspect that there are between two and five editors in that group. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I commend you for trying to come up with an acceptable compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I'm amused that a situation that's persisted for four months without incident would suddenly be described as "unsustainable". Other than that...when there's a specific proposal made I'll weigh in if I feel I have anything useful to contribute. Beyond that, my interest in discussing this is admittedly quite minimal, and personally I'm kind of tempted to suggest that the Religion field itself be removed if we're going to be looking at rehashing this discussion at regular intervals. DonIago (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is that one user (Guy Macon) on April 6 started making changes to hundreds of articles whose editors were unaware that there had even been a discussion. And it's not like they were previously invited to comment... Samsara 05:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you strongly feel that the previously-established consensus does not reflect a reasonable sampling of the WP editorship, I'd invite you to open an WP:RFC on the matter. But discussing this just between ourselves would seem to have the same issue you just noted. I'm not going to fault Guy for going by what was considered to be the consensus at the time, and notably apparently none of the previously-involved editors felt that a wider discussion was needed to the point of opening an RFC when the discussion was ongoing. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The better approach would have been to identify the articles that would be affected before the discussion, not after, and leave a relevant note on each talk page. This is an approach that could now be taken. Samsara 21:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently none of the editors involved in the discussion that led to the change felt like that was a step that needed to be taken. If you want to leave such a note, I don't believe anyone is stopping you. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, of course that nobody files an ANI case against Samsara for posting identical text in multiple places[70], questions his reputation[71] or calls his posting to multiple pages disruptive.[72][73] I'm just saying.
  • "There is no content dispute. WP:Consensus was established, was stated as such in the closing statement by S Marshall, and should be respected as such. [...] This thread was opened by Samsara to complain abouut the size of a certain post added to several pages where users apparently were unaware of the discussion which established the current consensus. Guy Macon's intention was to discourage edit-wars by stating clearly why the word "atheist" was removed. In the meanwhile it was removed from all articles where it was used in the "Religion" field of infoboxes, as prescribed by S Marshall's closing statement, and this whole discussion has become rather moot." --Kraxler on WP:ANI, 11:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[74][reply]
In the absence of an RfC (which nobody complaining is going to post because everyone already knows that the result will be overwhelmingly in favor of "Religion: None"), it would seem that WP:STICK applies.
  • "I wouldn't want someone to write a script to go through every affected article deleting the parameter [but] If an editor in good standing did it with all due care and thought, after discussion in difficult cases, then I would see that as a reasonable thing to do on the basis of the RfC." --S Marshall on his talk page, 23:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[75][reply]
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And right there is the Freudian slip that underscores the problem with your side's argument. You see this as "branding" people, a negative connotation. For self-identified atheists this is not a scarlet letter. One of the requirements of listing it in the infobox is self-identification in reliable sources, as well as notability. (Those have now been scrubbed by censors.) Religion = none is a hell of a long way from saying it all, it lumps very diverse views of religion in a single category. By the very same logic the box should simply be Yes/No. That is every bit as informative as your proposed solution. "Period." Red Harvest (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Freudian slip? I clearly stated my opinion, no slip-up. Your argument is an example for one of the major objections to add an infobox at all: The ever-creeping obsession with hair-splitting until the box becomes so bloated, it gets bigger than the article. "Religion=none" conveys the key fact. Explanations go in the article text. May I quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox? "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose...". (my bolding of the key word). Kraxler (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh! Scrubbed by censors! Looks like we need to update [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ] with this vital information... --Guy Macon (talk)
Life stance: .................... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle: I like that. The difficulty might be with the definition given there, "ultimate importance". I'm not sure it would always be easy to establish that someone who identifies as Catholic (for argument's sake), atheist, or agnostic actually regards this as their top priority. So the advantage of the religion field is that it allows to casually report the religion of a person without knowing how serious they are about it; the disadvantage is that we'll often report it even when it isn't a particularly notable fact about the person. I'll grant though, that "life stance" probably does work for Marquis de Sade and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, two recently debated cases. The article gives a book by Dennett as a source, which I assume is the origin of this term and its current definition. I wonder if the definition given by Dennett is really as rigid as has been reproduced in the article. Maybe that could get the cart out of the ditch. Samsara 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the term was first used by Harry Stopes-Roe. There is a relevant article here: "The underlying cause of difficulty is the absence of a universally accepted word in English which encompasses both religions and alternatives to religion, without discrimination between them." Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dawkins is proud not to believe in a god. I am sure he would be very happy to be "branded" an atheist. I personally find his atheism a bit militant for my tastes, but it would be very hard indeed to argue that atheism is not a significant part of his beliefs and his life, at least as much as "Religion" is for most people who do believe in a god. Not believing in god is one of the things Dawkins is famous for. But his beliefs are not the same as Bertrand Russell (who also famously did not believe in god), nor the same as Karl Marx, who also famously did not believe in god, nor the same as Percy Byshe Shelley, who also did not believe in god. To pretend that all these varieties of non-belief can be considered the same, as if "Religion = None" has no sub categories, seems ridiculous to me. It also seems ridiculous to me that the various categories of non-belief cannot currently be given any infobox detail other than Religion = None. This is why I have raised this subject.
In answer to Donlago, Samsara is correct that we are here because Guy Macon has been recently making a determined effort to make the Religion field consistent with what he perceives consensus to be. I personally thought Religon = None (insert sub category here) was a perfectly workable compromise, but apparently others disagree.
My question remains: if you cannot put atheism in the Religion field, in the form such as Religion = None (atheism), how exactly can we put atheism in the infoboxes of people who clearly do not believe in religion, and where their belief in atheism is a fundamental part of what they are famous for?
I would still be happy with Religion = None (atheist). Alternatively, I am proposing a new field named something like "Spiritual views", the sole purpose of which would be to allow non-religious people to have significant views stated in their infoboxes. --Merlinme (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think using "Spiritual views" would be an improvement. Many if not all atheists would say "Spiritual views: None". I prefer "Life stance", as set out above... the problem with it, however, is that for most readers it would need some explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is settled. Drop the WP:STICK or post an RfC.
Richard Dawkins would almost certainly object to his atheism being called a religion -- most atheist do.
I like life stance. Nice and descriptive with no hint of calling the lack of religion a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if we're going to revisit this issue then it should be handled in the form of an RFC. Consequently, I fail to see the point of this discussion, since until it is an RFC nothing we're saying is going to have an impact. I would not support a non-RFC discussion being used to modify the prior consensus. DonIago (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we draw a line under this discussion. It's clearly trying to change a recently agreed consensus, and not using the proper channels or any new ideas.--Dmol (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to where the idea of using a different wording for the parameter itself (i.e. religion vs. life stance etc.) was previously discussed? Specific diff please if you don't mind. Thanks. Samsara 06:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. You have wasted enough of our time. Consensus has been established (as you have been told by several people) but you refuse to accept that fact and drop the stick. The proper method of resolving such a dispute is for you to post a neutrally worded WP:RfC here at Template talk:Infobox person asking the reader to make a clear choice between "Religion: None" and "Religion: None: (atheist)" in BLP infoboxes, let it run the full 30 days so nobody can say they didn't have time to respond, then go to WP:AN and ask for an uninvolved administrator with experience closing contentious RfCs to evaluate the comments and write up a closing summary. If, at that point, the consensus is against me I will humbly apologize and offer to help bring the pages in compliance with consensus. And if the consensus is against you, you can choose to do the same or continue to fight, with the usual consequences. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone uninvolved please close this W.O.M.B.A.T (Waste Of Money, Brains And Time)? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There is not a consensus on how to handle this, simply OBSTRUCTION of others' views by you while you foist your POV onto everyone else and BULLY other editors.. It would be nice if you could actually act in good faith for a change (rather than telling us we are to assume good faith while you so frequently violate the whole concept.) If you don't like the debate, don't participate, I'm sure you won't be missed. Red Harvest (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy's tone notwithstanding, given the obviously contentious nature of this situation I don't see anything out of line or obstructionist in saying that people who want to have any discussion of this matter that will result in actual change should open an RFC. And at this point I question the motives of anyone who isn't willing to take that step. DonIago (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Red Harvest, posting multiple complaints about another user's behavior on Template talk:Infobox person is inappropriate and disruptive. Please stop. If you really believe that I or anyone else has misbehaved, the proper course of action is to file a complaint at WP:ANI. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, a complaint was filed about your behaviour at AN/I! And various editors have expressed some discomfort about your tone; and you have largely ignored them. We don't have to look very hard on this page to find another editor expressing unease: "Guy's tone notwithstanding...".
When quite so many experienced editors think there may be an issue with how you are editing, perhaps you could consider you could take a look at how your edits come across?
I will raise an RFC. I don't know when, exactly, as I haven't got a vast amount of free time at the moment. Hopefully later this week. --Merlinme (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provide birth_name (below)

We instruct concerning the name parameter: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if left blank; provide birth_name (below) if different from name)."

As I understand policy: "Common name of person (defaults to article name if not provided). Provide birth name as birth_name (below rather than here) if it differs from name."

Compare our instruction at Template:Infobox writer#Parameters. Perhaps both can be improved by considering what they both say now. --P64 (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk). Posted: 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC) This RFC is closed. (automatically updated)[reply]

Background

The religion entry in BLP infoboxes has been a contentious issue for many years, with multiple participants disputing what, if anything, should come after the "Religion = " entry in cases where the subject of the page has no religion.

This RfC is an attempt to create a bright line answer concerning exactly what the consensus is.

What this RfC is and is not

This RfC only applies to infoboxes, not to the body of the article.

This RfC only applies to the religion field of the infobox.

This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures.

This RfC only applies to atheism, agnosticism, irreligion, and other ways of indicating "no religion". It specifically does not apply to Humanism or atheistic religions (examples: Atheism in Hinduism, Unitarian Universalism#Beliefs, Christian atheism, Nontheist Quakers, Pandeism).

This RfC only applies to what is on the right side of the "religion =" field. There is already a strong consensus against changing "religion =" to something else or deleting "religion =" from the template. If you disagree, please post a new RfC instead of hijacking this one.

This RfC does not address the existing strong consensus that a person's religion is only to be mentioned in the infobox if it is self-identified, relevant (per the template guideline), supported by reliable sources, and covered in the body of the article. If you disagree, please post a new RfC instead of hijacking this one.

This RfC does not address the existing strong consensus that "Religion: Atheist" and "Religion: Agnostic" should not be used. If you disagree, you may indicate this in the "Support [other]" section.

Ground Rules

Previous discussions have generated large numbers of rather heated comments, so no replies will be allowed in the support sections. This is the best way to make it clear who supports what. Please keep all threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section.

As always with RfCs, the quality of your argument counts more than the support counts. A compelling policy-based argument is worth more than multiple "I like it" / "I hate it" comments.

Because this has been such a contentious issue in the past, I plan on letting this run the full 30 days and then asking an uninvolved administrator (more than one If I can get them) with experience closing controversial RfCs to close this RfC. An issue that this many people feel this strongly about should not be snow closed.

When you reply in the threaded discussion section, you may wish to add "@Example" to indicate who you replied to. If you reply in the support sections your reply will be moved to the threaded discussion section with a "@Example:" added at the start of the comment.

Support "Religion: None"

In infoboxes on biographies of living persons, atheism, agnosticism, and other terms for having no religion should be indicated with "Religion = None", which displays as "Religion: None".

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Support: As proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support since atheism and agnosticism are not religions, and since trying to include anything more than 'none' means trying to describe a variety of possibilities insufficiently. Details on a person's religion can be dealt with in the article body. Omnedon (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support trying to distinguish different flavours of "none" is unnecessary.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support lest the idiocy of removing this parameter be passed (and people thus start adding religions to |known for= or some other parameter) . But really; this has been done to death, and most people have no doubt become tired of the debate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as second choice. I marginally prefer allowing (but not requiring) a parenthetical elaboration which further explains the type of irreligion, though if that proposal fails then I'd be happy with this as a compromise. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, since clearly there are religions (eg, Jainism) that do not accept the existence of God. "Religion: None (atheist)" thus wrongly implies that being an atheist = not having a religion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, for many of the above reasons. Religion is much for than a belief in God[s] and some religions don't believe in a supreme being. Since the person's views of religion can range from lack of interest to hostile opposition, it is best to leave the "flavors" of "none" to the body of the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, but only in cases where the person has disclaimed any religion. A religion (or life stance which in Norway is the category that humanism falls into) is more than just one belief but atheism, agnosticism, ietsism, theism, pantheism, panentheism are just one belief (or lack of one belief). Note that religious denominations can come in variations also [e.g., Anglican (High), Anglican (Low), Anglican (Broad)] and I don't think that is the route we want to go with infoboxes (though sometimes the denomination includes parens such as Church of God (Cleveland)). Omission of Religion= implies 'unknown' which is different than 'none'. --Erp (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Theism and religion (and/or spirituality and the like) just don't necessarily operate along the same axes such that combining the two in order to provide additional information remains within the scope of the parameter. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, but I'd also be nearly as comfortable with Omit the parameter. Where someone's beliefs are important, "None" gives helpful quick information in the infobox. Putting something in parentheses after it will often misstate the person's actual views and leads to other complicated problems.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as the most workable solution. I think omitting the entry would be better, but from experience, a lot of drive-by editors will think it is unintentionally missing and keep re-adding it. "Atheist" has become a belief system in its own right to some extent, and now has a contested meaning. "None" is the least dramah option. --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)"

In infoboxes on biographies of living persons, atheism, agnosticism, and other terms for having no religion should be indicated with "Religion = None (atheist)", "Religion = None (agnostic)", etc., which displays as "Religion: None (atheist)", "Religion: None (agnostic)", etc.

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Support: This seems the most logical to me. I understand that atheism is not a religion, but I see value in specifying what type of "none" they are. If the person self-identifies as "atheist" for example, there's a reason they choose that label and not "none" alone. Putting this in the religion field does not imply that atheism or agnosticism is itself a religious belief set. If it matters any, I say this as an agnostic atheist. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: Excellent compromise. Empty can mean any religion, or no religion. "None" can mean no organized religion but still be a theist, or deist, or an agnostic. We need to provide something. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: It's the best compromise and succinctly answers the next question a reader likely has when they read "None". We already have a tendency to not answer the next logical question around here in prose. I'll often see something like "...was the second person ever to..." without a simple parenthetical phrase to say who the first was. Dismas|(talk) 10:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: I support this. Also, this was already supported in the above discussion on this page. Atshal (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. People can be irreligious in multiple ways; having a clarification is thus most helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 21, 2015; 17:24 (UTC)
  6. Support as best alternative to "Religion: None" and "Religion: Atheist". Atheist is not the antonym of Religious, because of plural irreligiosity, as Ëzhiki suggests, as well as atheistic religionism. Using "Religion: None" as a synonym for atheism seems to push a certain dogmatic interpretation. "Religion: Atheist" unnecessarily pushes the opposite dogma. Omitting the parameter seems quite acceptable in cases where religious opinion does not constitute an important or well-established part of a person's identity. (By the way I found my way here from a talk page notification at William Lewis Moore who is neither a conspicuous atheist nor, unfortunately, a living person. In fact Moore was at least a Jesus-liker if not a Christian.) shalom, groupuscule (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Yes, atheism and agnosticism are not religions, but there's no harm, and often some benefit, in providing this elaboration. Keeping it in parentheses makes it clear that it's just extra information rather than a religious descriptor. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: So long as we're sticking to what sources say, which should have been the only determining factor to begin with instead of WP:OR semantic arguments. "Religion: None" without clarification equates irreligiousity, atheism, and agnosticism (those links do not go to those articles, but to drasitcally different examples of each that noone can sanely lump together). Replacing them with "Religion: None" would be like replacing "Religion: (Hinduism, Jainism, or Buddhism)" (that order chosen to reflect parallel attitudes toward theism) with "Religion: Dharmic." "Religion: None (atheist)" clarifies that they have no religion, but are atheists. As for 'atheism is not a religion just as clear is not a color' using "Religion: None" or "None (atheist or agnostic) is akin to saying "Color: None (invisible radiation, transparent solid, or empty)," -- In each case there are distinct reasons why there is no color, just as there are distinct reasons why there is no religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, where (and only where) reliable sources confirm the subject's atheism or agnosticism. This information, when we have it, is precisely as relevant as whether someone is a Methodist or a Southern Baptist, or whatever. The objection that neither is a religion points out a flaw in the infobox, using "Religion" as a label for spiritual beliefs that are broader than religion per se. We should not omit basic information simply because our labels are poor; we should fix the labels.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. If an individual's views on religiosity are relevant – that is, if we're going to affirmatively identify people as believers of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc at all – then it's equally appropriate to affirmatively identify their views if they are atheist or agnostic. There's a difference between someone who simply doesn't have a set of beliefs on the subject (religion = none), and someone who holds a specific belief that there are no gods or the existence of a god is unknowable. After all, religion isn't simply a matter of what one believes is true; it's also about what one believes is untrue. For example, "religion = Protestant" doesn't simply say that a person believes in Jehovah and Jesus; it also says that she doesn't believe in the prophecy of Muhammad, the authority of the Pope, or the existence of Odin, Amon-Re, or Vishnu. You can make similar lists of "things that are untrue" that are articles of faith for other religions. Like most theists, an atheist actively disbelieves in a long list of things; she also affirmatively believes in the ultimate supremacy of natural reality, which is as much a set of religious beliefs as the Christian's disbelief in the same set of "false gods" (except one or three). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support [other]

Neither of the above choices is acceptable (please explain what is acceptable to you in your comment).

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Omit the parameter: as Omnedon states, atheism and similar are not religions, so why are we trying to reflect them in the religion parameter? We don't use "= none" for all parameters that are not applicable to a particular person (monuments = none?); we omit those parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Omit the parameter. It is inapplicable to the subject of the biography. Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Omit the parameter. As stated all too often they are not religions and use of the term none is not needed. There are numerous fields in the infobox that are not used when there isn't info to put in them. There is no reason to single this one out by using the term none. MarnetteD|Talk 03:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Omit the parameter since atheism and agnosticism are not religions. Omnedon said it all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:03, April 2015 (UTC)
  5. Omit the parameter. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions. If a parameter isn't applicable, omit it. Simple. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Omit the parameter. Per Omnedon. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Omit the parameter. It's caused more trouble than it's worth and the information can be more clearly discussed in prose. DonIago (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Omit the parameter - per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox: key facts should be stated in a succinct manner, no need to show a non-fact, or brand somebody by sticking "atheist" (or something similar) in the infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Modify the label to be more inclusive - (policy-based argument) - It could be "Spiritual belief" or, if that uses too much space, simply "Belief". Change the label from Religion to Belief. You could object that the latter this is ambiguous, but I suspect your average grade school pupil could figure it out if followed by a word like Judaism or Atheism. I'm less concerned about the template parameter name. I don't know how the template folks would feel it about it, but as far as I'm concerned it could be left as |religion= if the "atheism is not a religion" faction can refrain from using it as a hammer. The template doc would need to be updated to explicitly allow atheism and agnosticism in that field. Atheism and agnosticism may not be religions, but they are no less significant and to give them short shrift for semantic reasons would violate WP:NPOV. The fact that this is a very personal and controversial area makes the violation that much more egregious. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Omit the parameter - if it's not applicable, don't use it (per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox). Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Omit the parameter - If the person has no spouse, the box doesn’t say Spouse: None. No children doesn’t result in Children: None, or Children: None (hates kids). How is this different? Religion: None (atheist) is worse as it suggests a person must be categorized religiously – and, unfortunately, that is the claim of some people. Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Abolish the parameter altogether - Even when a person adheres to some specific religion, I see no reason why it should be shown in the infobox. - DVdm (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Omit the parameter - Unless they are a noted Atheist campaigner or some equivalent then it can (and only then should) be added. GuzzyG (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Omit the parameter - if a person is an atheist or has no religion, then the field is not applicable and should be left blank. 'Atheist' should never be in the religion field. Skyerise (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Omit. This is just asking for trouble. Softlavender (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Omit the parameter. If a person has no religion it does not apply.Charles (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Omit the parameter. Atheism and agnosticism are not religions, so this line in the infobox does not apply. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Omit the parameter if no religion is named Unless someone self-identifies as a particular religion/lack thereof (i.e. Christian/Jew/Muslim/Atheist/Agnostic etc) then having "none" is not only superfluous but also possibly incorrect. Just because someone may not state their religious beliefs doesn't mean they don't have one. Vyselink (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Omit the parameter, and it is asinine that this is even a question. We don't use fields when they don't apply. Resolute 22:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Leave it to the editors, i.e., no blanket policy. The infobox is just a quick way to convey key information, and it is wrong to start claiming that it is turning atheism into a religion etc. Religion is not just one's position on God. It could mean culture, background, affiliation etc. We have subjects that say they are "atheist" but identify with Christianity (e.g., Ashis Nandy), "Hindu agnostic" (e.g., Jawaharlal Nehru), "atheist" but Hindu nationalist (e.g., V. D. Savarkar). We don't make rules for what people should believe in. We just make our best effort to describe what they believe in. Let the editors choose what is appropriate to each subject. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Omit. None (atheist) is kind of offensive. If any other section does not warrant, such as death date for a living person, it does not say "Not yet", but is left blank and not listed.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. omit the religion parameter in all infoboxes for all living persons except those whose notability rests on their religious affiliation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Omit except where religion is directly relevant to their notability. Religious affiliation, or the lack thereof, is not a detail that must be present in all biographies without exception — it's a detail that we include when it can be reliably sourced, and exclude when it cannot. And very often these days, it's a detail that reliable sources simply don't cover at all unless it somehow enters directly into the person's public life — such as a politician who publicly cites their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) as their reasoning for supporting or opposing a political issue, or a person whose notability specifically rests on their religious affiliation (e.g. the Pope, or a writer who attained their notability at least in part by writing about their atheism.) Many more people, however, treat their religion or lack thereof as a private personal matter and simply don't put it out on the public record at all, and thus nothing can be determined from RS coverage. There should certainly be room for it to be included where it can be properly sourced as having some actual relevance to their notability — but in many other cases it's a detail that no reader needs to know so badly that it would justify invading the subject's privacy rights to find it out. (I do not, for instance, need to know whether my city councillor is Catholic or Lutheran or Baptist or Buddhist or Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or atheist — I need to know what her positions are on the political issues that I care about, not what religious institution she does or doesn't attend on her own personal time.) There needs to be a way to directly denote "atheist" in the infobox if and when that's central to the person's notability — but there does not need to be any blanket policy that it must always be listed. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Omit the parameter At one time people had to declare their religion, but that is disappearing. In many cases, a person's religion is unknown or unimportant and should be omitted. The religion of U.S. presidents for example if seen as important, while the religion of U.S. scientists, actors, professors typically is not. TFD (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Omit the parameter in normal cases. If being an Atheist is important to mention, use the compromise "none (Atheist)" or (whatever in the brackets). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Omit the parameter, as you would with any other non-applicable parameter. There is no reason to create an exception for Religion - since neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are religions, they shouldn't be put in the Religion field. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Omit except where religion is directly relevant to their notability. Otherwise, it may be addressed in article content but it not necessary for the infobox. When you think about it, the idea of trying to include this parameter for everyone regardless of notability of that information is not that different than the silly inclusion of blood type in infoxboxes on the Japanese wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Omit the parameter when we cannot reliably source either atheism or agnosticism; use "None (atheist)" or "None (agnostic)" when we can.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Omit - and we should do this more often when the religion of the subject isn't relevant to the subject's notability. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Omit if the parameter doesn't fit, don't use it. Also per Ealdgyth, if the religion of the subject isn't relevant to the subject's notability don't use it. Garion96 (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Omit: Regardless of opinions, one way or the other, one definition of religion is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects". If a person does not "believe" in God (ex. - I don't "believe" in God) it is still a belief. Adding anything that is not relevant, and certainly adding parameters, that may be used regardless of if it is stated by the subject, is wrong on so many levels. If a position of belief (one way or the other) is not relevant then forcing it one way or the other is wrong. Do not add what is not there because that is WP:OR. --- Otr500 (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Expanded guidelines – I believe that the current guideline proposals above are inadequate because they fail to adequately apply under all circumstances, and fail to provide any specific criteria to use when determining the right course of action. This proposal, however meritorious, only addresses one aspect of this issue. I believe an expanded, more comprehensive approach is necessary. You can read my full thoughts below. Assuming my proposal fails to gain traction for whatever reason, consider my support to be in the first section above, namely "None" without specifying the stance. This is only because the lack of clarity on how the second section is applied gives me reason to believe specifying the atheism or agnosticism of the individual possesses no qualifying criteria. If I am mistaken, and this is indicated in a discussion of my proposal below, then consider my support to be in the second section, namely "None (athiesm)" or "None (agnosticism)". ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Omit the parameter, otherwise we are violating WP:BLP and WP:V - Cwobeel (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Omit the parameter - If by "religion" we mean "organized religion" (and I assume we do), then the parameter simply does not apply to atheists, agnostics et al. These are beliefs, not religions, as they lack the element of a unified and organised world view and any sort of congregation. Timbouctou (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Omit the parameter If a person does not subscribe to a particular organized religion, whether he is nonpracticing or an atheist or agnostic, I think that it best fits the requirements of WP:BLP that we simply omit the parameter entirely. Frankly I believe that at Wikipedia we tend to make too much of people's religions as it is, with too much pigeonholing and categorizing. Coretheapple (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • Argument against "Religion: None (atheist)":
Atheism is not a religion. Bald is not a hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Silence is not a sound. Never is not a date. Clear is not a color. "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
"Religion: None" accomplishes this.
Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[76][77][78][79][80][81][82]
One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[83][84][85][86][87][88][89] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion.
In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And many atheists don't care much about specifying what kind of "none". And there is value in specifying it if the person took the time to specify it themselves. I am not irreligious or none or agnostic. I'm an agnostic atheist and that has a specific meaning and I use that label to convey it. A parallel would be how we specify denominations of religions... because that distinction has meaning. Mormons and Catholics are Christians, but I imagine no one would suggest we only label them as Christians. There is minimal harm and much benefit from specifying information in this manner. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal harm in calling something a religion when it clearly isn't one? --09:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)~
The proposal to put "religion: None (atheist)" explicitly doesn't call atheism a religion. It does distinguish between a nonreligious person that reliable sources indicate identifies themselves as not having a religion because they are an atheist, and a non-religious person who simply doesn't consider any organised system of belief to be worth publicly associating themselves with. Omitting the "religion" tag altogether should be the default though, with "none" reserved for people who stated they did not identify with any particular religious viewpoint, none (atheist) and none (agnostic) reserved for those who are reliably identified as such. Atheism isn't a belief system by itself, but it is a different non-religious position to "I wouldn't consider myself a Christian... or anything really". Dtellett (talk) 10:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. So long as we can write "Christianity (theism)", and so on. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what "theism" adds as a qualifier to Christianity, a religion Wikipedia describes as "a [mono]theistic religion" implying theism by default. There is no particular reason to assume a person identifying as having no religion, on the other hand, is or is not an atheist, agnostic, deist, apatheist etc. I'd certainly support something like Christianity (non-denominational) though where the sources support someone specifically identifying as non-denominational as opposed to simply not being identified as belonging to a particular church Dtellett (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nontheist Quakers generally consider themselves to be Christians but not Deists or Theists. Clearly the term "Christian" means different things to different people (including a sizable number that think that only members of their group are true Christians). So Andy makes a fair argument; if "None (atheism)" is allowed, so should be "Christianity (theism)" and so on. Which is why Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dtellett's comment here is the only sensible solution in my opinion, which relies on editors on a particular page discussing and coming to a consensus on what is the best option for that particular page - the hallmark of what Wikipedia is about! Atshal (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: omitting the parameter from infoboxes for people who are well-known for having no religion (such as, for example, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins) seems questionable. Omnedon (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using the "Dawkins solution" everywhere and will change my !vote if it looks like that's the way consensus is going. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that about Dawkins, but in a case like his, that works for me. Omnedon (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the previous discussion on this topic, still present on this page, the conclusion that was reached was that the content of the field should really be decided by the editors on the page and that all of the alternatives are acceptable (except Religion: Atheist, which should not be used). This seems the eminently sensible solution to me, and I don't really understand why we are having this same conversation yet again. Atshal (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to result, sometimes, in the field containing "None (atheist)" "Atheist (none)" which is problematic for some editors. Hence this discussion. Omnedon (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversial entry is "None (atheist)". The current consensus excludes "Religion=Atheist". A small minority of editors (those who voted to keep Religion=Atheist" at the previous RfC but were !voted down) proposed to use "Religion=None (atheist)" in a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent consensus. Kraxler (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is what I meant. I accidentally reversed them. Omnedon (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Belief Atheism" moots a lot of controversy in this debate. See my !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, unless you can show me authoritative atheist sources that support that statement, you have just revealed your POV on this issue loud and clear. Their belief is not a religious belief, as you have made abundantly and loudly clear. But that is FAR from NO BELIEF, and an atheist is easily as spiritual as any Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist. I'm sure you understand that my proposal is to remove the word "religion" from the question. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that atheism is a belief about the nature of the universe. I do not agree that atheists are "easily as spiritual as any Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist". Atheists can be spiritual, just as atheists can be vegetarians or communists or Trekkies, but they may or may not be. There's no direct relationship between atheism and spiritualism. Omnedon (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just as Christians can be truly spiritual or simply attend church regularly because they were taught that is the proper thing to do. Likewise to your statement, there's no direct relationship between religion and spiritualism. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that you said atheists are spiritual. That's not necessarily so. Perhaps you didn't mean it as you wrote it. Omnedon (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you re-read my statement. What I said was, "an atheist is easily as spiritual as any Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Buddhist." I most certainly did NOT say "atheists are spiritual". This discussion will be a lot more productive if we read what each other says and don't paraphrase in ways that change its meaning. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read what you wrote. The clear meaning is that an atheist is spiritual. Did you mean that an atheist could be as spiritual as a Christian, Jew, Hindu or Buddhist? Omnedon (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear, I'll try again. An atheist is no more or less likely to be spiritual than a member of any religion. Either can be spiritual or not. The point is that there no material difference between religious people and atheists, except that one worships a deity and the other does not. NPOV dictates that we should not limit this field to people who fall into the former category. In the end, it's all spiritual philosophy. Many agnostics believe that there was probably a guiding hand in at least creating this wondrous universe, but they don't subscribe to any particular dogma about the nature of that guiding hand. Who can reasonably state that that is not a belief? And how can we exclude this kind of belief from recognition in an infobox? Does it somehow diminish the meaning of religions in that field to allow atheism and agnosticism to share the same field? I stress again that I'm proposing changing "Religion" to "Belief", so I'm not implying that atheists or agnostics are religious. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You write "The point is that there no material difference between religious people and atheists, except that one worships a deity and the other does not. NPOV dictates that we should not limit this field to people who fall into the former category". Let me try applying that principle generally. There no material difference between stamp collectors and other people, except that one collects stamps and the other does not. NPOV dictates that we should not limit the "hobby" field to people who fall into the former category, so "Hobby = not collecting stamps" is not only allowed, but required. Do you see the problem? It ignores the fact that not collecting stamps is not a hobby but is rather the lack of one. Likewise, by any normal definition of the word, atheism is not a belief but rather is the lack of one.
It hinders communication if we don't use the same dictionary-based definitions for words such as "belief". Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you're still in the same place you were when we started yesterday. By any normal definition of the word, atheism is not a religious belief but rather is the lack of one. After changing Religion to Belief, that statement remains true but becomes moot. And that's exactly why I propose to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy appears to (still) be in a very solid place with his argument. When you say, "By any normal definition of the word, atheism is not a religious belief but rather is the lack of one", you have moved from "unclear" to simply "incorrect". Atheism is the lack of belief in deities, and does not define whether or not a person is also religious. There are many religious atheists; there are atheistic religions. Granted, many people who do not believe in gods also do not adhere to a specific religion, but confusing atheism with irreligiousness does a disservice to this conversation. Just as sticking a descriptor about a persons belief or lack of belief in gods into a field reserved for what religion they follow does a disservice to our readers. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a theology expert, and I assert that I don't need to be to discuss Wikipedia policy and principles. We can debate this until our star dies, but that would not change the fact that applying any different treatment to non-religious believers defines them as somehow Other, and that is a violation of NPOV. I propose to be more inclusive by changing Religion to Belief, and I believe that is more consistent with Wikipedia's core principles. If you disagree, go ask Jimbo what he thinks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Sorry, I just wanted to be sure. I agree with you: an atheist or a Christian or a Hindu or anyone else may, or may not, be spiritual. But as to excluding information: I think that trying to fit this information into a single word in the infobox in a way that will be widely accepted is problematic. If relevant, the subject can be dealt with in the body of the article. It's not a question of excluding information from the article, but avoiding controversial situations in the infobox. Omnedon (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that avoiding controversial situations and observing NPOV are in conflict here, and the latter is what's policy-based (unless I've missed a policy that says we should strive to avoid controversy in Wikipedia articles). ―Mandruss ☎ 19:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we changed the parameter from "Religion" to "Belief", would all agnostics be stated as "Belief:none"? How would atheists who are simply godless rather than denying the existence of gods be listed? How should we list those who believe that "it's a dog-eat-dog world and devil take the hindmost"? Will Fred Hoyle's belief be listed as Steady State? Will we distinguish Trinitarians from Unitarians, or is it more important whether the article's subject believes in Calvinist predestination or the possibility of redemption? It's hard to imagine that a "Belief" parameter will solve anything or fare any better or even fare as well as the existing "Religion". NebY (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like others, you're applying too narrow an interpretation to the word "belief". We go by sources. Most likely, sources will define an agnostic as an agnostic (otherwise, how would we know he's an agnostic?), so we would say "Belief:agnosticism". If sources define someone as atheist, we don't need any finer definition. For purposes of the infobox, we don't need to get into the business of dividing atheists into subcategories. That's overthink, which is behind a lot of this years-long argument. We would simply say "Belief:atheism" and call it a day. Any relevant finer distinctions would be in the body. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Too narrow" a view? "Belief" is a very broad term and many different editors will quite reasonably think to use a "Belief" parameter for all sorts of beliefs. In trying to solve the problems of atheism and agnosticism, we would simply have created a much greater problem. NebY (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's why God invented Wikipedia guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just for grins, here's some hypothetical instruction creep.
Use the name of a religion, the name of a religious denomination, agnosticism, or atheism. Do not use any other terms without community consensus. Any appropriate finer distinctions may be made in the body of the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 001

Saying "Religion: None (atheist or agnostic)" is like saying "Color: None (invisible radiation, transparent solid, or empty)." Such a statement does not make clear a color, but does clarify why there is no color there. Would anyone really care to lump Spiritual but not religious, Richard Dawkins, and Ray Kurzweil in the same category? The first is totally capable of believing in God(s/ess) and happy to accept magical thinking, the second dedicates his life to opposing the idea of any sort of divinity or supernaturalism, and the third essentially applying Clarke's three laws to general religious belief. Yet they fall under "Religion: None." As for "atheism is not a belief," strong atheism (there is definitely no divinity) is a belief. Otherwise, Dawkins is advocating nothing. Weak atheism (simply not holding belief) can be a lack of belief (but may be the result of a strong agnostic belief). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you were in the middle of a nasty political/cultural fight and the other side made a point of throwing the claim "transparent is just another color!" in your face, believing that this refutes your position, you might feel differently about a Wikipedia infobox entry that suggests that clear is a color. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So personal feelings that influence one to intentionally misread infoboxes determine article content, then? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having a little trouble wrapping my head around that one, Guy. Anyway, I see nothing controversial about the following approach for someone who is maintaining a neutral frame of mind: 1. Change Religion to Belief. 2. Don't show anything unless it's relevant, as determined by local consensus. 3. Exclude no one because their beliefs don't fit your definition of valid or significant. 4. Use reliable sources to determine the field value. Do not engage in debate beyond which sources are more meaningful, as that would violate WP:NOR. 5. If the field value cannot be determined from RS, omit (although that probably means it's not relevant and would be omitted per (2) anyway). 6. In the rare case (I think) that RS indicates no belief at all, and that's relevant, show "Belief None". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But Dawkins, for example, has beliefs about origins. They are just not religious beliefs. Omnedon (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If he was simply advocating evolution, abiogenesis, and the big bang, he'd only be about as opposed to religion as Neil de Grasse Tyson. However, he is noted for holding a more pronounced opposition to religion because of his very specific beliefs regarding divinity. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Omnedon: Correct, and that's why I suggest not overthinking the word "Belief" in the label, or the parameter value. The field value following "Belief" would provide context and tell the reader what we mean by the word "belief". Another reason to say simply "Belief", rather than the more specific "Spiritual belief", is that it avoids a lot of ridiculous controversy about whether atheists are spiritual. Just leave that word out of it; less is more in this case.
The third para of Richard Dawkins begins with "Dawkins is an atheist", and I assume that the editors have done their job; that that statement is supported by RS, more than any other common classification of spiritual philosophy. In my view, we needn't look any deeper into Dawkins for the purposes of this parameter value. It's "Belief Atheism", and it clearly passes the relevance test for Dawkins. But any of this could be debated in article talk, just as we debate many other important things in article talk. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be happy with "Known for: Atheism" as suggested above? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you change Mother Teresa to "Known for: Roman Catholicism". ―Mandruss ☎ 23:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A belief that there is no God is in the same category as a belief that there is one, and, per NPOV, those who hold that belief should not be segregated as somehow "other". This is Wikipedia policy. I don't recall seeing any other references to policy in this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the two are, in fact, in the same category. And if we are going to say "belief", then it is not overthinking it to apply it in a general way since it is such a general term. Omnedon (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you and I are debating whether something is true or false, how can our positions be in different categories?
As for your second point, I'm not sure what you mean by "apply it". The fact that the word "belief" is more general outside of this context does not require us to interpret it that way, or to use it that way. {{Infobox philosopher}} includes a field labeled "Region". At first glance, that means some kind of geographical region, right? That's what most people think of when you say "region". But no, when you look at the Region value in Aristotle, it links to Western philosophy, which is not a geographical region at all. It's an area of philosophy that's connected to a geographical region. The template doc specifies this as the correct usage of that parameter. Did the template designers feel compelled to clarify that for the reader in the label? No. Why? Because they knew the reader can figure it out from context, and they wanted to be brief and concise. The field value clarifies the field label. The same applies here as in no doubt many other infobox parameters. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But a person's beliefs are not a debate. Atheism is not in the same category as Christianity or Buddhism. As for your point about the field name: if you are saying that a field called "belief" would naturally imply "religious belief", then we're going to be back where we started; if it is just another word for religion then we have the same problem. In any case, it is not against NPOV to say "religion: none" rather than "religion: none (atheist)"; but if, hypothetically, it was, then "belief: none" would be against NPOV as well. I would argue that saying "religion: none" is neutral, whereas "religion: none (atheist)" is not. Omnedon (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether God (i.e., one or more higher powers) exists, and the nature of said God, is not only a debate, it's one of the most significant debates in all of human history. We have been debating these questions for as long as we have been capable of debating anything. Perhaps you didn't mean what you said.
Atheism is not in the same category as Christianity or Buddhism - an assertion without an argument, and already countered anyway. So I'll skip that one.
I'll assume you meant to say "spiritual belief" in place of "religious belief". No, I'm not saying "belief" implies "spiritual belief", or anything of the sort. I'm saying we should follow the lead of the Infobox philosopher designers and not overthink this label, debating ad nauseam the definition, connotation, and possibly etymology of the word "belief". That is pointless and an enormous waste of time and brain power. That's all. The important thing is to remove the word Religion. We say "Belief Judaism", "Belief Buddhism", or "Belief Agnosticism" and consider our job done.
I would argue that saying "religion: none" is neutral, whereas "religion: none (atheist)" is not. - Well, since I don't advocate doing either, you'll have to discuss that with someone else. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss, I meant exactly what I said. Beliefs are not debates. Beliefs can be debated, as anything can. But a wide variety of beliefs on one side, and a lack of belief on the other, are not in the same category.
Do not assume what people mean. Whether you intend it or not, using the term "belief" in this manner in the infobox will clearly suggest religious beliefs, and so is not a solution.
You gave an opinion regarding NPOV. I disagreed, and said I would argue the opposite. I don't see any arguments on your side on that. "Religion: none" is neutral. It does not tell the whole story, but that is impossible to do in the infobox anyway. Omitting the field entirely, if the information is not relevant or not sourced, is also neutral. Omnedon (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, somebody can have no religion, without having self-identified as an atheist. In that case the proper choice is "none". If the person has self-identified as atheist, only then is "atheist" the right choice. WP:CAT/EGRS strongly supports this point differentiation. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those supporting omitting the parameter:
Traditionally, a blank infobox parameter ("Religion =", which is not displayed) has been interpreted as "we don't know, fill this in when you find a reliable source". If, as seems likely, this option is supported by consensus, should the "Religion =" portion be removed from the infoboxes of individuals who have no religion? Or just the "None"? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that when applying for an id (e.g., passport) that requires hair color to be listed, someone who is bald is likely to have 'bald' or 'none' put down. --Erp (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: You wrote: "Traditionally, a blank infobox parameter ("Religion =", which is not displayed) has been interpreted as 'we don't know, fill this in when you find a reliable source'." That's incorrect. Like many infobox parameters, the parameter is only filled out if relevant (and even if relevant it must be supported by a statement in the body text and a verification with a WP:RS citation). For the vast majority of persons, their religion or religious affiliation is irrelevant, never mind often being subject to various changes throughout a lifetime. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Infobox sucks for the depiction of religion. Bottom line: leave it out. It doesn't matter if the person is a rabbi or a priest or an imam. Leave it out. Attributes of identity including religion, beliefs, spirituality, racial affiliation, ethnicity, philosophy and Weltanschauung as well as many other related attributes can and should be addressed in the body of the article. The Infobox cannot summarize succinctly an area of identity that arguably is unique in each case. We are reducing people by cramming them into such a field. Whatever their attributes within these sorts of realms, it is expansion and explanation that we should be aiming for. The Infobox format is counterproductive concerning the sorts of information that we are discussing. Prose writing lends itself to custom-tailored depiction within these realms but filling in a field in an Infobox simply does a disservice to the depicted individual. Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've !voted twice, in different sections, to cover differentiable cases.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as it is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, the thought that using "religion = none" is a good idea is on the same level as the thought that "criminal_status = none" on every article using this infobox would be a good idea. The honest truth is, religion is not a defining characteristic for 99.99% of Wikipedia's biographies and it should not be used even for people for whom we know their religious affiliation except in a small number of specific cases. Forcing "religion = none" onto people who are not religious is, frankly, offensive. Resolute 15:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike "criminal status", "religion" is a crucial part of most people's lives and often defines their thoughts, behaviors, conduct, and other views. Whereas you don't need to know someone's criminal record to understand their beliefs, you do need to know their religious affiliation(s), or lack thereof. Anyway, when concerning BLP articles, detailing past unrelated criminal offenses, or previous ones which are no longer applicable, will hardly fly. Religious affiliation does. Although I can understand with the rationale of omitting it when not relevant, and I can begrudgingly respect that ruling, it's certainly not how I'd prefer things be handled. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. Resolute 16:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's my opinion, just like yours appears to be. But feel free to Google it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 002

  • Thoughts – I believe this proposal, however meritorious, is structurally flawed. It brings forth only two specific options and a catch-all third section for alternative views. I gave my support in the latter section, but since my alternative view is significantly long, I'd rather not clutter up the section above. (I chose to clutter this section instead.) Anyway, I'd like feedback on this if anyone's interested.
In my opinion, the religion infobox parameter should be used if and only if the religion of the individual is known. Unless there is a specific and valid reason for excluding the information, said information should always be included if the individual's religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is known and, preferably, verifiable. On the matter of irreligion, or when the individual holds no specific religious affiliation, I think it's important to specify their nonreligious spiritual beliefs (or lack thereof) when available. The problem I have with the above proposals, however, is that the first is liable to inadequately describe the individual's views, and the second doesn't seem to allow for specifications outside of "atheist" or "agnostic", or the omission of these specifications if not applicable (doing so would render it little better than the first proposal). I'll address my concerns with both proposals first (par. 3 and 4), then add a comment on the labels being used (par. 5), and finally proceed to specifying my proposal (par. 6).
The first proposal appears to be the usual convention, but it's not ideal. Although it's technically true that someone who is, say, a Christian atheist, has no religion, this fails to actually clarify the type of irreligion they follow. If the parameter simply states "None", and the article does not specify the particular form of irreligion of the individual, how am I to know whether that person is a hardcore gnostic atheist and not a pantheist, or an agnostic Deist and not a spiritual nontheist? Similarly, some people hold spiritual beliefs, but refuse to identify as any single religion. An individual who believes in a Christian God but rejects the Christian religion is technically an irreligious individual. Should this person be described as "None" by virtue of their irreligion, or "Christian" by virtue of their beliefs despite rejecting that label? Although "None" as a label may apply to some, it may not apply to all, or even most, of the individuals who would be classified as such under this proposal.
The second proposal is an improvement in that is specifies the type of irreligion of the individual, but it appears to be limited in its specificity—or perhaps even static, in which case it's worse than the ambiguity Proposal 1 provides. Under which circumstances should these labels apply? Is someone described as "None (agnostic)" because they have specified that they are agnostic, or because they haven't stated that they're an atheist? Would a person who is neither agnostic nor atheist be labeled as simply "None", or would they receive their own parenthetical specification, or would they be mislabeled as agnostic or atheist? This second proposal is unclear and ultimately too simplistic to adequately replace Proposal 1 as the new convention.
I have a problem with us treating agnostic and atheist as mutually exclusive terms. Time and time again, scientists, philosophers, and scholars have clarified that (a)gnosticism is the degree of confidence or certainty in one's belief in God (or anything, actually), whereas (a)theism is the state of one's belief in a divine creator or deity. Individuals can be agnostic atheists, gnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic theists; gnostic or agnostic pantheists, deists, polytheists; and even agnostic or gnostic apatheists. Thus, the second proposal may be further flawed because it appears to be perpetuating the flawed and mistaken idea that agnosticism is a position conflicting with atheism. If it isn't, it's strange that it would make this distinction, since so-called "true agnosticism"—agnosticism wherein one suspends their belief entirely, in particular regarding theistic claims, and refuses to assert anything whatsoever—is so extraordinarily rare that few people actually and consistently possess it.
Ever the precisionist, I think a blanket ruling will only worsen the state of affairs. Things need to be more specific, inclusive, and comprehensive in order to ensure the greatest benefit. I personally think that "None" should be used if and only if no other irreligious affiliation is known. If it is, then it should be specified. If the individual is an agnostic atheist, it should read "None (agnostic atheist)"; if the person is is a pandeist, but their degree of confidence or certainty is not known, it should read "None (pandeist)"; if the person is irreligious but still otherwise adheres to Christianity, then it should read "None (irreligious Christian). Only if the person is a so-called "true agnostic" should it be specified that they are "None (agnostic)". This may be a bit more complex, but it will ensure that the greatest amount of relevant, notable, and useful information is conveyed; and that we respect the fact that the individual is (or was) irreligious (hence the technical "None").
As an anecdote, I'm an agnostic apatheist. Although apatheism is a form of atheism, I would not want to be classified as an atheist. I disagree with many of the adjacent views many atheists hold, and I am critical of militant or otherwise aggressive atheists, so I would rather distance myself from them. Although I technically satisfy the criteria for agnostic atheism, and I am for all intents and purposes a type of atheist, I prefer to identify as an apatheist because it more accurately describes and specifies my views. If there was an article written about me, I would want my "religion" infobox parameter to state "None (agnostic apatheist)". I would strongly disagree with the label of "atheist" because it does not accurately describe my views, and I would disagree with the label of "agnostic" because it although I am very close to being a true agnostic, I am unable to suspend my beliefs like one would, so this does not accurately describe me either. Moreover, labeling my religion as simply "None" is problematic because although it is technically true, many readers would assume that to imply I'm an atheist, since atheism is one of the most widely known forms of irreligion. Thus, if a BLP article were written about me, I'd want my irreligion specified.
Since Guy Macon is fine with this post, I've omitted the last paragraph. I still feel bad about the length, though! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
t@Nøkkenbuer: tl;dr You will need to learn to be succinct, otherwise we will not read and will not get your point - Cwobeel (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it is indeed true that many readers will not read a six-paragraph comment, that is because most six-paragraph comments spend six paragraphs saying what could be said in two or three sentences. In some cases, and the above is a good example, it takes six paragraphs to fully explain something. There is room in this world for both kinds of communication. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right that I need to learn to be more succinct. Unfortunately, English is a verbose language, Latin is a dead one, and after the numerous drafts and edits I make to every single one of my lengthy posts, any further omission would compromise the essential or otherwise important content and information I am attempting to convey. If I must, I will write a TL;DR to summarize my above post. Otherwise, I can only hope that other users see my wall of text and pause to consider rather than admire or scowl. I know I'm wordy, though. Sorry about that. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: @Nøkkenbuer; WOW! An agnostic apatheist atheist! That would be to hard for me and tiring. One the one hand "agnostic"; "claims such as whether or not God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.", while at the same time (I assume), apatheist; "acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity", and atheist; "the rejection of belief in the existence of deities". I am glad I am dumb enough to belief in a higher power but not too smart to try to over-psychoanalyze why. I suppose if you were really smart you could have good conversations with yourself about why you reject the notion, thinking it unknown or unknowable (maybe possible?), but surely don't give a crap.
As per above you are passionate about your opinion (confusing to others or not), but because I believe in God, as do others, does not give me any more reason to try to force my "beliefs" on you, and those that do not share mine, than it does you to try to change a template to reflect an unknown (not listed, or maybe not even covered by the contents with references of course.) in very possible conflict with the subjects actual belief. If a belief (of any persuasion) is not covered by a source it is still original research to place something in a template not reflected in source. If unknown then that wording is acceptable, if "none" is listed or known (unknown), then that is what is acceptable, and I see it as a push to try to add something that may or may not be there. Otr500 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I describe myself as an agnostic apatheist because I adhere to an agnostic worldview, in that I know that I know nothing and I don't even know whether I know nothing. Absolute certainty may be absolutely impossible, so I settle for approximations and near certainties. I am an apatheist because although I am critical of religion (I am critical of everything), I have grown tired of it and usually don't discuss it unless necessary. To me, the existence of God is irrelevant to my life. If God exists, then that deity should be satisfied with my very existence and self-expression as sufficient worship. I will not worship a deity forces me to placate myself or risk eternal damnation. A just God is a God which revels in its creations. Thus, even if God could be proven, I wouldn't change my life. I was once a devout Baptist Christian and apologetic. Over time, however, I adopted a more freethinking stance and decides to cut out faith as absurd. Not the most sophisticated stance, but I'm new to philosophy. Perhaps my views will change one day, though. I haven't met Kierkegaard yet, after all. We should probably focus on the topic, though, since these sorts of discussions run the risk of sidetracking an RfC. If you want to continue this first topic, feel free to leave me a message. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your second paragraph means, but I think you're saying that we should not be trying to force any specification where none exists. If so, then I agree with that. I believe we should specify "None" if and only if we know this to be the correct specification of the individual's religion, and it does not conflict with any other issues which validate its exclusion. Preferably, I'd like a citation next to it, but this I'm concerned that requiring it in this instance would detract from the overall appeal of my alternative proposal. Ideally, I would like for every religious or irreligious specification to be cited, but that may prove to be far more difficult than expected.
Similarly, we should specify the type of irreligion if and only if we know which specific type of irreligious view the individual holds, and and it does not conflict with any other issues which validate its exclusion, and there is a citation to verify this. The reason why I believe the a citation should be a requisite in this instance is because we are now asserting something specific which may or may not be included in the body, so we should support this with verifying evidence. That shouldn't be hard, seeing as it's likely someone would only know the individual's specific type of irreligion through their assertion in a reliable source. Naturally, if no type of irreligion is known, it should remain as simply "None", just like if the irreligion of the individual is not known, even "None" should not be specified. I hope that makes sense. If I mistook your meaning, then I apologize. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hypothetical The writer of the sequel to Jesus Christ, Superstar says in interviews "I don't believe in a god". What should their inbox show? Would it be any different for a presidential candidate? NebY (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    First, has relevance been established? If not, we're done. If so, do the sources identify this person as atheist or agnostic? If so, we say "Belief:atheism" or "Belief:agnosticism". If not, we don't commit original research. We might choose to quote him in the body, or not. There's nothing new here, folks, as much as we seem to be trying to make it that way. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming their statement was meant to be taken seriously, and the article was a biography about the writer, I would check to see if there is any more information about the individual's spiritual beliefs. If none could be found, I would personally not add the parameter. Not believing in God, depending on the context, could be anything from an atheistic assertion to a rejection of the God of whichever prevailing religion, most probably Christianity, which is technically not an atheist in the modern, general sense of the term. Moreover, lack of belief in a deity only entails some form of atheism, but does not devoid them of religious affiliation. The person could be an atheistic Buddhist for all I know. Thus, if that is the only information I had of the person, I wouldn't add anything additional to the infobox. I may, however, add the information into the article where appropriate, along with the interview as a citation. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 003

A note about !vote counting

If you !voted with a comment such as "Omit the parameter unless..." or "Omit the parameter - Except in cases where..." your !vote is likely to be counted as not voting for anything. Given the strong feelings and absolute refusal to follow consensus by certain individuals, we really need every !vote to be crystal clear as to what that user is and is not supporting. Conditionals make your !vote a matter of interpretation, and we have seen that those who want to win a battle here will interpret anything ambiguous as supporting their side. As for myself, I am fine with omitting the parameter in the case of individuals who have no religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT COMMENT: Support changing word: Is it far more important to battle, in a three tier type !voting, with hundreds of comments (some very long) that it is far too important than actually editing on Wikipedia?
The use of the term Religion, and that usage might offend someone religious or non-religious, seems strange. We could just collaborate replacing the dang word with "Belief". This does mean to accept or regard (something) as true. "IF" you "believe" there is a God, do not believe there is a God, don't know, don't care, and I suppose even if you are confused, it is still a belief one way or the other. "IF" you are devoutly religious I can not imagine you being offended that your "religion" would be regarded as your "belief". "IF" you do not believe in God (or a Deity) that is still your "belief". I suppose then we would all have to find another reason to not edit though- LOL. Otr500 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Your !vote is to omit the parameter, but here you seem to support changing the label and including the parameter. Am I missing something? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting the word belief for religion makes no sense. Atheism may or may not be a belief. Agnosticism is generally a non-belief, but not always. The “belief” among many believers that everyone must have a “belief” on this particular subject is a POV. And, frankly, a prejudiced, narrow-minded one. Seriously, a person can have tens of thousands of beliefs. A person can have no opinion on many subjects. A person may have not even thought about some subjects. The effort to turn a person’s world view into one or two words is absurd. See Flying Spaghetti Monster Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are based on so many false premises and distortions that I'm not going to try to respond to them. Except to say that you are applying a definition to the word "belief" that is neither necessary nor useful for our purposes. It is not the only legitimate interpretation of the word, despite your insistence that it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition he is using is straight from the dictionary.
Full Definition of BELIEF:
1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief (Also see: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/belief and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief ).
And I agree with his conclusion that "The “belief” among many believers that everyone must have a “belief” on this particular subject is a POV."
Mandruss, I didn't want to bring this up, but your behavior here is out of line. First you falsely accuse me ("Sir, unless you can show me authoritative atheist sources that support that statement, you have just revealed your POV on this issue loud and clear") just for making the rather uncontroversial statement that Atheism is not a belief but rather is is the lack of one, and now you are accusing Objective3000 of "premises and distortions" for making an equally innocuous and noncontroversial statement. If you are not willing to have a calm, measured discussion based upon logic and evidence and to treat other editors with dignity and respect, then you need to stop contributing to this discussion and edit some other topic that does not trigger this kind of behavior in you.--Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, the statement that Atheism is not a belief but rather is is the lack of one is uncontroversial only to some in this discussion. I'm not one of them. I think I've made that clear enough in my responses, so I'm befuddled that you would still claim that it's uncontroversial. That dismisses my responses as meaningless and insignificant, does it not? As for the other editor, I was in the process of editing my comments when I edit conflicted with you. It was a harsher tone than I should have used, perhaps partly the result of being accused of having a "prejudiced, narrow-minded" POV - by an editor who knows absolutely nothing about me or my editing history. Funny you missed that. But your spanking is not completely undue. I'm out of this at least for awhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL--LOL--LOL--LOL --I hit an edit conflict while typing and I will still post my comments but the comments about "Substituting" proves my point. "Seriously, a person can have tens of thousands of beliefs", and in that context it is "still" a belief. --- I am sure many above would agree (except one so far) the "thousands" of beliefs are narrowed to one in the template. I am still posting my comments but stand by my vote until...:
I would say most likely yes you missed something but I will enlighten you. This is the comment section and the "!vote" section (see above) gives the options: 1)- Support "Religion: None", 2)- Support "Religion: None (atheist)" or "Religion: None (agnostic)", and 3)- Support [other]. In the !vote section I do not see any other options S-O-, that there was no confusion, I supported the option of choices I felt the best. Now, in this the "comment" section, I commented here what seems to me to be a better option. I may be the only one that agrees with this, but I felt it should be seen somewhere. A miracle (sorry- happenstance of circumstances or extreme luck) could happen and a whole bunch of editors could say ---"That is a fantastic idea", or not. I am a realist and this is Wikipedia so I would give the chance of collaboration a negative 10 (-10) handicap but one never knows. If enough editors gave positive comments then I would be on board but I AM NOT going to muddy the waters with a novel idea that may not be well received and give a "not voting for anything" opinion. The way this is set up I don't even know if that option is available and there will be at least some radical replies that might not even make sense (to me). My opinion: "We can not collaborate because it is not fun". Otr500 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think any option you wish to propose is available in the "other" section. That's why it's called "other". And, in fact, I did propose changing Religion to Belief in the "other" section. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is disturbing is the insistence that non-believers in a particular arena, about which they may not even care, be classified, in an encyclopedia infobox, with one word, that many other people may consider a qualification for their distrust or even hatred or even death-wish. We live in a world where people of multiple religions have slaughtered each other, over many eras, for their lack of “belief”, however they may personally define the term. Should we put a yellow star on the BLPs for Jews?
Humans are complex. How would you define Søren Kierkegaard? The WP article on him correctly doesn’t use the religion attribute – even though religion was what he discussed so often. It just ain’t that simple. A person's beliefs or worldview should never be reduced to one word. Objective3000 (talk) 00:39, 23 Apr 2015 (UTC)
A person may have not even thought about some subjects.
non-believers in a particular arena, about which they may not even care,
I don't speak for anyone else, but you're not understanding my intent in this. If you read some of the existing discussion, you'll find that people such as these would not have this field stated in their infobox, so it can't be an issue. Even if a person did have strong beliefs in this area, they would not have the field stated in their infobox unless those beliefs were deemed relevant by the editors working on the article. So your concerns about this are misinformed and unfounded. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is only what a few people have said. So no, my concerns are real. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you're fine with my approach, and I have your support? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." --Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox --Guy Macon (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally classify Kierkegaard as an irreligious gnostic Christian existentialist. However, unless we have a source claiming he belongs to any particular creed or specifying his exact religious position, it's difficult to add a parameter detailing it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with changing the parameter from "Religion" to "Belief" is that the term "Belief" is a very broad one which can entail a lot of ambiguity. It is moreover an very inclusive term, meaning that changing this parameter would fundamentally alter the function of said parameter. What exactly is a belief, then? Only spiritual, supernatural, religious, or esoteric ones? What about economic beliefs, such as Capitalism or Communism or Nordic economics? Or political systems, like Republicanism or Democratism or Monarchism? What qualifies as a belief? In my opinion, if we were to change the name of the parameter and expand its function, it would need to still be specific to spiritual beliefs. Thus, it should be changed to "Spiritual belief(s)" or "Theological belief(s)" if anything. Otherwise, it should remain as "religion" for lack of a better term which adequately encompasses the whole of human theology—and no, "theology" wouldn't work because theology is the study of spirituality and not a state of spiritual opinion in and of itself. In my opinion, the proposal I offered above could adequately resolve this matter. Too bad it's more complex than what is currently being proposed. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Humanism, Secular Humanism, strains of Quaker philosophy, differences in Unitarian/Universalism fellowships; look at the articles here on Atheism and Agnosticism. I know that some people think that these are simple words with obvious meanings, as if philosophers hadn't debated about them for centuries. And that’s just a few terms. Look at the various doubts expressed by so many famous Catholics over centuries, or the large variations of Judaism, or the claim by many born-again Christians that other Christians aren’t real, or so many other nuances to religious terminology. Anyone that claims that we can define a person’s beliefs by one word clearly has a strong POV. Objective3000 (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put this another way. An infobox lists noncontroversial, simple, clearly correct facts: spouse, birth/death date, children, citizenship, awards. If anyone thinks that religion or belief is a clear, noncontroversial, simple fact – why are we having this long discussion? Objective3000 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some of the things in infoboxes, but nowhere is it written that everything in an infobox has to be of that type.
For starters, the Belief field is not intended to fully define anything. That's the function of the body text. Infobox fields are incomplete by design, as the above boldfaced text attempts to convey. Do you object to the current practice of stating, for example, Religion:Roman Catholic in the infobox? Is that a full definition of that person's spiritual beliefs? I doubt it. Infobox fields are summaries, readers should not take them as anything more than summaries, and I doubt many reasonably intelligent readers do. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spouse, birth/death date, children, citizenship, awards are noncontroversial, simple facts. You could call Kierkegaard a Catholic, or a Lutheran, or a Christian, or an agnostic, or an existentialist. They would all have an element of truth. YES, I object to the practice of stating Religion: Roman Catholic, unless no rational person would have an argument against the fact. And even Mother Theresa expressed doubts, which in the minds of many people means she wasn’t really a Catholic. Why would we insert ourselves in this? And why, please why, do some people think we need to be classified by religion? Does the infobox have eye-color? That would be less controversial and more factual. Perhaps we should add the exact degree of melanin in the skin. Objective3000 (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're venturing outside the scope of this RfC. We can't change any of those things here, site-wide, so it's an off-topic waste to discuss them here. For that kind of discussion, I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), where you'll no doubt get a lot of very animated discussion about that. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the third time you have made a non-response response. I'll wait for an actual response to what I said. Objective3000 (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you what I thought was a helpful and constructive response. If someone else feels like impeding this process by engaging you in off-topic discussion, I guess that's between them and the rest of the participants here. Actually I think I've contributed about all I can here, and I'm getting virtually no support for my position, so my time will be better spent elsewhere. Adios amigo. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000, as Mandruss has explained several times, " Even if a person did have strong beliefs in this area, they would not have the field stated in their infobox unless those beliefs were deemed relevant by the editors working on the article. So your concerns about this are misinformed and unfounded." Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There would be a problem concerning Jews because a nonobservant Jew would have an Infobox entry "Religion: None" and an observant Jew would have an Infobox entry "Religion: Judaism". It is not common parlance to say that a nonobservant Jew has no religion. Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are apparently mistakenly equating non-observance with atheism. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore a Jewish atheist would have an Infobox entry "Religion: None"? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an entry was justified at all, then obviously... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore all the individuals in Category:Jewish atheists would have Infobox entries "Religion: None"? Bus stop (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 004

So... where exactly can I write my support considering that the above sections have lead "DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION."?

Anyways, I think it should be "None (atheist)". Especially with politicians saying that they are atheist is a statement beyond mere information of them having no religion. It is important for their voters and it may be important information also for the wikipedia readers. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You write your support in the section; however, you do not reply in that section, as in you do not begin a threaded discussion there. Only announce your support, but do not reply to other supporters there. If you want to reply to the other supporters, do so in the Threaded Discussion section. This is detailed in the Ground Rules section. Please be sure to read the rules before commenting in an RfC. Considering your opinion, you may want to put your support in either Proposal 2 or Proposal 3 (other). I recommend reading some of the threaded discussions as well to see if that's where you want to lend your support. I'm pretty sure you can change your support any time so long as the RfC is still going. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. You can change your support !vote at any time, and indeed this is advised if near near the end of the 30 days it is clear that your choice will not pass and you want to support one of the alternatives that has a chance of winning. The usual way to do this is to use <s> and </s> to strike out your old support comment and then post a new one. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: when we are talking about None, what is intended with that word? Is it no religion at all, no specific religion, not one of an official religions, or a lack of sources about what the persons believes? In computer science, None has the specific meaning of uncertainty, ie neither yes or no, so that no concrete conclusion can be drawn from it. My question then is, how should "Religion = None" and "Religion= None (atheist)" be interpreted? Belorn (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, or at least in the context of the infobox, I think "None" means "No religion". Some people (many people?) interpret this as meaning "No religion and also an atheist" since irreligious atheism is the most common form of irreligion. Specifying the type of irreligion in parentheses can improve this, but it creates future problems as well. I would assume that "Unknown" or "N/A" would be used if the individual's religion or irreligion is unknown and the parameter is still specified. Many times, however, if "Unknown" is the answer, the parameter will simply be omitted unless it is important to specify the unknown state of the individual's religious beliefs.
From my understanding, "None (atheist)" is meant to specify the type of irreligion the individual identifies as. Thus, "None (atheist)" would be read as "No religious affiliation and is an atheist". Similarly, "None (agnostic)" seems to be specifying that the person is an agnostic atheist, though it could simply mean that the person is a strict agnostic (I raised this issue above in 002). The purpose of the parenthetical addition is to specify what the person is if they do not adhere to any particular religion. It's not meant to imply, at least from my understanding, that atheism is a religion; rather, it is meant to clarify the type of irreligion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse parameter and surnames

A user on Talk:Bruce Jenner pointed out that some pages using {{Infobox person}} or similar templates have the spouse's name before marriage despite article titles being the married name. This does not seem to occur on all pages, but it occurs often (e.g., Barack Obama, Stephen Hawking).

I can find no discussion on this in the archives here or on WP:BIOG. There is no such guidelines for this format on this or any other related infobox. If anyone knows of past discussion where this pattern was decided by consensus, can you please point it to me? If so, the infobox template pages should be updated to reflect this. Or is this an informal rule of some manner?

If there has not been discussion on this yet, I would like to begin some here. Personally I don't see much reason to use the pre-marriage name of the spouse if the common name and/or article title is the post-marriage name. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_person&oldid=658836902"