|
In the context of WP:WEIGHT, under what circumstances should a person's religion be highlighted in infoboxes? Should default inclusion be allowed, if known or if it can be deduced? If not, what threshold should there be for inclusion? 05:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- The "religion=" parameter should be left empty by default. WP:WEIGHT is part of WP:NPOV which is policy rather than a guideline.
- Infoboxes are not mandatory and editors frequently keep them off biography articles. When included, they draw attention to fundamental facts about a person. When sources make clear that religion is a prominent and fundamental aspect of a person, a body would expect the religion to appear along with the subject's birthdate, offices held, etc. Infoboxes should not place undue weight on that religion when it plays a small rôle in a person's biography (this applies to all parameters). If there is any question about a person's faith, or if that person's beliefs are nuanced, it should be handled in the body of the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Support of Curly Turkey's interpretation. Infoboxes are not the place for anything that is nuanced, contentious, or ambiguous, nor should they be used to give undue weight to things that play a small role in a person's life. There is nothing wrong with covering a topic in the body of the article. Please note that in the case of political candidates, their opposition may wish to make a big deal about something that plays a small role in a person's life. In such cases, the information shopuld be in the body where we can cover who claims what. again, There is nothing wrong with covering a topic in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Support as well for both of the above-explained reasons by Curly Turkey and Guy Macon. Infoboxes are not mandatory and should not point out contentious information about a person. Depending on the role said religion plays in a persons life will determine whether or not it is included in the infobox, or whether it is just simply stated in the body of the article. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is another load of horseshit. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to avoid describing Bernie Sanders in his infobox as Jewish or yellow-badge him as "inactive" when the man himself identifies as Jewish, reliable sources identify him as Jewish, and no reliable source says he's not Jewish or that he's "inactive" -- but Donald Trump's infobox says he's a Presbyterian when he hasn't been to church in years (The church has said he is "not an active member".[327]) and he says "he has not asked God for forgiveness for his sins.[330]" Do you know how to say lying hypocrite? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- If Curly's preferred option wins the day, that would mean the removal of the parameter from Trump's infobox. If that doesn't happen, then you might have a case for a "hypocrisy" argument - but at the moment you really need to dial it back. This is a venue to discuss general principles, not argue over specific articles or yell at specific editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Um, I actually think that lying hypocrite referred to Trump. And I'd certainly support adding |hypocrite type=lying to Trump's {Infobox person}, if such a parameter's available. EEng 18:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- If so, I apologize for the error, while noting that calling people trolls is still unacceptable behavior. Of course one's opinion of Trump also doesn't belong on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- @EEng and Guy Macon: No, Malik's making it clear on his talk page that he considers me the liar and hypocrite, though he appears to be confusing me with someone else. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I contributed under the Discussion section of a "Request for Comment", so did not feel it necessary to give specific citations to policies and guidelines that I believed would be well known to participants at Template talk:Infobox.
- WP:INFOBOXREF: References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious.
- Template:Infobox_person/doc: religion: 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.
- WP:BLPCAT: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.
- For the particular US politician that this seems to be about, the fact that it is being reported in reliable sources that if elected he will be the first <x> to hold <y> position, that makes it relevant to his public life. --Scott Davis Talk 23:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is not about any particular person—I held and expressed the view above before I ever knew the US politician you refer to (most recently in the RfC: "Religion in infoboxes" RfC above). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!
- There does not appear to be a proposition for this RfC for me to "Support" or "Oppose", so I presented the answer as I would normally apply it as an editor, and expect to find it as a reader. I have now backed up my principles with the chain of guidance from which it is derived. I think that in the context of a USA Presidential election, the religion, denomination, and how active the candidates are in their religious practices and church/mosque/synagogue/temple is likely to be relevant to a significant number of readers, and relatively easy to find in published sources. I got drawn in to the RfC above well before I recognised that there are several editors who seem to be drawing a wide circle around particular articles. I apologise for accidentally counting you in that set. I believe that most content issues can be addressed in the talk page for each relevant article within broad and permissive guidelines that recognise there are many different specific situations. --Scott Davis Talk 01:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I might be inclined to agree with you, except that a number of editors insist that the "| religion=" field be filled in by default (as we can see from the non-religion in infoboxes RfC)---and that that bare "fact" is beyond discussion. If it is a fact, then that should be determined here rather than on thousands of article talk pages. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- The subject's religion should be included in an article's infobox where it is mentioned in the article text with support from an appropriate citation. Supplementary info (typically in parentheses) should be permitted in the infobox, assuming the details are described and cited in the text, such as denomination, previous religion, et cetera. A parenthetical may be necessary to avoid misleading readers. P.S. I have previously been involved in this issue at the Bernie Sanders article, but I promise (so help me God!) to never !vote about that BLP's infobox-religion-field at that article's talk page, and will never edit that field, as long as I live, lest I be topic-banned for manipulating the rules in order to benefit my position in a content dispute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant: This argument would apply to every parameter in the infobox. Is it your opinion that Infobox fields should be filled in by default? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what it means to fill in an infobox field "by default".Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- As in, the default should be to fill it rather than leave it empty. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- It should be left empty until a human fills it in. And a human should not fill it in if it's not mentioned in the article text with support from an appropriate citation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Meaning "default" as you've defined it: "The subject's religion should be included in an article's infobox where it is mentioned in the article text with support from an appropriate citation." Now apply this to every other parameter: "The subject's XXX should be included in an article's infobox where it is mentioned in the article text with support from an appropriate citation." Is this what you believe? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Per MOS:INFOBOX, "which parts of the infobox to use ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". That's a general rule. As to religion specifically, which is what this RFC is about, I don't think editors at each article ought to be totally free to do whatever they want, for example by including it in infoboxes for Christians but not for Muslims.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think I would define this as "by default". To me "filled by default" would mean that the {{infobox person}} code would display "Religion: not specified" until such time as the
|religion= field is filled in.
- The infobox should reflect the article, not define it. If there is text in an article that can be adequately summarised in an infobox, then in general I would expect it to be filled in in the infobox. So, for any infobox field, the question should be "is this thing described in the text?". If it is, then summarise to the infobox as well. If it is not in the text, then it is either unknown to the editors at this time, or inconsequential to the subject (or both), and should not be synthesised, or it is obvious to anyone familiar with the subject and can be put in the infobox with a reference even if it might look odd to write a sentence in the article (for example what electoral district a town is in might only need to be in the infobox for the town article). --Scott Davis Talk 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think you're making two separate arguments here - "If there is text in an article that can be adequately summarized in an infobox" (my emphasis) vs "is this thing described in the text". The former is far more convincing, in combination with an understanding that something might be "inconsequential to the subject" enough that it doesn't warrant mention in the infobox even if it is mentioned in the article. After all, the infobox is meant to be a summary of key facts, but the article isn't thus limited. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria has a remarkable gift for expressing exactly what I was trying to say. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect that we would not actually disagree on any given article, even though we might approach the same conclusion from different angles. I cannot think of an example where I would think it worth writing and citing in the text "Fred is Anglican" but not include it in the infobox, however there are lots of people whom I would not think it necessary to report their religion in the text at all (and hence not in the infobox or categories). To me the qualifying "that can be adequately summarized in an infobox" is to avoid trying to summarise something in less than three words that took two paragraphs of prose to explain ("Fred claimed to be Protestant but only ever left the Mosque to attend a Catholic church despite his public proclamations against Papism"). --Scott Davis Talk 05:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Curly Turkey's reasoning. The "religion" field should only be used when one's religious affiliation is something a subject is prominently noted for, such as Anne Frank or Martin Luther. For people whose affiliation isn't something they're particularly noted for, it's perfectly fine to just discuss their beliefs (or lack thereof) within the article body. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support
I support Curly Turkey's reasoning but I think you'll need to word it a bit tighter or every BLP will end up having a fight about whether or not religion is notable enough about this person to be worth mentioning. SPACKlick (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Having thought about this further, my position is closer to ScottDavis' above. Is the answer to the parameter in the article? Then it should be in the infobox. The reason I specify answer is that some parameters will only be discussed insofar as it is unknown or indeterminate what the answer is. Say famous figures with several claimed resting places. If the factor is so irrelevant as to not be contained within the article, for instance a person who's burial place is a specific cemetery but that fact isn't discussed in RS sufficient to warrant inclusion in the article then it shouldn't be solely mentioned in the infobox. SPACKlick (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Summoned by bot. I agree with the comments of Snuggums and others that the religion of the subject should be mentioned in the infobox only where amply sourced and relevant to the subject matter, such as two examples given, Anne Frank or Martin Luther. But Joe Blow, legislator, doesn't get tagged as a Methodist just because it appears somewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Coretheapple. Alas, if the Bernie Sanders talk page is any indication, it looks like removing the religion from each individual legislator and candidate will likely involve a huge fight with multiple editors who want what they want and don't care what the Wikipedia policies and guidelines say. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Coretheapple's sentiment, but would amend his statement to read the religion of the subject should never be mentioned in an infobox unless amply sourced and relevant to the subject matter. Yeah I know, but I like the never better than should be which you can bet your bottom dollar on would create screeds and screeds of debate because some people would not even see the word only. Moriori (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree with Coretheapple and Curley Turkey and Wikipedia Policy that the
|religion= field is left blank and unused unless that person's religious beliefs are a defining characteristic of his/her public notability. It is not enough that some (or even many) sources mention a person's religion, and it is not enough (although it is required) that a person self-identify with religious beliefs; high-quality reliable sources must also commonly and consistently define the person as notable because of those religious beliefs. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- By the way, you are incorrect. It refers to Categories as well as Templates. As WP:CATGRS informs us: This advice applies only to the main namespace (articles, including lists, disambiguation pages, navigation boxes, and templates normally used in articles). And as WP:BLPCAT says about Religion in Categories: "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs." Of course it would be nonsensical for Wikipedia to create strict policy regarding the categorization of people by Religion, Gender, Ethnicity — but then say something akin to "...except in Infoboxes where it is no-holds-barred." Xenophrenic (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Xenophrenic makes a very good point, but I would add that for certain BLPs -- especially US presidential candidates -- there will always be multiple editors that argue that everything about the individual in notable, citing the fact that even the most trivial aspects of the candidate's life are discussed at length in multiple sources. Just Google "ted cruz stryper" and you will see articles from CNN, Billboard, New York Daily News, Esquire Magazine, Salon, the Music Times, Dayton Daily News, and Fox news, all covering the vital issue of whether Ted Cruz looks like/is the lead singer for Stryper. I can just imagine trying to deal with someone who argues that this is a defining characteristic of Ted Cruz's public notability. Look at all of the reliable sources establishing the vital importance of the Cruz/Stryper link/non-link! Now try to find a source that says it isn't a defining characteristic! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's the difference between:
- pointing at a lot of sources that discuss a characteristic, and declaring, "it must be a relevant part of his public life", versus
- pointing at a lot of sources that declare a characteristic is a relevant part of his public life, and discuss why.
- A ton of sources discuss whether Obama is a secret Muslim or not, but we certainly don't point at that stack of sources and declare, "Islam must be a relevant part of his public life". WP:NONDEF warns us that editors will often confuse the standards of Notability, Verifiability, and "Definingness". Xenophrenic (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- What is your rationale for extending the policy language found at WP:CATEGORY to WP:INFOBOX? I am aware that WP:BLPCAT states "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements ... " But what I do not find at WP:BLPCAT is any mention of "defining". I fail to see see why religion in an Infobox, if otherwise meeting the requirements found at WP:BLPCAT, must additionally be shown to be "defining". This would create a very high bar for the inclusion of religion. Is this what we want? My understanding is that Wikipedia should, by and large, conform to the reporting guidelines of good quality sources. I'm opposed to Wikipedia-centric standards. My philosophy is basically to mimic reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Look up the Religion entry in Template:Infobox person/doc. And creating a very high bar for the inclusion of religion is exactly what the Wikipedia community wants, as documented in multiple policies and guidelines. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bus stop admits, I fail to see, and I must concur. I wonder at what point failure to see becomes refusal to see. WP:CATGRS, the central guideline that explains to us that Wikipedia treats matters of Religion, Gender and Ethnicity with extra sensitivity, care and restriction, informs us that the policies apply also to "templates normally used in articles" as well as categories; it also explains "defining" characteristics of the article subject. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maybe I'm lacking a sense of humor but I am not understanding why something as oddball as the resemblance to the lead singer of a heavy metal band is being compared to a standard biographical attribute such as religion. I think the onus should be on those who want to omit religion from the Infobox to present the case for deviation from what I think should be considered standard practice. An attribute of identity such as religion has a historically important role in shedding light on the subject of the biography. I think we should be cognizant of our responsibility not only to report that which is of substantive importance but also that which skews perception of a subject of a biography, according to reliable sources. Let me give an example. It may not matter that Bernie Sanders' religion is Jewish but people may perceive him differently with awareness that he is Jewish as opposed to a perception of him in which that attribute of identity is missing. We report what sources report. Do sources omit that he is Jewish? Some might. But we find "relevance" in the reporting of a good many other sources that feel this is a topic to be discussed. By the way, the sources I looked at concerning the lookalike singer from a heavy metal band have virtually nothing further to say other than that there seems to be a resemblance between two people. Quite different from religion. And history tells us of the ample significance given to religion in assessing the significance—at least perceptually—of politicians for high office. I think there is widespread agreement that religion is a standard biographical factor. I think that those wishing to omit religion should bear the burden of presenting a cogent explanation for that case. Bus stop (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think the onus should be on those who want to omit religion from the Infobox to present the case for deviation from what I think should be considered standard practice.: two things: (a) you have to add it before it can be "removed"—the onus is on those who would add anything; (b) it's not standard practice—most infoboxes for people do not include it: Albrecht Dürer? Johann Sebastian Bach? Dante Alighieri? Isaac Newton? Max Planck? and on and on and on. You're intent on making this standard for politicians, and for evidently political motivations. These shenanigans need to stop.
- We report what sources report.: (a) we're talking about infoboxes, not article bodies (b) we filter every piece of information through WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and many other policies and guidelines; Wikipedia is not an information dumping ground. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- You say "You're intent on making this standard for politicians, and for evidently political motivations."[2] Please tell me—what are my "political motivations"? Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I won't pretend I understand Americans' obsession with religious affiliation, but there it is: this is being pushed exclusively in the domain of politicians. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you posed this RfC with the question, concerning religion, "Should default inclusion be allowed..."?[3] Obviously one possible answer to your posed question is Yes, default inclusion should be allowed. I am not being so dogmatic as to say that. But I will repeat that I think religion is a fairly standard ingredient for potential inclusion in a biography. In reality there may not be a simple answer to this question. Each biography could involve a slightly different discussion. You correctly point out that various policies come to bear on this question. I mentioned WP:BLPCAT. Obviously other policies have bearing as well. Perhaps I neglected to mention that. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- The title of the RfC is "Religion in infoboxes and WP:WEIGHT"—you have yet to demonstrate that default inclusion of religion does not violate WEIGHT; you have yet to give any sort of argument supporting why someone's incidentally attending a particular place of worship must be highlighted in an infobox. WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument, and WP:WEIGHT is policy. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- WP:WEIGHT is not necessarily violated when sources present perspectives on the person's religion. As long as religion is of interest to sources it is at least potentially of interest to us. Many factors would contribute to our ultimate decision. But every good quality source weighing in with a perspective on that person's religion is a factor tending to erode an argument of Undue Weight. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Demur. Obsession with trivia found in "celebrity columns", for example, or where there is a scintilla of trying to assert "guilt by association" in any way - even by the source - is objectionable. Wikipedia should never be in the position of promoting "guilt by association" in any article - and most especially not in any article falling under WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Cheers - on this I argue quite vehemently, as I have each and every time the equivalent argument has been made. Collect (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Bus Stop, you have an obnoxious habit of wording your responses as if we were talking about anything but the Infobox. Nobody is suggesting removing this stuff from th ebody, so stop implying it is. Asserting that religion is in all cases a defining part of a person's biography is the extremest of POVs. Religious affiliation is of such overriding importance to you that you would have even the nonreligious prominently marked as such, as per your !vote and comments in the Religion in infoboxes RfC.
- Caution: Bus Stop asserts we should include anything in the article that sources discuss: read this in the light of his attempts to distort, misrepresent, and suppress any and all attempts to introduce well-documented and well-known information he disagreed with for the article on the painting Whaam!: FA1 (17kb), FA2 (33kb). WEIGHT and text-source integrity are not concerns of his. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. It would take a load of time to put together, but in my opinion an arbcom case would result in a site ban. The question in my mind is this; will the amount of time and effort needed to put together a proper arbcom case be larger or smaller than the amount of time and effort needed to deal with Bus Stop's tendentious editing? If anyone is interested in working together with me on this and thus lightening the load, please drop me a note on my talk page -- such a discussion doesn't really belong here. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|
