![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
The forty candidates are:
Extended content
|
---|
Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
|
My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.
You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.
Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Respecting the OP's request, I am starting this in a separate subsection.
Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability.Has that sentence made its way into a guideline? If not, I don't see how it has any weight. I understand that the sentence was part of the proposal, and I understand that the RfC passed per SNOW, but if you read the closer's comments they are referring to other specific parts of the proposal with no indication they even considered the level of consensus for this part. I don't think I'm wikilawyering, but this does point to a sloppy close in my opinion. The closer should have referred to each of the proposal's points individually, or stated that the close applies to all of the points. It seems obvious that this should be done with all "package proposals", to avoid this very problem. Before I give weight to this rule, I'd need to see the RfC re-closed, and optimally by a different closer.
For whatever it's worth, I will chime in here, to mention (for those who don't know) that this issue got traction at the Bernie Sanders article. Sanders is Jewish ethnically (in fact that's a big part of his persona), but religiously not so much, describing himself as secular, not active in organized religion, et cetera. Hillary Clinton seems quite different, in that she does purport to be active and devoted to a particular organized religion. So, I wouldn't have any problem with her religion going in the infobox (and same for Trump). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Having read the above discussion, I'm left with the serious concern that some of you are completely missing the central point. Some are simply ignoring the elephant in the room. This is not a discussion to determine if Clinton (and the other 40 people) is religious, or what religion she observes, or how religious she is or isn't, or whether or not Wikipedia should present that information to our readers. All of those issues are already decided and are outside of the scope of this discussion. This is a discussion to determine if Wikipedia should go beyond conveying encyclopedic information about the religious beliefs of these candidates, by also activating the reserved Categories and Infobox fields used for people
notable for their religion, like Ministers, Rabbis, Popes, Saints, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, Televangelists, Imams, Deacons, etc. To emphasize my point, I'll respond to a few comments above:
For this candidate, her religion became particularly notable at a town hall event in January this year...
That's fine, and that's reason our article might mention it, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're addressing whether religion is also such a significant component of Clinton's notability, to the extent it would justify using the reserved Categories and Infobox fields reserved for subjects who's notability is, at least in part, due to their religious beliefs.
...religion is relevant for every politician, and especially for those running for or holding higher national office.
No; while the religion of politicians running for higher office (in the US) is relevant to some of our readers, we're not discussing that. The question here is whether these politicians are notable because of their religion.
...Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Has that sentence made its way into a guideline? If not, I don't see how it has any weight.
The
WP:BLPCAT policy already instructs us to not use the |Religion=
"unless ... the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." That policy further instructs us to "See
this guideline, which further tells us how to determine if a person's religion is a "
defining characteristic" of the person's notability.
This seems like an appropriate issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion...
It is an equally appropriate issue for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism, unless we are hoping for a somewhat predictable and lopsided response. In my opinion, it's most appropriate for the whole community at large, and therefore should be raised at a location such as the Village Pump. And we did that.
I don't know where these restrictive new criteria came from, but I think they are dead wrong, and I would like the chance to say so at some more general forum.
The restrictive criteria
WP:CATGRS,
WP:BLPCAT, etc., have existed for ages, but have been largely ignored or unenforced, except when the perennial arguments arise over editors misusing religion-related infobox fields or categories. There is no restriction to encyclopedically covering religious beliefs in the body of the article, by the way; this discussion is only about the additional step of categorizing living people as if they were notable because of their religion. And it was discussed (sorry you missed it) at the most general forum available.
There's already an obvious consensus to list US Presidential candidates' religious beliefs, and it's pretty clear that this is relevant to their political status and something the sources cover in great detail.
Very true; that's why we can cover those religious beliefs in their articles, and even add those candidates to list articles. But that is outside of the scope of this discussion, which concerns religion-related Infobox fields and Categories, which serve an entirely different purpose, and shouldn't be used, and a "
list article is often the preferred alternative."
Wikipedia has policies on editing having to do with writing an encyclopedia and operating by consensus. WP:LOCALCON exists in tension with WP:NOTBUREAU. Neither trumps the other. A group of editors cannot willy-nilly ignore policy, but nor can a group of policy wonks edit a policy page in a way that overturns actual practice.
Okay, but then you can't declare just the opposite in the very same breath:
If the editors here and in other articles about US presidential candidates make a decision, that is the outcome, and the Village Pump does not have a lot to say about it.
If I understand you correctly, you just proclaimed that a small group of editors can decide to go against the combination of long-standing, established policy and the consensus of a larger community of editors, and nothing can be done about that? I believe you will find disagreement on that.
I suspect that in a biographical sense, religion only belongs in an infobox if the person is a religious official, saint, etc. That's probably where the confusion lies.
AGREED! That moment of clarity has been lost throughout the rest of this discussion. We are discussing the misuse of |Religion=
fields in biographical infoboxes.
Relevancy to public life or notability seems like a fairly low bar for us to jump over.
Not as low as many editors mistakenly believe. According to long-standing (but often ignored) policy, the |Religion=
field is not to be used for notable people (or candidates) who happen to be religious, or even "very" religious. It is only to be used for people (or candidates) who are notable because of their religion or beliefs. To activate the reserved |Religion=
field in a Wikipedia infobox, it is not enough that the person declare themselves an observer of a religion, and it is not enough that reliable sources convey that a person is an observer of a religion. The person's religion must also be a
defining characteristic of that person. Granted, "in practice" many editors have ignored these requirements, and implemented the |Religion=
field (and related Categories) willy-nilly, with their only concern being that a person's religion be reliably sourced. This has sparked many arguments at many articles, and has spawned many contentious RfCs, with the result being the community-wide decision linked at the top of this discussion, which declared that since editors are having such trouble abiding by the policies on the use of that field, it should be removed from the infobox altogether.
"Hillary Clinton is Methodist" — lead sentence from New York Times article on the subject.[14] No more needed, that fully supports inclusion.
Absolutely incorrect. That fully supports the inclusion of her religion in the body of the BLP article, but does not support the use of the reserved |Religion=
field in the infobox. In fact, if you'll read the accidently omitted remainder of that sentence you quoted, ...but she rarely talks about her faith on the campaign trail
, you'll discover that religion isn't a
defining characteristic of her public notability. She's simply a mainstream religion observer just like nearly two-thirds of the electorate in the US, but its certainly not why she is a notable person - and that's why the use of that infobox field isn't supported. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears to me that, according to citations to reliable sources, Hillary Clinton meets all of our requirements for including her religion in the infobox. I am going to wait a day or so to see if anyone disagrees with my conclusion and then I will close this discussion as resolved. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 07:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Struck because there are some really good arguments for exclusion below. Right now I am undecided. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
21:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
After reading WP:CATDEF (Thanks, Xenophrenic!) it is now clear that I was wrong before. Hillary Clinton does not meet our requirements for including her religion in the infobox. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
, and its use violates both long-standing policy and community consensus.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)|Religion=
field would be properly activated. To the contrary, the only reason the media and press waste ink on their religion at all is because they are running for high office.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
parameter might be added to an infobox. And please don't misunderstand, that RfC covers the much wider span of biographical infoboxes, not just US presidential candidates. The 40 articles chosen by the original poster are just the first of hundreds or thousands of articles presently in violation of established policy to be repaired.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)The policy doesn't say "use the religion field if you find religion to be relevant to a notable person", as many mistaken editors have believed for years. Instead, it specifies that the person's religion must be relevant to their public notability.- Then get the damn close improved per my comments at the top of #Basis, bullet 2, and be done with it. This user abides by consensuses they disagree with. Where is that userbox? ― Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
and |Denomination=
) parameter from the infoboxes." Perhaps the closer unnecessarily commented that the information should still be covered in the body of the article (rather obvious). The closer also unnecessarily commented that if religion is actually a significant defining part of the person's notability, a separate RfC could be held to see if the addition of a custom |Religion=
parameter should be added to just that infobox (also obvious). But community consensus is clearly to remove the field, for a number of very good reasons, and the closer did address each of the three "points" in the RfC proposal. The close could be made even more clear, as you suggest, but I don't think that's where the real need is. I think it would be more productive to make the relevant policy wording more clear, instead.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
20:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
the closer did address each of the three "points" in the RfC proposal.I hear that this is irrelevant to you, but I don't see one word in that close about the notability test. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: We agree that editors would benefit from clearly written guidance on when to invoke the special-case usage of the |religion=
field in biographical infoboxes. I guess we disagree on from where that guidance should come. You appear to be suggesting that the RfC closer should use the closing statement to explicitly explain the applicable policies to be followed, and how they should be followed, by the community. I, on the other hand, feel that "following policy" should be the default course of action, and that doesn't need additional reiteration and detailed explanation in RfC closing statements. If there exists any ambiguity in existing policy, that ambiguity should be cleared up not in a closing statement of an RfC, but in our policy pages themselves.
@
Wikidemon: We shouldn't need to wikilawyer the RfC close or existing guidelines. To me, the RfC close is simply understood: Remove the field as a default from all biographical infoboxes, with the rare retaining of the field being a special-case situation requiring discussion, or if necessary, another RfC for that specific article. That we should follow Wikipedia policy is implicit in the close, as it is in all RfC closes, and shouldn't require superfluous instruction that we should do so. But it is evident from the present widespread use of the field against existing policy that there must be either some ambiguity in our guidelines, or epidemic confusion in their interpretation and application. It's analogous to our traffic laws in the US: We have laws (i.e.; policies) on the books prohibiting "distracted" and "reckless" driving, yet every other driver on the road is using their cell phone (i.e.; |Religion=
field) anyway, arguing that it doesn't really violate the law - and "besides, everyone does it". Only after the frequency of cell phone-related car accidents (i.e.; edit-wars, arguments) becomes realized and untenable is direct action implemented (i.e.; this latest RfC & it's implementation) to finally force compliance with existing law.
In my opinion, the biggest policy ambiguity exists in use of the wording "relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATGRS. Editors can interpret that in several conflicting ways if they don't follow the embedded links to clearer, more detailed explanations which explain that we are to use defining characteristics, like this explanation linked from WP:CATDEF...
Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category [or infobox field] should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative.
- a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
That more clearly explains that until Clinton is consistently referred to in reliable sources (and our WP:LEAD) as "Methodist Secretary of State Clinton", or "Senator and Methodist Hillary Clinton", or "Methodist and former First Lady Hillary Clintion", we are not to use the religion-related categories, infobox fields and navigation templates. Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
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. Not only does the Categorization of People page explain that certain categories on Wikipedia are "sensitive" (those relating to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability), but it also explains to us how to determine if these are or are not defining characteristics of a living person. If you consider the reasoning behind the development of additional guidelines and restrictions for just these 5 characteristics, and the admonishment that these "sensitive" characteristics are to be handled with additional care, it would be obvious to you that the "mistake of logic" would be to assume that religion and ethnicity, etc., magically becomes non-sensitive on Wikipedia just because you are reading a different guideline page.
As I have argued elsewhere, I think this should not be an infobox category But I do not think this should be left to each article's editors to decide yes or no on an ad hoc basis, based on unclear policy rules. Actually, the argument that inclusion of an infobox parameter should be on an exceptional basis is manifestly nonsensical. Parameters are not exceptional issues, they are regular categorization. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have any feelings one way or another about starting an RfC about what to do about religious affiliation infobox parameter for US political candidates project-wide? I'm hoping not to repeat the above argument again here, just asking whether this could be settled once and for all through an RfC that is directly on point, and noticed to all of the 2016 national election articles and bios (or at least, the Presidential candidate ones). I'm sure everyone here would respect the outcome, and I have a feeling it will be either to remove them all, or a case-by-case decision something along the standard Xenophrenic is suggesting. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|religion=
field, and the related |denomination=
field, has already been established, and the broad implementation of that mandate has already been given the green light. Are you suggesting we launch an RfC here to determine if this Hillary Clinton biographical article can be one of the rare exceptions to that mandate, and allow the use of the field in this infobox to convey to our readers that being a Methodist is why she is famous and notable? (Please be clear that the body of our article is were we explain that she is a Methodist, while the use of the infobox field is how we additionally explain that being a Methodist is why she is notable.) We can certainly start a Hillary-specific RfC, of course, as the recently concluded Biographical Infobox RfC close statement (and indeed, even WP:IAR) allows for that.|religion=
field in her biography infobox. Are you saying there is disagreement that it should be used, or disagreement that it should not be used? And what, in your opinion, is the strongest (disagreeing) argument to date?![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.
Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):
The forty candidates are:
Extended content
|
---|
Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
|
My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.
You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.
Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Respecting the OP's request, I am starting this in a separate subsection.
Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability.Has that sentence made its way into a guideline? If not, I don't see how it has any weight. I understand that the sentence was part of the proposal, and I understand that the RfC passed per SNOW, but if you read the closer's comments they are referring to other specific parts of the proposal with no indication they even considered the level of consensus for this part. I don't think I'm wikilawyering, but this does point to a sloppy close in my opinion. The closer should have referred to each of the proposal's points individually, or stated that the close applies to all of the points. It seems obvious that this should be done with all "package proposals", to avoid this very problem. Before I give weight to this rule, I'd need to see the RfC re-closed, and optimally by a different closer.
For whatever it's worth, I will chime in here, to mention (for those who don't know) that this issue got traction at the Bernie Sanders article. Sanders is Jewish ethnically (in fact that's a big part of his persona), but religiously not so much, describing himself as secular, not active in organized religion, et cetera. Hillary Clinton seems quite different, in that she does purport to be active and devoted to a particular organized religion. So, I wouldn't have any problem with her religion going in the infobox (and same for Trump). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Having read the above discussion, I'm left with the serious concern that some of you are completely missing the central point. Some are simply ignoring the elephant in the room. This is not a discussion to determine if Clinton (and the other 40 people) is religious, or what religion she observes, or how religious she is or isn't, or whether or not Wikipedia should present that information to our readers. All of those issues are already decided and are outside of the scope of this discussion. This is a discussion to determine if Wikipedia should go beyond conveying encyclopedic information about the religious beliefs of these candidates, by also activating the reserved Categories and Infobox fields used for people
notable for their religion, like Ministers, Rabbis, Popes, Saints, Priests, Cardinals, Bishops, Televangelists, Imams, Deacons, etc. To emphasize my point, I'll respond to a few comments above:
For this candidate, her religion became particularly notable at a town hall event in January this year...
That's fine, and that's reason our article might mention it, but that's not what we're discussing here. We're addressing whether religion is also such a significant component of Clinton's notability, to the extent it would justify using the reserved Categories and Infobox fields reserved for subjects who's notability is, at least in part, due to their religious beliefs.
...religion is relevant for every politician, and especially for those running for or holding higher national office.
No; while the religion of politicians running for higher office (in the US) is relevant to some of our readers, we're not discussing that. The question here is whether these politicians are notable because of their religion.
...Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Has that sentence made its way into a guideline? If not, I don't see how it has any weight.
The
WP:BLPCAT policy already instructs us to not use the |Religion=
"unless ... the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." That policy further instructs us to "See
this guideline, which further tells us how to determine if a person's religion is a "
defining characteristic" of the person's notability.
This seems like an appropriate issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion...
It is an equally appropriate issue for
Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism, unless we are hoping for a somewhat predictable and lopsided response. In my opinion, it's most appropriate for the whole community at large, and therefore should be raised at a location such as the Village Pump. And we did that.
I don't know where these restrictive new criteria came from, but I think they are dead wrong, and I would like the chance to say so at some more general forum.
The restrictive criteria
WP:CATGRS,
WP:BLPCAT, etc., have existed for ages, but have been largely ignored or unenforced, except when the perennial arguments arise over editors misusing religion-related infobox fields or categories. There is no restriction to encyclopedically covering religious beliefs in the body of the article, by the way; this discussion is only about the additional step of categorizing living people as if they were notable because of their religion. And it was discussed (sorry you missed it) at the most general forum available.
There's already an obvious consensus to list US Presidential candidates' religious beliefs, and it's pretty clear that this is relevant to their political status and something the sources cover in great detail.
Very true; that's why we can cover those religious beliefs in their articles, and even add those candidates to list articles. But that is outside of the scope of this discussion, which concerns religion-related Infobox fields and Categories, which serve an entirely different purpose, and shouldn't be used, and a "
list article is often the preferred alternative."
Wikipedia has policies on editing having to do with writing an encyclopedia and operating by consensus. WP:LOCALCON exists in tension with WP:NOTBUREAU. Neither trumps the other. A group of editors cannot willy-nilly ignore policy, but nor can a group of policy wonks edit a policy page in a way that overturns actual practice.
Okay, but then you can't declare just the opposite in the very same breath:
If the editors here and in other articles about US presidential candidates make a decision, that is the outcome, and the Village Pump does not have a lot to say about it.
If I understand you correctly, you just proclaimed that a small group of editors can decide to go against the combination of long-standing, established policy and the consensus of a larger community of editors, and nothing can be done about that? I believe you will find disagreement on that.
I suspect that in a biographical sense, religion only belongs in an infobox if the person is a religious official, saint, etc. That's probably where the confusion lies.
AGREED! That moment of clarity has been lost throughout the rest of this discussion. We are discussing the misuse of |Religion=
fields in biographical infoboxes.
Relevancy to public life or notability seems like a fairly low bar for us to jump over.
Not as low as many editors mistakenly believe. According to long-standing (but often ignored) policy, the |Religion=
field is not to be used for notable people (or candidates) who happen to be religious, or even "very" religious. It is only to be used for people (or candidates) who are notable because of their religion or beliefs. To activate the reserved |Religion=
field in a Wikipedia infobox, it is not enough that the person declare themselves an observer of a religion, and it is not enough that reliable sources convey that a person is an observer of a religion. The person's religion must also be a
defining characteristic of that person. Granted, "in practice" many editors have ignored these requirements, and implemented the |Religion=
field (and related Categories) willy-nilly, with their only concern being that a person's religion be reliably sourced. This has sparked many arguments at many articles, and has spawned many contentious RfCs, with the result being the community-wide decision linked at the top of this discussion, which declared that since editors are having such trouble abiding by the policies on the use of that field, it should be removed from the infobox altogether.
"Hillary Clinton is Methodist" — lead sentence from New York Times article on the subject.[14] No more needed, that fully supports inclusion.
Absolutely incorrect. That fully supports the inclusion of her religion in the body of the BLP article, but does not support the use of the reserved |Religion=
field in the infobox. In fact, if you'll read the accidently omitted remainder of that sentence you quoted, ...but she rarely talks about her faith on the campaign trail
, you'll discover that religion isn't a
defining characteristic of her public notability. She's simply a mainstream religion observer just like nearly two-thirds of the electorate in the US, but its certainly not why she is a notable person - and that's why the use of that infobox field isn't supported. Regards,
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It appears to me that, according to citations to reliable sources, Hillary Clinton meets all of our requirements for including her religion in the infobox. I am going to wait a day or so to see if anyone disagrees with my conclusion and then I will close this discussion as resolved. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 07:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Struck because there are some really good arguments for exclusion below. Right now I am undecided. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
21:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
After reading WP:CATDEF (Thanks, Xenophrenic!) it is now clear that I was wrong before. Hillary Clinton does not meet our requirements for including her religion in the infobox. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
, and its use violates both long-standing policy and community consensus.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)|Religion=
field would be properly activated. To the contrary, the only reason the media and press waste ink on their religion at all is because they are running for high office.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
21:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
parameter might be added to an infobox. And please don't misunderstand, that RfC covers the much wider span of biographical infoboxes, not just US presidential candidates. The 40 articles chosen by the original poster are just the first of hundreds or thousands of articles presently in violation of established policy to be repaired.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)The policy doesn't say "use the religion field if you find religion to be relevant to a notable person", as many mistaken editors have believed for years. Instead, it specifies that the person's religion must be relevant to their public notability.- Then get the damn close improved per my comments at the top of #Basis, bullet 2, and be done with it. This user abides by consensuses they disagree with. Where is that userbox? ― Mandruss ☎ 05:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
|Religion=
and |Denomination=
) parameter from the infoboxes." Perhaps the closer unnecessarily commented that the information should still be covered in the body of the article (rather obvious). The closer also unnecessarily commented that if religion is actually a significant defining part of the person's notability, a separate RfC could be held to see if the addition of a custom |Religion=
parameter should be added to just that infobox (also obvious). But community consensus is clearly to remove the field, for a number of very good reasons, and the closer did address each of the three "points" in the RfC proposal. The close could be made even more clear, as you suggest, but I don't think that's where the real need is. I think it would be more productive to make the relevant policy wording more clear, instead.
Xenophrenic (
talk)
20:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
the closer did address each of the three "points" in the RfC proposal.I hear that this is irrelevant to you, but I don't see one word in that close about the notability test. ― Mandruss ☎ 20:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@
Mandruss: We agree that editors would benefit from clearly written guidance on when to invoke the special-case usage of the |religion=
field in biographical infoboxes. I guess we disagree on from where that guidance should come. You appear to be suggesting that the RfC closer should use the closing statement to explicitly explain the applicable policies to be followed, and how they should be followed, by the community. I, on the other hand, feel that "following policy" should be the default course of action, and that doesn't need additional reiteration and detailed explanation in RfC closing statements. If there exists any ambiguity in existing policy, that ambiguity should be cleared up not in a closing statement of an RfC, but in our policy pages themselves.
@
Wikidemon: We shouldn't need to wikilawyer the RfC close or existing guidelines. To me, the RfC close is simply understood: Remove the field as a default from all biographical infoboxes, with the rare retaining of the field being a special-case situation requiring discussion, or if necessary, another RfC for that specific article. That we should follow Wikipedia policy is implicit in the close, as it is in all RfC closes, and shouldn't require superfluous instruction that we should do so. But it is evident from the present widespread use of the field against existing policy that there must be either some ambiguity in our guidelines, or epidemic confusion in their interpretation and application. It's analogous to our traffic laws in the US: We have laws (i.e.; policies) on the books prohibiting "distracted" and "reckless" driving, yet every other driver on the road is using their cell phone (i.e.; |Religion=
field) anyway, arguing that it doesn't really violate the law - and "besides, everyone does it". Only after the frequency of cell phone-related car accidents (i.e.; edit-wars, arguments) becomes realized and untenable is direct action implemented (i.e.; this latest RfC & it's implementation) to finally force compliance with existing law.
In my opinion, the biggest policy ambiguity exists in use of the wording "relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CATGRS. Editors can interpret that in several conflicting ways if they don't follow the embedded links to clearer, more detailed explanations which explain that we are to use defining characteristics, like this explanation linked from WP:CATDEF...
Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category [or infobox field] should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative.
- a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
- if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;
- if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
That more clearly explains that until Clinton is consistently referred to in reliable sources (and our WP:LEAD) as "Methodist Secretary of State Clinton", or "Senator and Methodist Hillary Clinton", or "Methodist and former First Lady Hillary Clintion", we are not to use the religion-related categories, infobox fields and navigation templates. Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
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. Not only does the Categorization of People page explain that certain categories on Wikipedia are "sensitive" (those relating to ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, and disability), but it also explains to us how to determine if these are or are not defining characteristics of a living person. If you consider the reasoning behind the development of additional guidelines and restrictions for just these 5 characteristics, and the admonishment that these "sensitive" characteristics are to be handled with additional care, it would be obvious to you that the "mistake of logic" would be to assume that religion and ethnicity, etc., magically becomes non-sensitive on Wikipedia just because you are reading a different guideline page.
As I have argued elsewhere, I think this should not be an infobox category But I do not think this should be left to each article's editors to decide yes or no on an ad hoc basis, based on unclear policy rules. Actually, the argument that inclusion of an infobox parameter should be on an exceptional basis is manifestly nonsensical. Parameters are not exceptional issues, they are regular categorization. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have any feelings one way or another about starting an RfC about what to do about religious affiliation infobox parameter for US political candidates project-wide? I'm hoping not to repeat the above argument again here, just asking whether this could be settled once and for all through an RfC that is directly on point, and noticed to all of the 2016 national election articles and bios (or at least, the Presidential candidate ones). I'm sure everyone here would respect the outcome, and I have a feeling it will be either to remove them all, or a case-by-case decision something along the standard Xenophrenic is suggesting. - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
|religion=
field, and the related |denomination=
field, has already been established, and the broad implementation of that mandate has already been given the green light. Are you suggesting we launch an RfC here to determine if this Hillary Clinton biographical article can be one of the rare exceptions to that mandate, and allow the use of the field in this infobox to convey to our readers that being a Methodist is why she is famous and notable? (Please be clear that the body of our article is were we explain that she is a Methodist, while the use of the infobox field is how we additionally explain that being a Methodist is why she is notable.) We can certainly start a Hillary-specific RfC, of course, as the recently concluded Biographical Infobox RfC close statement (and indeed, even WP:IAR) allows for that.|religion=
field in her biography infobox. Are you saying there is disagreement that it should be used, or disagreement that it should not be used? And what, in your opinion, is the strongest (disagreeing) argument to date?