Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 → Archive 15

RfC: Religion in infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary for the RFC listing: What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing comments

The following proposal:

Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the |Religion= parameter of the infobox.

has succeeded.

However,

Additionally, there is consensus for this:

The determination if something is a religion or a non-religion should be based on reliable sources and not on the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, per WP:No original research.

Reason: The raw numbers are on the "support" side.

However, opposing comments stated that the determination if something is a religion or not should not be made by Wikipedia editors, per our core content policy WP:No original research. Everything that has been said against this was based on personal opinions of Wikipedia editors, contradicting policy. --Müdigkeit (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Background

The religion entry in infoboxes has been a contentious issue for many years, with multiple participants disputing what, if anything, should come after the "Religion = " entry. Previous discussions and RfCs have made it abundantly clear that only actual religions should be listed, never anything that is a non-religion.

A previous RfC determined that there is a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties hat have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations. A follow-up RfC determined that the consensus was the same for nations, states, etc.

Despite the previous RfCs, we still have a problem with editors edit warring to keep various nonreligions in the religion entry, arguing that their favorite page is not covered by the existing RfCs. This RfC is an attempt to create a bright line answer concerning exactly what the consensus is concerning the religion entry for all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception.

Examples

Examples of religions: Baha'i, Baptist, Buddhist, Caodaist, Catholic, Christian, Confucianist, Hindu, Jain, Judaism, Latter Day Saint/Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim/Islam, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Shamanist, Shiite, Shinto, Sikh, Sunni, Tao, Wicca.

Examples of nonreligions: Agnostic, Antireligionist, Apatheist, Atheist, Communist, Ignosticist, Irreligion, Leninist, Marxist, NA, Non-practicing X, Nonbeliever, None, Nontheist, Raised as an X, Secularist, State atheism, Unknown.

("Jew/Jewish" is a special case. The word has several meanings, so the source cited needs to specify the Jewish religion, as opposed to someone who lives in Israel or has a Jewish mother.)

Previous Discussions and related pages

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 does not address whether the religion parameter should be changed to something else or omitted entirely from the template.

This RfC does not change the existing strong consensus that religion in the infobox must be relevant (per the template guideline), supported by reliable sources, and covered in the body of the article.

Support / Oppose

Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the religion parameter ("Religion = ") of the infobox.

To expand on this, each parameter can be seen as a question. "birth_date" becomes "When was this person born?", "Name" became "What name is this person known by?" etc. Someone being an atheist/agnostic/non-religious is an answer to the religion parameter in the same way that asexual (a lack of sexual attraction) can be an answer to "what is this person's sexuality?", or agender (a lack of gender identity) is an answer to "what is this person's gender?". The lack of something is still something (though that's a concept that mind-boggles). An error message doesn't pop up saying "Invalid reply" nor does it make the question implode. In other words, "none" is a valid and informative entry in the religion parameter, we are dealing with an infobox after all. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  1. religions, eg Christian
  2. beliefs, cultures, lifestyles etc that are not religions but are "something", eg Communist
  3. words that denote "not something", eg none, non-religious, irreligion
The first (assuming it is correct and relevant) is clearly appropriate.
The second is clearly not appropriate, just as listing "red" for "place of birth" or "Australia" for spouse would not be appropriate. If the template parameter is "religion" then the value must necessarily be a religion, not something this is not a religion, just as "red" is not a place and "Australia" is not a person/spouse.
The third is not appropriate or necessary. Repeating my comment from a previous RFC, we don't include (for example) honorific_suffix=none, monuments=none, agent=none, notable_works=nothing notable, television=none (only listens to radio), criminal_charge=innocent, awards=none, favourite_colour=none, football_team_supported=none (OK, I made the last two up, but they are about as "mandatory" as religion) etc - religion should not be any different. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • Musdan77, Judaism is mentioned in the example section. I am assuming that everyone here is smart enough to realize that, for example, "Religion = Buddhist" and "Religion = Buddhism" are equivalent when deciding whether something is a religion or a non-religion. The same goes for Judaism/Jew/Jewish in cases where the sources support an actual religion. I am not trying to dictate which form is preferred; deciding which we should use is a question best addressed at WP:MOSTALK, not here.
Regarding your comment that "some would say that Atheism is a religion", yes, some would say that. And they would be wrong. Atheism is the lack of a religion, just like `not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. Please read the previous discussion section, where this very question was debated at length and a clear consensus emerged against anything that implies that in any way implies that atheism is a religion. There is also a clear consensus that Christianity is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Guy, Musdan77 didn't say that Christianity wasn't a religion, he was saying that Baptist etc were not religions per se but sects of Christianity. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Exact quote: "Some would say that (true) Christianity 'is not a religion, but a relationship'." You can define Christianity as a relationship in a sermon, but in an encyclopedia Christianity is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Guy Macon, you should know that we don't "assume" things about the reader on WP. "Smart enough"?? I would think that the person writing that would know what the definition of religion is, and that what is listed are not examples of that. You say you're not "trying to dictate which form", but you are trying to dictate what should or shouldn't be in the parameter. (2) "yes, some would say that. And they would be wrong." And that is your opinion. Of course, most people would say that Atheism is not a religion, and that Christianity is a religion. The point I was making is that different people have different beliefs as to what is a religion, and we shouldn't make a blanket statement/rule that it has to be one way and one way only. The infobox is a summary of the main article, and we can't give a person's religion without a RS. So, if the source says that it's their religion, then that's what goes, if it doesn't, then it's left blank. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You are going to have an extremely difficult time finding a source where anyone makes the statement "my religion is atheism". Whether atheism is a religion is a fact, not an opinion, and the fact is that it is not. The only people who say it is are Christians such as yourself who claim "atheism is just another religion. It takes faith to not believe in God"[1][2][3][4][5][6] -- usually because they read that in a book about apologetics. Atheists don't make that claim, and in fact are often quite adamant in saying that atheism is the lack of any religion.[7][8][9][10][11][12] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • There is weight behind the idea that atheism is a belief system (a definition of religion perhaps?) in which one has actively though about/pursued whether or not there is a God(s) and has concluded that there isn't. Unlike agnostics who shrug at that question, atheists believe the answer to be no. However, I don't see what that has got to do with it. This is a question as to what is valid in the "Religion=" parameter. If we have an answer to the question "what is this person's religion?" then it can be entered in that parameter. If it is "I am a Roman Catholic" then Christianity / Christianity (Roman Catholic) / Roman Catholicism would be entered. If the answer is non-theistic Buddhism then that is what should be entered. If the answer is "I am an atheist/etc" then we have an answer and therefore something to write in that parameter. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This question seems to me to be the hub of the matter. I know that in the US atheism has been defined as a religion for governmental purposes, and, on that basis, for all practical purposes does not qualify as a "nonreligion". There is also the question of possibly individuals who are clearly adherents of a branch of a major recognized religion but whose individual faith tradition or denomination may not yet be notable enough for an article here. What would we do in those instances? Also, I suppose, the old question of whether Nestorius was a Nestorian might be raised if the individual had ties to an earlier or later group which was not completely differentiated at their own time. Matters of classification of religions (an article we desperately need) also could be raised in the cases of some questionable academic classifications of smaller groups or contentious groups. For myself, I would add only the specific term when referring to a denomination the individual himself has used to describe himself, or, when terms have changed since then, the more recent term. Roman Catholic might be used, as might Coptic Orthodox Church. The Old Catholic church is currently in the Anglican Communion, though, so in that case use "Old Catholic" as opposed to "Anglican". For individuals from before the period when denominations were clearly differentiated, use the general term. Regarding the use of "atheism" or similar terms, I would myself prefer to use the name of the specific group within that field if such is used by either the individuals themselves or subsequent academia. So New Atheism might be used in some cases. Modern Deism or equivalent for individuals tied to the I think still non-notable new deism movement, etc.
  • Ultimately, I think that this point is probably best resolved by a more detailed and nuanced indication of all the issues involved than can be gotten from a simple "check the box" type usage than is likely to come from the sort of question being asked here. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 'atheism has been defined as a religion for governmental purposes" - not in the way a lay person understands the word "religion". The Wallace v. Jaffree ruling included:
"The First Amendment was adopted to curtail Congress' power to interfere with the individual's freedom to believe, to worship, and to express himself in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience, and the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the same substantive limitations on the States' power to legislate. The individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. Moreover, the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."
Thus the First Amendment protections for freedom of religion create an implicit protection for freedom of conscience, and that freedom of conscience is held to apply to people with "any religious faith or none at all." U.S. courts holding that "atheism" is a "religion" for the purpose of First Amendment protection is not the same as declaring it a "religion" in the sense that a lay person uses the word.
Atheism is not a religion. The contentious neologism "New Atheism" is also not a religion - and that packs more POV. Contentious labels should not be used in the infobox. -- Callinus (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This parameter (religion =) is optional (only for states, nations etc. which has official religion) about sources, not about opinions. Is a data. Each infobox is manufactured for a specific use, not for all uses. For that, we have many infoboxes. So in many cases, one decision for all infoboxes, maybe is incompatible. --IM-yb (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, sensible point. Perhaps instead of trying to establish a mandatory standard for all infoboxes throughout Wiki, the maintainers of individual infoboxes should be encouraged to adopt a clear policy, possibly in some cases establishing an approved list. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

({ping|Callinus)) said in his/her support above "the "religion" field should be restricted to only things that are recognised as religions.". I agree with the rest of the comment, but have opposed the proposal because I don't think we have a clear non-POV universal set of "things that are recognised a religions". List of religions is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. Most people agree that Christianity is a religion, but is Lutheranism or Presbyterianism a religion too? They are in the examples above, but adherents probably consider they are Christians, not just Presbyterians. What about Catholicism and protestantism? Is Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster a recognised religion everywhere because it is recognised somewhere, or would this rule need to consider where the subject of the infobox is located to decide whether it is permitted to have certain values? I support that the value of the religion field should be supported by a reference and the text of the article, but I can't support the proposal as it stands to attempt to define a universal bounded set of accepted values.--Scott Davis Talk 00:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

One could argue that this RfC simply stops editors from listing things in the religion entry of infoboxes that they themselves agree are non-religions. That is the problem I am repeatedly running into -- editors who want to list none, atheism or communism after "religion =" even though they agree that those are non-religions. If I ran into someone who argued about whether Pastafarian or Presbyterian is allowed, I would leave it to local consensus -- if the local consensus is that it is a religion, it stays, and if the local consensus is that it is a non-religion, it goes (from the infobox only -- none of this applies to the body of the article). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@ScottDavis:I think one can support the proposal without necessarily having to absolutely define every religion, or specify whether any particular "ism" is a religion or not. If the proposal were adopted it might not solve all arguments (eg whether Xxxxism is a religion) but it will give clear guidance for those cases where the parameter value is agreed not to be a religion (eg, "none" is not a religion, so is not a valid value for the parameter).
"List of religions is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness." — List of religions is a redirect to List of religions and spiritual traditions; the use of "and spiritual traditions" necessarily means that the list includes things that are not religions. This illustrates how difficult it may be to define what is a religion. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
ScottDavis If a critic of feminism uses their own personal conjecture to assert that "feminism is a religion under some circumstances" that doesn't make it OK to add "religion=Feminism" into the infobox of a women's college. If no encyclopedia of religions lists feminism as a religion, then it shouldn't be for POV pushers to use biased sources to assert that "feminism is a religion". Similarly for political ideologies like "communism" or "socialism" - if professional sources that list religions don't include those political ideologies then there shouldn't be edit wars with people adding them to the infoboxes of universities. This can always be covered in the body text, especially if biased and opinionated sources conflict (eg Juche is described as an ideology, but some consider it a "cult of personality" where North Koreans are forced to worship their "dear leader" - this is described by some sources, but not all sources, as a religion. - see Juche#Religious features of Juche) Christopher Hitchens said that North Korea is a "necrocracy" where everybody worships the dead "dear leader" and believes that he still rules the country North Korea#Personality cult covers this criticism - but the article doesn't have "religion=communism" or "religion=Kim Il Sung worship" in the infobox. Many of these issues, if they are the subject of active debate, can be covered in the body text. -- Callinus (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Callinus I agree. I specifically noted in my Oppose !Vote that I would support a requirement for a reference to be provided for whatever value is in this field in any particular infobox, so if the hypothetical women's college has reliable sources that it teaches/supports/is supported by adherents of the religion of feminism then I would accept putting "|religion = feminism |religion_ref =…" in the infobox for that college, but I would be surprised to find such. I will observe that we have an article Religious communism which is about a religion/principle/behaviour not a political ideology, and can imagine finding that there are notable people with Wikipedia articles for whom that could be appropriate to note in the infobox. --Scott Davis Talk 04:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
ScottDavis The goal of policies should preferably be to reduce battleground behaviour and edit wars, not increase it. The phrase "feminism is a religion" is an obvious form of internet trolling - the phrase never appears in academic publishing. Tangential and vague claims can be described in the article body - if an academic institution has a vein of "religious communism" this can be described in a sentence in the article itself - pushing the term "religious communism" into the "religion" field sounds an awful lot like SYNTH and OR. -- Callinus (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Callinus I agree entirely about the examples you have raised, as there would not be a body of reliable sources, so I would not support it in the infobox either, although perhaps for slightly different reasons. It is possible this demonstrates the RFC is too broad by trying to apply a blanket rule for all infoboxes, whether for people, institutions, countries, mountains or railway stations, anywhere in the world at any time in history. --Scott Davis Talk 07:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My own personal opinion would be that wherever possible we should list the most discreet specific terminology possible. So Roman Catholic, United Church of Christ, or similar terms (if applicable) would be preferable to Christianity. The problem with atheism is that there are clear ranges within it as well. Original Buddhism could be argued as being basically atheistic, for instance. If there are groups or associations which do not necessarily espouse particular beliefs, like maybe the Ethical movement, but for all practical purposes fill the role of "religion" among its members, then I cannot see not using them. If one gains tax advantages or other advantages by declaring themselves atheists or take part in atheist groups in the same way others take part in churches. Sociologically, in those cases, there isn't much real difference between them. And I tend to think that the infobox material can be used to help individuals find more area-specific (or maybe era-specific) articles relating to particular times or places, which would likely be useful to the reader. So, keeping in mind that our primary objective is to serve the reader, if adding "atheist," "secular humanist," or other terms in the Irreligion infobox is both supported by the reliable sources and can help provide information which is pertinent to the topic, I can't see any reason not to include such a term. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Anything that is not a religion - and I'm sure there are lots of them - and relevant can be included in the relevant infobox field, if there is one - but something that is not a religion does not belong in the religion box. It doesn't matter how specific the entry might be; if it is not a religion it should not be in the religion field. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that answering the first question is the tricky part. After that either the "Religion" or a new "Belief system" field can hold the datum.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC).

I have added Judaism to the list of examples of religions, as this is clearly a form of religious belief. It is not equivalent to the terms "Jew" or "Jewish". I am an atheist Jew. Judaism is not my religion, though it was when I was younger. But my ethnicity is Jewish, regardless of whether or not I practice or believe in the religious faith. It is important (and not only in this context) that we understand and respect this distinction. RolandR (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I am "Jewish" under the Law of Return, but am nonreligious. I find these attempts to pigeonhole people offensive. Objective3000 (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The good news is that, long before I posted this RfC about nonreligions, we arrived at a clear consensus that for someone to have a religion listed in their infobox, they had to self identify as being a member of that religion. Thus if you become notable enough to have a Wikipedia page about you you will not be pigeonholed against your will. You would have to personally pigeonhole yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My father, for instance, if asked what religion he is would almost certainly say "Roman Catholic" (although depending on the phase of the moon he might sub "lapsed Catholic" or "non-practicing Catholic"), but he is also a "secularist" in that he is strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic church's position in the Irish public education system. I myself was raised to have somewhat similar views to him ("raised Catholic"??), but now I practice Shinto and Buddhism without necessarily "believing" a whole lot of the mythology behind it, like just about everyone else in the country in which I currently live. Thankfully, neither my father nor myself have Wikipedia articles, but what if we did? What would this RFC do for the articles on my father and me? Or, more to the point, what would it do for the hundreds if not thousands of articles on people whose religious views are similarly complex?
Furthermore, while some Wikipedians may choose to say that these are not "religions", they are most certainly theological viewpoints, and leaving the "religion" parameter blank because the subject has been confirmed as an atheist therefore would imply that all articles with this parameter left blank are on subjects who were atheists, which is patently absurd.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"leaving the "religion" parameter blank because the subject has been confirmed as an atheist therefore would imply that all articles with this parameter left blank are on subjects who were atheists" — No; leaving the parameter blank would correctly denote that all of the subjects of those articles did not self-identify as having a religion. No more, no less.
People known for their anti-religion stance, eg Richard Dawkins, could be accurately described as known_for|public disagreement with religion or similar, without needing to put anything in the religion parameter. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said in my vote! above, I don't necessarily disagree with you. My comment in this section is just additional commentary. My actual stance is that the "religion" parameter should be left blank by default, and should not be filled in unless there is discussion of the subject's religious affiliation in the article body. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a term is eligible for use in one article, then it is eligible for use in any article"? Nope. Nor does general prohibition of a word proscribe its use at all - the key is whether the term is of reasonable significance to the subject of the biography and, in the case of religion etc. there is an implied imperative that the term be one used by the person to whom it is applied. Just as we should never label a person as "Jewish" because we think they have a Jewish parent or grandparent, we should not use "Atheist" or any other term without strong sourcing, which generally means we need self-identification with the term. The atheists I have known have generally used "Humanist" when describing their beliefs, as "Atheism" is "absence of religion." A vacuum is not a "form of matter" - it is "absence of matter." Collect (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I left out the important word "potentially". Let me try that again. "If a term is eligible for use in one article, then it is potentially eligible for use in any article." Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Atheism" is "absence of religion." No - Atheism is the absence of a deity. Irreligion is the absence of religion. --Scott Davis Talk 07:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Clearly, the word "atheism" has different meanings to different people. Some, like ScottDavis above, focus on the definition of "theist". Others think "atheist" describes someone who thinks that there is evidence against the existence of god. Others think "atheist" describes someone who says that he/she has seen no evidence for existence of god. The most common usage is "no religion" even though the seldom-used "irreligion" would be more accurate. Picking one meaning and saying the others are wrong ignores how human language works. The truth is that we don't know what we are communicating when we describe someone as an atheist in an infobox with no further explanation. That's why a person's atheism should be removed from the infobox and moved to the body of the article where there is room to fully explain what it means in context. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • That argument could be made for any religion or none. Just because we don't know exactly how one person defines their atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism etc, it doesn't mean that they don't identify with that word. If there is a reliable source in which someone identifies as an atheist we don't need their definition to link them to it. The infobox contains just a summary. It might be that in the main section a further explanation is given or it might simply be a full sentence saying "[Name] is an atheist" etc. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 09:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The same could be said of many religions where one sect denies the validity of the other. To some Roman Catholics anyone not in communion with Rome is not a Christian whereas to some Protestants the Pope is "the Antichrist". Read up on the history and polemics of Northern Ireland for example. A similar division exists between some Sunni and some Shia concerning who are the true followers of The Prophet. Against that context atheist versus non-theist is frankly small beer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Would I be correct in saying that this RfC boils down to essentially whether or not the term atheist can be used in the Religion field of an Infobox? If I am correct about that, my second question would be: why is this argued-for "bright line" so important? We are having an RfC here, the outcome of which will be relied upon to dictate that a word can't be used. Why is this issue of such great importance that it has to be resolved project-wide? Are we not capable of discussing this in the context of a specific article and reaching a local-consensus-supported outcome that best informs the reader? Bus stop (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not even addressing whether or not the term should be sometimes permissible. There are valid arguments for not using the verbal formulation "Religion: atheism". But what I fail to grasp is why well-meaning editors cannot talk this over on a given article's Talk page and occasionally conclude that its use is acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see either a valid argument that a particular page should be an exception or a local consensus that a particular page should be an exception. Every time this comes up the consensus on the article talk page turns out to be against non-religions in the religion entry. And roughly 75% of the editors who have commented on this RfC so far agree that there should be no exceptions. One can still argue whether X is or is not a religion, but once there is agreement that X is a non-religion consensus to remove it from the religion field invariably follows. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You say "One can still argue whether X is or is not a religion, but once there is agreement that X is a non-religion consensus to remove it from the religion field invariably follows." Obviously we are not talking about whether or not atheism is a religion. The heart of the matter is whether or not the term atheist or atheism is ever appropriate in a "Religion" field. I see this question as being of minor importance. I am curious as to why you feel that an RfC is needed for a question of such inconsequential importance. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The above question contains the complex question fallacy. It is a question that, to be valid, requires the truth of another question that has not been established. Asking "why do you feel that an RfC is needed for a question of such inconsequential importance" presupposes that the question is of inconsequential importance. If, as you claim, the question isn't very important, how do you explain the long discussions listed at Template talk:Infobox#Previous Discussions and related pages? Note that most of those lengthy discussions took place before I took an interest in this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In politics the length of a discussion rarely has any relationship to the importance (or cash value) of the subject. Indeed there often seems to be an inverse relationship: £200 for a thank you to the mayor needs a couple of hours, £50M on a new school goes through "on the nod". Likewise a lot of people asserting X is/is not a Y does not make a reasoned discussion, merely a vote on pre-existing opinions. </cynic> Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I find it absolutely freakish that anyone gives a rat's patootie whether or not the entire Wikipedia project occasionally uses the terms atheist or atheism in the "Religion" field of an Infobox. Why does it matter? Where is the consequence? In common parlance these terms often come up in juxtaposition to terms such as Judaism and Christianity and Islam. Let these conversations take place at individual articles. Are we the panel of all-knowing experts on the terminology relating to unanswerable questions on life and death and God and existence? Our responsibility is to follow sources. Sources are specific to the scope of an article. There is inherent hubris in making up rules such as are posited in this RfC. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Calling atheism a religion is considered offensive by a large body of people. Indeed, it is often meant to be offensive. Atheism is not a religion. I have no idea why you think that this means we believe we are the panel of all-knowing experts on the terminology relating to unanswerable questions on life and death and God and existence?. Besides, everyone knows the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything is 42. Objective3000 (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A field in an Infobox can be filled by the term "atheist" without causing offense to anyone. Doing so does not posit that atheism is a religion. The word atheism is a common response to questions about religion because it is thought of as being of a related subject. For instance, if two dozen unrelated people are seated in Starbucks and an interviewer pops up and says that for a survey that he is doing, he would like to ask several questions of everyone in the group, and one of those questions involves religious leanings, several people are likely to say they are Jewish, several people are likely to say they are Christian, several people are likely to say they are Muslim, several people are likely to say they are Buddhist, and there is likely to be at least one individual who maintains that he is an atheist. He is in no way implying that atheism is a religion. He is providing related commentary on a question which has been raised. This provides the interviewer with insight into this person's leanings concerning the subject of religion. Obviously we should be careful not to use the term atheism in the "Religion" field in the absence of good sourcing for exactly that terminology. But there is no great harm in the fact that atheism is not a religion. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A well thought out and relevant comment. One question though: why "Obviously we should be careful not to use the term atheism in the "Religion" field in the absence of good sourcing for exactly that terminology" any more than, say, Roman Catholic? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, a field in the infobox can say atheist without it being offensive to many people. Just not the religion field as that clearly implies the person has a religion. I've lost count of how many times this has been discussed. Objective3000 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately this RfC, like many others, is getting bogged down in a small part of the discussion.
  1. This template does not even have a |religion= parameter.
  2. Should not the use of parameters be discussed at the level they are introduced: what is appropriate for ((infobox theologian)) may not be the same for ((infobox pharaoh))?
  3. If "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence." as stated in Religion, then atheism and communism are religions. Nowhere in that definition do I see a requirement for a belief in one or more gods, angels, daemons etc.
  4. Finally, should an RfC here seek to be binding across the whole of Wikipedia? Most editors are probably unaware of the discussion.
Perhaps the best thing is to simple remove religion from most infoboxes, keeping it only where strictly relevant such as for religious leaders and thinkers. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Most editors are unaware of any Wikipedia-wide RfC. There simply is not a lot of interest in policy discussions. I made a point of notifying everyone who objected to any of the previous removals (roughly 500 pages). Removing religion from most infoboxes is an interesting idea, but outside of the scope of this RfC, which only covers nonreligions in the religion entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like the Religion article needs some work. Objective3000 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Questions? 1) How many RFC's are needed to establish "community consensus"?, 2) Does WP:Policies and guidelines really matter?, 3)- When an editor ignores a broad community consensus is there a point where they are disrupting Wikipedia? To all those arguing that "Religion= None (Atheist)" should be allowed PLEASE read the many RFC's that led to the decision to exclude this. Discussions concluded that Atheism was not a religion so must not be listed under religion. This has been agreed to many times and with statements like "Strongly opposed to ever listing atheism anywhere under the label religion.". All of this is actually moot lacking references either way. Arguments to keep decisions at a local level can be a major reason why community consensus is needed and there is clear evidence that hasn't changed yet. @ SMcCandlish: How hard would it be to add a parameter to a template? Apparently this is very complicated but also getting those involved to agree to to a name must be hard also. The suggestion of Gaia Octavia Agrippa would seem logical but there has been overwhelming opposition to using "Atheist" or "Agnostic" in the "religion =" parameter. The drive, it appears to me, would be for "Religion =" being removed from Wikipedia templates but that doesn't seem to have community consensus. Otr500 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Further Thoughts

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

Evidence that many fundamentalist Christians are of the opinion that saying "atheism is just another religion. It takes faith to not believe in God" refutes atheism and proves that God exists:

Most people are of the opinion that there is no evidence for the existence of ghosts, and some proclaim their lack of belief in ghosts loudly and publicly. Despite this, we would never put something like "Belief in Ghosts = none (aphasmist)" in an infobox, simply because not believing in the existence of ghosts is assumed to be the default. We don't go out of our way to identify those who do not believe in the existence of ghosts. The same should be true those are of the opinion that there is no evidence for the the existence of a god or gods.

While it is clear that atheism is not a religion, different readers understand those words in different ways. Some think "atheist" describes someone who thinks that there is evidence against the existence of god. Others think "atheist" describes someone who says that he/she has seen no evidence for existence of god. Some focus on the definition of "theist" as opposed to "deist". Thus we have two good reasons not to use "religion = atheist" or even "religion = none (atheist)": not only is atheism not a religion, but we don't know what we are communicating when we describe someone as an atheist with no further explanation. An editor might know what she/he means when he/she inserts it, but she/he cannot know whether a reader will understand that ambiguous term as intended. Moving the content into the body of the article gives the editor room to fully explain the subtleties and to provide citations. This is our standard answer whenever any infobox entry is disputed or ambiguous -- remove it from the infobox and explain it properly in the body. No information is lost or hidden from the reader, and there exists no Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that putting any information in the body of the article is somehow not good enough and that the information must be in the infobox.

There is an essay at Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes that I think is rather good. 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 that "religion = none (atheist)" implies that atheism is a religion is irrelevant. The fact that many people do think that "religion = none (atheist)" implies that atheism is a religion is an established fact. 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 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 and move them to the body of the article to avoid supporting that POV. Infoboxes are for noncontroversial and nondisputed summaries of properly sourced and notable material that is contained in the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed atheism is no religion. I also fully agree with your definition of what belongs in an infobox: only sourced and largely undisputed facts. In a way, you're however stating the obvious, as our real controversy here comes down to something else: the question if a (1) properly sourced, (2) largely undisputed and (3) biographically relevant (4) self-description of the concerned person as an atheist may be noted in the infobox as:

Religion: none (Atheist)

Agreeing with you in most other aspects, I firmly think it should remain possible in these cases, and therefore keep opposing a complete ban of non-religion in infoboxes. --PanchoS (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Would you also support "Children = none (sterile)", "Spouse = none (bachelor)", or "Hobbies = none (not collecting stamps)"? I myself would support a ban on non-children in the children entry, a ban on non-spouses in the spouse entry, and a ban on non-hobbies in the hobby entry.
I am convinced that if there were a significant number of editors pushing the POV that not collecting stamps is a hobby and a bunch of websites by non-stamp-collectors explaining that not collecting stamps is not a hobby, I would have to post an RfC banning non-hobbies from the hobby entry in order to stop the POV pushers from putting "Hobbies = none (not collecting stamps)" in the infoboxes of anyone who has mentioned that they are not a stamp collector. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
One thought that comes to mind is that the weight of the subject is mostly analyzed by use of far less weighty items, such as religion vs. hair color, a TV channel, a shoe, sound, calendar dates, color (in general) and stamp collecting. It's easy to make these comparisons, but they seem far less meaningful and relevant to many editors than the subject of religion itself. Many years ago I was accepted into the Peace Corps as a volunteer in Ethiopia, East Africa. One of the first instructions we newbie volunteers received was to avoid at all costs any discussion with local people about the four "taboo" subjects: politics, race, sex, religion. To give an idea of the volatility of these subjects, I will describe one of the most chalk-on-chalkboard screeching issues with which we had to deal. Put yourself in the shoes of a pretty, intelligent, young caucasian woman who has just entered volunteer training in an African country. This will be easier for some than for others, so if it is hard, then please really try. A local trainer asks you out for a drink after class. Such a thing seems innocent, so you say yes and off you go. After awhile, it becomes clear to you that your date wants you to sleep with him, and he gradually becomes more and more insistent. You ward off his advances for whatever valid reason you may have, and finally he says, "It's because I'm black, isn't it? You don't want to sleep with me because I'm black, right?" Again, to understand why so many women give in at this point and sleep with the trainer, you almost have to be there, living it. In a book about great lines to serve to women and get them to do what you want, the above line would be saved for the last page of the final chapter, because it's one of the best lines ever. Some of the women actually terminated and went home because of this issue. When the analogy was made above by Gaia Octavia Agrippa in regard to religion vs. sexuality and gender identity, only then was the comparison weighty enough to be relevant. It should be no surprise to anyone that religion is one of the most volatile subjects on the globe, so don't expect things to go smoothly in an RfC about it.  Paine  05:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
This is not only in Africa. As one man said to a women trying to rape her: "If you did not want it, why did you came [to the restaurant with me]? And if you came, why do you cry?" My very best wishes (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon Nice red herring… but obviously this is not comparable at all. I've been talking exclusively about people who have openly identified as Atheists and whose Atheism has been considered notabled enough to be covered by WP:RS. If you come up with someone openly identifying as being sterile or as being a non-collector of stamps, and can prove this to be relevant to their biographies, then we can rediscuss your nonsense comparison. Sorry, but that kind of reasoning makes me angry. --PanchoS (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We already have an infobox entry for that: "known_for = Atheism". Also, your insults do not make your case stronger. Quite the opposite, actually. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—PanchoS said "I've been talking exclusively about people who have openly identified as Atheists and whose Atheism has been considered notable enough to be covered by WP:RS". PanchoS did not say that they were "known for atheism". You are adding emphasis that was not present in what PanchoS originally said. Bus stop (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Bus stop, indeed my case is not about the handful of people that are primarily known for their atheism activism. Also: "Your insults do not make your case stronger" – LOL, which insults? I can only repeat myself: it's not about our different points of view, but your attitude makes me angry, Guy, and maybe not just me. --PanchoS (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: I don't think we need any more "proof" to support community consensus. Suggestion: If an editor "insists" on ignoring all the rules, in the face of broad community consensus after being advised, start an ANI for sanctions. Impartially ping every editor involved in these MANY discussions. If that editor is disruptive let the community decide. It may be a lot of work initially but less than seeking reaffirmation or continued ratification of something that has already been affirmed several times over. A result might be that we can spend more constructive time building an encyclopedia.
Also, I see an issue is sometimes a lack of respect. I believe in God but I respect an Atheist (or others) opinion. I show this because even though I do not support the view of Atheists (or others such as Agnostics etc...) I still properly capitalize the "A". I do this not only out of respect (to that person and not necessarily his/her belief) but it is also policy. I know that doesn't matter to some but there is actually no possible way to create and maintain a respectful encyclopedia with only one "rule" to ignore all rules so I am glad for the over-riding "community consensus". Ignoring all rules would lead to chaos which does sometimes seems to be supported. I may not believe in "your God" (or lack thereof) but I do not need to expound on this by belligerently and purposefully excluding capitalization as some rationale to advertise my unbelief by stating "your god" or "your G*d". "Just saying": respect is a two-way street. Crap! Guy (and some others) have convinced me that I have a hobby of not collecting stamps. Excuse me while I go figure out how to pursue my new hobby. Otr500 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
If the reasoning is that we must show respect for "believers" then perhaps we should be cognizant of the abiding policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Otr500:, the policy you linked to (MOS:ISMCAPS):
  • does not mention atheism at all
  • says one should capitalise "organized religions" - which atheism is not
  • says "Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter" ...
You might consider respecting the atheist's opinion that atheism is not a religion by not capitalising it. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@ bus stop: It would really have been a breath of fresh air, although certainly not expected, to receive a reply other than the one you gave. What does censorship have to do with respect? Generally respect is not something one is obligated to show. Although I suppose some people can call their parents assholes to their faces because they can, or to their backs if there is fear of reprisal, there are some instances where disrespect can have serious consequences. Some people say "yes sir" or "no sir" to older men and some think they should just go ahead and die just because they are old.
@ ames: You have erred and might want to update your information. There are organized groups of Atheists such as the Atheist Alliance International Inc. (oops; uses caps) that has "affiliate members but also has "associate members" that actually use "church" and some do not actively pursue actions against words like "Atheist church". Some actually in fact do use "Atheist Church". One organization, the First Church of Atheism has 5,016 members. There is also the FFRF as well as the FFRFMCC. Some in their organization allow the word "church". "NEVER" you may say! Try this one out: Let's not only use the word "church", but let's include the word "mission" such as the Community Mission Chapel of Lake Charles Louisiana. Jerry DeWitt stated "“Community Mission Chapel will be a full-fledged ‘church’ where those who consider themselves to be non-religious will find a community of like minded people". Advertising stated "All are welcome to the inaugural service on June 23rd (2013) at 2pm., as well as "The church service will also coincide with the launch of DeWitt’s first book". I know you can now say "BUT" bla-bla, except the proof (Wikipedia is surely all about references) is in the so called print, which might seem to make "* says one should capitalise "organized religions" - which atheism is not" appear as either a singular person's opinion or original research. Not to be tagged as not being international we can add: * Atheist church in Britain and,* Sunday Assembly,* What happens at an atheist church? or,
mr. ames, please note the lack of capitalization per request so as not to confuse your name as a religion, you may be a lone wolf, or a member of a group that has one belief, but that does not mean your opinions are world-wide as the references I provided indicate the name Atheist Church is in universal use.
Since I now know your position on capitalization, if I ever communicate with you again concerning the name, I will gladly use a lower case "a" for your pleasure. In all other instances I will continue as I have and you can choose to debase if you like, as I see absolutely no merit to you assertion that capitalizing a proper noun equates it to religion.
As per so-far-continued consensus, it would still be a better argument to raise the issue of a proper parameter to resolve concerns, but that was not even mentioned in replies to my comments. Otr500 (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Non-theist churches are nothing new, See Unitarianism and Nontheist Quakers. If someone self-declares as being a member of such a church and it is notable, nothing in this RfC would forbid listing the church in the religion field -- it isn't a non-religion. I can do the same "proof by Google search" to show that vegan churches exist.[13][14][15][16] (also see Christian vegetarianism and Vegetarian Society#History). That does not imply that atheism or veganism are religions -- the vast majority of individuals who are atheists or vegans are not members of non-theist churches or vegan churches. Using the existence of the Sunday Assembly as an excuse to list atheism in the religion entry is no different from using the existence of the Universal Equalitarian Church as an excuse to list veganism or vegetarianism in the religion entry. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Otr500: the issue is about religion, not church. (As you quoted Jerry DeWitt, with my emphasis added here: "... a full-fledged ‘church’ where those who consider themselves to be non-religious will find a community of like minded people". Likewise Sunday Assembly is a non-religious gathering – "secular" is the word they use on their web site.) Could you please provide links to some organised atheist groups that self-identify as a religion. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Otr500: Thanks for your reply. You say "…there are some instances where disrespect can have serious consequences." That is true, but is this one of those instances, or are you making a mountain out of a molehill, at the cost of using an Infobox to provide information for a reader? Bus stop (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Otr500: There is a good reason why. in your words, "the issue of a proper parameter to resolve concerns [...] was not even mentioned in replies to my comments" (This of course refers to your suggestions regarding adding a parameter or removing the religion parameter). It wasn't discussed because it is out of scope and off-topic for this RfC. In the section "What this RfC is and is not" it specifically states that
"This RfC only applies to the religion field of the infobox"
and
"This RfC does not address whether the religion parameter should be changed to something else or omitted entirely from the template".
By adding those words to this RfC I made it so that this RfC can't decide to add or remove any parameters from the infobox. All of the !votes above were cast under the assumption that this RfC can only decide what goes on the right side of the "religion =" parameter.
If you want to change the left side or add/remove some other parameter, you will have to post an RfC with your proposed changes. Be aware that many similar proposals have failed to gain consensus; see the "Previous Discussions and related pages" section. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: "Religion: atheist" is a common formulation. It is used elsewhere. Why shouldn't Wikipedia use it? Notice for instance that NNDB uses the verbal formulation in what can be considered very similar Infoboxes. Here is a list of biographies in which NNDB uses that verbal formulation. Let us pick one at random—Isaac Asimov. For him, NNDP has written "Religion: atheist". I think many more good examples can be found aside from NNDB. What is the argument for why Wikipedia should avoid this verbal formulation when it is commonly used elsewhere? Why would "Religion: atheist" or related formulations be problematic here at Wikipedia? How would you explain that this verbal formulation would be acceptable elsewhere but not acceptable here? Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The n-word is even more commonly used. Should we start using it in the infobox? Objective3000 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Objective3000—it is not used in any Infobox I've ever seen. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Isaac Asimov's entry in NNDB, this is an excellent example showingwhy Wikipedia does not handle infoboxes the way NNDB does. That NNDB entry includes:

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I asked you why we should not use the verbal formulation "Religion: atheist" when NNDB uses the formulation "Religion: atheist". You have not answered that question. This is what you wrote: "Religion: Atheist (nonreligion listed as a religion)". Yes, we know you object to a "non-religion" being listed in the Religion field. But why? And why should Wikipedia approach this differently than NNDB does? NNDB also has a Religion field in an Infobox. Can you suggest any reason Wikipedia should be avoiding the formulation "Religion: atheist" when NNDB apparently finds that formulation acceptable? Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
No need to ping me. When I join a discussion, I watchlist the discussion. If you don't know by now why my position is that we should not use "Religion: atheist" nothing I can say here is likely to enlighten you.
I do not find the argument "this other (non-encyclopedia) webpage does X, so we should do the same" to be especially compelling. Especially when the page chosen as an example does several other things that Wikipedia policy would never allow.
I can come up with an endless number of webpages that do things that we will never do. For example, http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ tells us "The TRUTH About Black Helicopters!" and reveals "Secrets THEY Don't Want You To Know About!". To rephrase your own question, can you suggest any reason Wikipedia should avoid revealing The TRUTH when zapatopi.net apparently finds that information to be acceptable? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say "this other (non-encyclopedia) webpage does X, so we should do the same". I asked you why it might be acceptable there and unacceptable here. I am trying to engage you in conversation. Can you please suggest any reason that the verbal Infobox formulation "Religion: atheist" might be acceptable at NNDB and unacceptable here? Bus stop (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Scores of reasons have been stated. The simple fact is that atheism is not a religion. Look at the meaning of the word and it is obvious. What do you think the a- in front of the word is there for? It means non-theistic. Look at the definition of religion. It has required the worship of deities for centuries. The fact that some people have chosen to use the word allegorically or in analogies is not relevant. I can claim that people that don't believe in Santa Clause are achristian. But, it's not a religion even if I capitalize it. It is acceptable at NNDB because they are wrong. We are an encyclopedia and need to be better than some other random site. Objective3000 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Objective3000—atheism is not a religion. The term atheism is used in a Religion field because reliable sources tell us, in the case of a biography, that a person is an atheist. Is this relevant to religion? Yes. This is the stance that some people take in relation to the concerns of religion. Not all religions are the same. But there are some common concerns that often crop up in religions. Religions sometimes posit an afterlife. Atheism does not posit an afterlife. Do you see the relation? Religions often posit the existence of God. Atheists maintain a stance that God does not exist. Do you see the relevance of atheism to religion? Religions are often characterized by the practice of rituals. Atheists don't believe that such rituals have any bearing on transcendent matters such as attaining everlasting life or even simple matters such as being in God's good graces. Do you see the relation between religion and atheism? The Religion field is for succinctly noting the stance, in the case of a biography, taken by an individual in relation to these concerns. Why should the reader not be apprized of the stance taken by the subject of a biography in an Infobox, in a Religion field, when that stance is atheism? Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a problem with your logic. you say "Atheism is not a religion. The term atheism is used in a Religion field because reliable sources tell us, in the case of a biography, that a person is an atheist", but you could have used the same logic to say "Veganism is not a religion. The term vegan is used in a Religion field because reliable sources tell us, in the case of a biography, that a person is a vegan". Same logic, same bad result.
You claim that atheism is "relevant to religion" (and presumably would claim that veganism is not) but that appears to be nothing more than your personal opinion -- an opinion that is not shared by roughly 75% of the people who have responded to this RfC. I personally strongly reject your claim that atheism is "relevant to religion" as an argument for including "Religion = atheism" in the infobox for the same reason I would reject a claim that not collecting stamps is "relevant to hobbies" as an argument for including "Hobby = not collecting stamps" in the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I would call the attention to the interested reader to User talk:Bus stop#Guy Macon's posts at the Bernie Sanders page and Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 4#Neither is allowed. See RfC., where there was a discussion about "Religion = Nonreligious Judaism" vs. "Religion = secular Judaism" vs. "Religion = Jewish" (the consensus was against the two nonreligions). I don't know whether the editors of that page got it right in the end; I don't have time to get involved in content disputes on the hundreds of pages where I changed the page so that it doesn't list a nonreligion in the religion box. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
Guy Macon—you say "I don't know whether the editors of that page got it right in the end". Please tell me what doubts you have concerning the Bernie Sanders article reading "Religion: Jewish" in the Infobox. We have a source in which Sanders says that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
So what if you have a source in which Sanders says that he is Jewish? If you had a source in which Sanders says that he is Vegan would you put "Religion = Vegan" in the infobox? As I have repeatedly stated, I have no interest in getting into content disputes on the hundreds of pages where I have corrected errors, whether they are "the the" errors, spelling errors, or nonreligions listed in the religion entry of infoboxes. I leave it up to the editors working on the page to determine from the sources whether Bernie sanders is "Jewish" in the religious sense as opposed to the other, often non-religion meanings (raised Jewish, Jewish mother, member of the group of people who claim descent from the ancient people of Israel, Jewish as defined by Israel's Law of Return, etc.) "Jewish" could be a religion or a non-religion, so I don't remove "Religion: Jewish" as I would remove "Religion = Atheist". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
This is the source. It reads "Religion: Jewish". Yet you wrote "I don't know whether the editors of that page got it right in the end". Can you please explain how our present Infobox at Bernie Sanders could possibly be in error? Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
What part of "no" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Guy Macon—we have an article on veganism. Please show me where veganism takes a stance on the existence or nonexistence of God. Does veganism posit the existence of an afterlife? Does veganism take a stance in denial of the existence of a world-to-come? Does veganism suggest any ritualistic behaviors intended to put one in God's good graces? Does veganism take a stance in denial of the beneficial effects of ritualistic behavior? Atheism does. Atheism addresses the existence/nonexistence of God. Atheism takes the stance that the posited afterlife is little more than pie in the sky. I think atheism views ritualistic behavior as meaningless and at best harmless. When you speak about veganism you are not really speaking about something that relates strongly to religion. But when we speak about atheism we are speaking about something that addresses the concerns that commonly crop up in many religions. Bus stop (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Bus Stop, your edit demonstrates precisely what's wrong with saying Religion: Atheism. You state that "Atheism takes the stance...." NO, atheism, ipso facto, takes NO stance. Type atheism into Google. It says "Atheism is NOT a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." Some atheists may take a stance. But, that is apart from atheism. Pardon me for saying this, but you don't appear to know what atheism is. Wikipedia should not promulgate your definition. Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree Objective3000, but you are wrong. Do as you say and type atheism into Google, and Wiki's definition comes out top: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [1] [2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no ...". The article dissects definitions of atheism and covers everything from agnosticism (which is what I assume you were thinking of) through to strident explicit atheists such as Dawkins. Your uppercase "NOT" is therefore, unfortunately, misleading. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Clearly, the word "atheism" has different meanings to different people, and thus we don't know what we are communicating when we describe someone as an atheist in an infobox with no further explanation. That's one of multiple reasons why a person's atheism should be removed from the infobox and moved to the body of the article where there is room to fully explain what it means in context. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Then, clearly, we need to fix the Wikipedia article on atheism. Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Substitute "Christian" for "atheist" in your last, and it would still make sense. Consider something as fundamental as transubstantiation. One group assert it as a defining fact of true Christianity, another group dismiss it as an Aristotelian "pseudophilosophy". So we "don't know what we are communicating when we describe someone as an Christian in an infobox with no further explanation"! You could use Roman Catholic, Anglican etc, but of course they are not religions, merely denominations within one. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you overstate the case for your "a denomination is not a religion" opinion. One could just as easily say that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are all part of a larger religion -- monotheism. They all claim to be descendants of the religion of Abraham. There is less difference between Reform Judaism and Quaker Christianity than there is between Quaker Christianity and Amish Christianity. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "... together with us they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful, God" and the Quran states "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] ... but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow'." so you can make a case for Islam, Judaism and Christianity being "denominations" of the same religion. Likewise a case can be made that Quakers and Amish are different religions. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
Guy Macon—you express doubt that Bernie Sanders is Jewish when the source explicitly reads: "Religion: Jewish". Why can't you explain this to me? I am really interested in your reasoning on this. That is a press release from Bernie Sanders. He says that he is Jewish. And that is what our Infobox says at Bernie Sanders. It reads: "Religion: Jewish". Yet you say up above in this thread, in reference to the "Religion" field of the Bernie Sanders article that "I don't know whether the editors of that page got it right in the end…" How is that possible? How can you doubt the correctness of the verbal formulation for the "Religion" field of that Infobox entry? I am very interested in hearing your reasoning. Please don't talk about veganism. And please don't ask us to contemplate that monotheism might be a religion, unless you present a source. We (Wikipedia) basically adhere to what good quality sources say, and we use a little bit of common sense. We are not in the business of presenting new ideas. You want us to adopt your idea that only certain words are permitted to appear in the "Religion" field of an Infobox, and that other words are not permitted. If your idea can stand up to scrutiny then maybe we should adopt your idea. But if you are unwilling to engage in discussion then I have my doubts about the advisability of adopting the project-wide ban on certain words in the "Religion" field of an Infobox that you are suggesting. Bus stop (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You are averse to further discussion of the topics that you raise. I am not introducing these topics. You introduced the topic of veganism. Yet when I discuss veganism further you say "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". You introduced the topic of the Bernie Sanders article yet when I discuss the Bernie Sanders article further you say "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass". What's up with that? Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Take a break? I think its probably time for @Guy Macon: and @Bus stop: to step away from this discussion for a day or two. It's clear that neither of you will be changing your stance. All that your back-and forth comments are doing is filling up this page and making it take longer to load! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This RfC is now closed. The final count is:

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

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.

Post-RfC discussion

@Otr500: Adding a parameter isn't complicated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More