Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions about Hillary Clinton. 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

→

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.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):

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.

Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?

Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.

Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[1] Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[2] Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[3] Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[4] Discuss on article talk page.
Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[5]
Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[6] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[7] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[8] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[9] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[10] Discuss on article talk page.
Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

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)

For this candidate, her religion became particularly notable at a town hall event in January this year. She said, "I am a person of faith. I am a Christian. I am Methodist. My study of the Bible and my many conversations with people of faith has led me to believe that the most important commandment is to love the lord with all your might, and to love your neighbor as yourself. That is what I think we are commanded by Christ to do." I think that's pretty much a slam dunk in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please review the requirements I posted above. Your citation certainly meets the "self-identifies in her own words" criteria, but does she meet the "and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability" requirement? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Basis

Respecting the OP's request, I am starting this in a separate subsection.

Right or wrong, religion is relevant for every politician, and especially for those running for or holding higher national office. Relevance is a bedrock Wikipedia principle; whether it still survives vis-à-vis this issue, I don't know. (Relevance /= notability)
OP's first bullet includes a rule not present in the close of the cited RfC: 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.
This seems like an appropriate issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion, but OP is not a member. How do they, as a project, feel about this? Have they said? Have they reached anything like a consensus within the project? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree that "religion is relevant for every politician" - especially presidents, but publicly identified for virtually all office holders and major candidates. The best evidence that it is "relevant" from Wikipedia's point of view is the existence of this article: Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States. Not to mention Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States. What are we doing with such articles, if their religion isn't an important part of their public persona? A Google search discloses that the religion of presidents is a very common theme of information about them.[11][12][13] 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. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Please read the various support comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes and tell me if there is any consensus for "religion is relevant for every politician". If someone really wants to push it, I can post another RfC that addresses the "religion is relevant for every politician" question specifically, but I think we all know that such an RfC has a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus. We already have an existing policy at WP:BLPCAT that says "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless [...] the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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. I don't think anything that takes place in Village Pump or anywhere else removed from article editing can function as a decree on the subject. On the other hand, it could potentially be irrelevant for some Presidential candidates, and certainly is not relevant for all political candidates. You'd have to take it on a case by case basis rather than a rule, though in the case of Presidential candidates the outcome in favor of listing religion appears likely. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the discussion or RfC where this "obvious consensus to list US Presidential candidates' religious beliefs" was arrived at, or is it just your opinion that it exists. It certainly does not agree with our existing policies (see list at the start of this section).

Re: "I don't think anything that takes place in Village Pump or anywhere else removed from article editing can function as a decree on the subject." our policies and guidelines say just the opposite. See WP:LOCALCON. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the resolution of this RfC. I get that this particular infobox field can cause a lot of trouble, I've run into it myself on some other articles. But the answer to that is either to live with the problems or to get rid of the field for everyone. It's going to cause just as much trouble to litigate where people stand in this new two-tier system of people who are really religious and people who are just somewhat religious. I know the ruling above doesn't say it in these terms – it says "only if directly tied to the person's notability". That's a tough test that most politicians are not going to pass. So readers are going to look at infoboxes and see that Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee and a few others who pass the test have religions while Hillary and John Kasich and a bunch of others who fail the test do not. And these readers are not going to understand WP's arcane criteria is for who is religious and who is not. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are free to post an RfC at village pump (policy) making the above argument (and it's not a bad argument). But until that happens we are required to follow policy (and it is an existing policy -- WP:BLPCAT -- not just an RfC result) but until the policy is changed we are all required to follow it whether we agree with it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 04:35, 10 May 2016‎ (UTC)

That suggests we may want to remove it as a parameter from the entire group of infoboxes, or deprecate the former infobox in favor of one that does not have religious affiliation parameter, at least for US candidates for national office. Setting aside for the moment that this concerns religion and politics, it's a poor way to organize information to list something in the infobox only if somebody has made a deal of it. For example, imagine we only listed height in the infobox for Kevin Hart and Danny Devito, because being short is part of their public persona, but not Tom Cruise or Al Pacino, because it is not a major part of their notability. Or bust measurement only for Dolly Parton and Pamela Anderson… If it's important, as it is for most, we can discuss it in the "personal life" section of the bio. I'm still reluctant to sit here and try to legislate how editors of other articles ought to cover their subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether you or I like it or not, Wikipedia has requirements (listed above) for putting religion in the infobox, and I am not seeing anyone posting any citations showing that Hillary Clinton meets those requirements. And of course none of this stops anyone from putting her religion in the personal life section or expanding that section. The requirements for that are WP:V and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

While we're being pedantic, whether you or I like it or not, 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. 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. I believe there is a compelling case that if we are going to put religion in some candidates' infoboxes, then we would lean in favor of including it in others if the candidate has publicly self-identified with a religion in the context of their candidacy. The BLPCAT wording isn't perfect, but it's flexible, that it must be relevant to notability. The RfC comment that it is "directly related" doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and did not consider every place where it applies. Back to building an encyclopedia, if we're going to describe politicians using a political infobox with religion as a parameter, it should be included where sourced and relevant. I think the problem may be that this is a bio article, not a politics article. It is certainly significant to the campaign. Whether it is significant to a person's life or not, that's another story. 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 - Wikidemon (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have no strong feelings about removal or retention in either case. Sander's page completely failed to meet our "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" requirement and nobody could find a citation where he had. I already have good citations for Clinton and Trump self-identifying (see the list of candidates - I added citations where I could find them). The question before us is whether Clinton and Trump meet the "and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability". I am still waiting for evidence (not just opinions that Wikipedia's policies suck or claims that that US presidential candidates are exempt from Wikipedia's policies). So again I ask, does anyone have a citation supporting the claim that Clinton and Trump meet that requirement? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Relevancy to public life or notability seems like a fairly low bar for us to jump over. If reliable published sources discuss her Methodist religion, then her Methodist religion seems "relevant" to her notability. She's not notable because of being a Methodist, of course, but being a Methodist does make her slightly more notable as evidenced by the published sources. Anyway, I really don't have anything more to say about this, just wanted to say what I said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton is Methodist" — lead sentence from New York Times article on the subject.[14] No more needed, that fully supports inclusion. If you're waiting for the published sources to say that "Hillary Clinton's religion is directly related to why the published sources choose to write about her" or "Hillary Clinton's faith belongs in Wikipedia's infobox", don't hold your breath. They're writing news articles, we're writing an encyclopedia. We have a different question of whether religion should be in politicians' infoboxes generally. I tend to lean against. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. I asked for a reference (others here seem to think that their opinions are an acceptable substitute for a citation...) and you gave me one, which is fine, but you also incorrectly assumed that I would reject the reference. An article in the New York Times (and not just a mention in passing) is a reliable source that establishes that her beliefs are relevant to her public life or notability. Again, I don't particularly want the religion entry removed or retained. I just want to check the sources, as I am doing with all forty 2016 candidates for US president. See my conclusion comment below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs) 07:56, 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)

I would agree with you that religion is not a defining feature of politicians, in the US at least, and therefore should as a rule not be the subject of an infobox field. Even for someone as devoutly religious as Jimmy Carter as a personal faith, or who makes as much of an issue of it as Ted Cruz as a political campaign point, it is still not one of the attributes of their notability. It would be like listing, say, "brand of piano" in the infobox of every musical group. Well, that may be important for Billy Joel and Alicia Keys, not so important for Radiohead or Eminem. No matter how important it is to a particular artist, the attribute of what kind of piano they use is not a distinguishing features of a band. That's what I was referring to about confusion. If that's the case it should apply to all politicians, not just those that don't wear their religion as a badge. Unless they're running for Minister of Religious Affairs, it's not a salient characteristic. Regarding the tension between WP:LOCALCON and WP:NOTBUREAU, all decisions around here are made by small groups of editors. Judging whether there is consensus for something, including how to interpret policy and whether it is applicable to a given situation, is for the most part done out in the field of article space. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: If you look at my comment above you'll see that I do get the central point. But I don't understand why the "religion" field is being kept in the infobox at all. For those people who still qualify to have it, it is unnecessary, since the lead – indeed often the first sentence – will say what their religion is. Timothy M. Dolan begins "Timothy Michael Dolan (born February 6, 1950) is an American Cardinal prelate of the Catholic Church." Ibrahim Mogra begins "Ibrahim Mogra is an imam from Leicester and Assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain." Desmond Tutu begins "Desmond Mpilo Tutu (born 7 October 1931) is a South African social rights activist and retired Anglican bishop who ..." Deborah Waxman begins "Rabbi Deborah Waxman, Ph.D. is the president of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities." Pat Robertson, who actually did run for president, begins "Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson (born March 22, 1930)[1] is an American media mogul, executive chairman, and a former Southern Baptist minister, who ..." All of these first-sentence mentions are a lot more visible than a field most of the way down in the infobox. So why not make everything real simple and just junk the field completely? Wasted Time R (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why the "religion" field is being kept in the infobox at all ... why not make everything real simple and just junk the field completely?

I think that is likely the next logical step. Broad sea change in the way things are done usually happens incrementally. First there is voiced concern about the numerous arguments, edit-wars and perennial RfCs over the infobox field. Check. Then community consensus develops that the field is too problematic, and is to be removed from all infoboxes except in the rarest of cases (or in infoboxes designed specifically for religious leaders, etc.). Check. I presume, next, the developers of the templates will remove the field altogether. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Further efforts to attain conclusion

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)

While I favor inclusion, I'm still opposed to the notability test: "only if directly tied to the person's notability". She would be equally notable if she were Muslim, atheist, or apathetic. The RS coverage does not go to her notability, only to relevance. Religion is directly tied to the notability of MLK, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama, not to Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, or Hillary Clinton. And I still feel it was a bad close re that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The RFC consensus overwhelmingly rejected the idea that religion could go in the infobox merely because acceptable sources exist for it. Unresolved was whether all articles would have religion limited to article text or dealing with moving it to a custom parameter for exceptional cases.... and all discussion of exceptional cases was about religious leaders and comparable cases where religion was specifically important to their notability. Hillary's article is about as far from an exceptional case as you can get. Alsee (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll include it, but if a consensus to develops among editors of presidential candidate articles to deprecate that parameter or its use, or relegate it to child articles, we should conform this article so as to present a consistent encyclopedic treatment. I agree with Mandruss that the RfC is not apropos here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll exclude it, per policy and per the RfC consensus cited at the top of this discussion, unless a consensus develops here to ignore both policy and community consensus, and treat this specific article differently than the other presidential candidate BLPs. I agree with Alsee that the subject of this article doesn't meet the requirements to utilize the |Religion=, and its use violates both long-standing policy and community consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is first and foremost to have consistency among the presidential candidate biographies. The longstanding policy and consensus, going back to when infoboxes were invented in the early years of the encyclopedia, was to populate a religion field in politicians' infoboxes. Clinton's religion has been stated there for more than ten years.[15] If a consensus develops on this and the other presidential candidate article pages to remove religion as an infobox field, I would favor that. That could be a separate and more on-point RfC — whether, going forward, to deprecate the religion field from current and future US candidate articles. Barring such a consensus, as in all consensus matters, it is best not to make disputed changes to articles whether or not one is claiming a policy basis. My reading is that naming a candidate's religion in the infobox is entirely consistent with BLP policy and established consensus, but it would be better to remove them all. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Filling in the religion field without deference to policy has become commonplace, certainly. Populating the field was never mandated by "longstanding policy" as far as I am aware, and whatever consensus exists around the matter appears to be only a status quo default, rather than an affirmative decision to use the field without restriction. The fact remains that the field is in wide use against policy, and the only reason editors objecting to the repair can say "but...but...all these other candidates have their religions trumpeted in the infobox!" is because editors have only just started to tackle the problem. As far as I know, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton are the first of 40 to receive attention. I find it surprising that you would find use of the field to be consistent with BLP, given that WP:BLPCAT is part of that policy. 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. None of these 40 candidates are in the public eye because of their religious endeavors; if they were, the |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)

I don't think it's fair to say that the entire Wikipedia community was violating a BLP policy for ten years across entire article spaces until somebody finally decided to do something about it. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. Further, these policies are relatively new. Personally, I believe that the use is within both historical and new policies. Differences over interpreting policy are, like all content differences, subject to consensus process. Consistency among similar articles is indeed an important goal, that's one of the things that policies, guidelines, projects, MOS, etc., are all about. That's particularly true with things like infoboxes, categories, and other templates. If we want to tackle the issue of whether it's appropriate to list the religion of candidates in their infoboxes, as I've said I think not, but tackling that problem shouldn't be a matter of taking shots at individual articles, which will yield inconsistent results. Why don't we hold a centralized discussion about all of the major candidates, and possibly extend that to all candidates for national (or any US?) office. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My observation that editors have been ignoring policy for years was not meant as an indictment; it was sympathetically acknowledging that a long-standing problem is finally being more seriously addressed. The Wikipedia community realized long ago during its infancy that the grouping and categorizing of living people based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or gender identification was problematic (see the WP:Categorization of people guidelines back in 2004 and earlier, for example), and was dubbed a "sensitive" issue requiring additional rules and restrictions when using Categories, Infoboxes and Navigation Templates. The rules and restrictions are not always intuitive, which has lead to not only numerous, continuous RfCs and Talk page discussions all over the project, but also to a proliferation of violations so commonplace that one might mistake the ignoring of policy as status quo 'consensus'. You suggest that we should hold a centralized discussion on this matter; we just did: right here. The resulting consensus was to remove the parameter from the infoboxes, while ensuring that religion is still adequately covered in the body text, and in rare cases a custom |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)

Back to the "confusion" part. It seems pretty obvious that in modern-day America a person's professed religion is in most cases highly relevant to their career as a political candidate. They get scrutinized on it, it matters to some voters, and so it's covered widely by the sources. However, this is not uniform. Further, some people are not primarily notable as political candidates, or else it was a short period in a career notable for other reasons. A religion may or may not be part of a person's life story as told in their biography, but unless they are a religious figure it is rarely the reason for their notability. Contrast Clinton with Carly Fiorina, known primarily as a businessperson, but also an occasional candidate. Her religion wasn't added to the article at all, much less her infobox, until the day she announced her candidacy for President[16] — incidentally, by an editor who had been editing her article for six years by that point. There was a small edit war too over whether "politician" should be added to her occupation. It seems that it comes with the territory of being a politician, not of being a person who happens to be in politics. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

in modern-day America a person's professed religion is in most cases highly relevant to their career as a political candidate

In pre-modern America, perhaps. It could once be said that if you weren't mainstream Christian (or at least acted the part), you wouldn't have a chance at any level of political office. Recent studies and polling show, however, that non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, even non-religious) have been obtaining increasingly higher levels of political office, while the electorate's concern for religious affiliation has been steadily (albeit slowly) decreasing. But all of that aside, no one is suggesting that a person's religious beliefs cannot be covered (even at length, if warranted) in our Wikipedia article. This discussion is about whether a living person should also have their religious beliefs boiled down to one or two words billboarded in neon lights (that's what using Wikipedia's religion Categories and Infobox Fields does) as a significantly defining part of their public notability. Community consensus is that we should not. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

By modern I mean the past 70 years or so. If it is a feature of politics during the era that religion is boiled down to billboard slogans and every politician needs a billboard, then unfortunately, that's what the encyclopedia has to say about the politics of religion. Good point about the recent trend, so hopefully this will be moot soon. Further, I agree that as a rule a person's religion is not a defining feature of the sort that belongs in a bio infobox. My disagreement is on which policies apply, which speaks to how we go about deprecating the field. I would favor a project-wide consensus that the infoboxes for all currently active US politicians should not list their religious affiliation, no matter how much of their political identity derives from it, because it just isn't a vital statistic. I would not go about this one article at a time because an inconsistent treatment degrades the article space. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 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)

I think it is fairly clear that the RfC close consensus was: "to remove the (|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)

You heard wrong. The issue of the significance of religion to a person's notability is at the core of everything I've been saying above. I see the words "cases in which the religion is significant to the article subject" in the close, which I grant you is not clear, but while you suggest that the close be improved, I think an even better course of action would be to make the relevant policies and guidelines even more clear. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently I'm in way over my head in this discussion, if "significant to the article subject" is just a "not clear" way of saying "directly tied to the person's notability". So I guess I'll leave it to y'all, c-ya. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Policies aren't supposed to require a legalistic interpretation of the wording, much less RfC closes. But if you did want to get all legal about it, if the closing administrator had meant to say "significant to the article subject" they could have said so. The fact that they chose a wording that is different than BLPBIO, and apparently a higher standard, suggests that they meant it to be different. Is it okay to ask the closing admin? Maybe they can explain here what they meant. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 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:
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.
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.

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)

Xenophrenic, I do not see the words "categorization by non-defining characteristics...." at WP:CATDEF. Even if they were there, I suspect that you would be making a mistake of logic; the idea that the principles described at WP:BLPCAT apply equally to categories and infoboxes does not mean that the principles at some other guideline about categorization (like Wikipedia:Overcategorization which does use the phrase "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided") apply equally to categories and infoboxes. Obviously, infoboxes often contain stuff that is not a defining characteristic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the words ... at WP:CATDEF.

My apologies, Anythingyouwant. When I said "from WP:CATDEF", I meant to type "linked from CATDEF" (which brings you to WP:NONDEF, as you already discovered). I corrected it in the text above.

you would be making a mistake of logic ... does not mean that the principles at some other guideline ... apply equally

I could not disagree more. As you are likely aware, with regard to "religion", WP:BLPCAT directs us to see WP:Categorization of people and informs us that 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.

infoboxes often contain stuff that is not a defining characteristic

Uh, some of these infoboxes have over 100 available fields. Only the 5 underlined fields above (at this time) require the special handling mandated by Wikipedia policy we're discussing, so I fail to see your point. Of course Hillary Clinton is not "defined" by her Date of Birth or her Alma Mater, yet those appear in her infobox -- but Wikipedia does not single those fields out as "sensitive", "problematic" or "restricted by BLPCAT" or requiring us to "exert extra precaution". Wikipedia does, however, single out "religion". Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT has a hatnote: "See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people; Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality; and Wikipedia:Eponymous overcategorization". Later on, the last paragraph of BLPCAT says "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates...." I don't see any indication that the latter statement about "these principles" includes all the principles at the pages wikilinked in the hatnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia considers five (presently, anyway) biographical characteristics to be "sensitive", and requiring additional policies, restrictions and extra care in their handling when it comes to categorization of living people (that includes infoboxes). If you would like that repeatedly spelled out on the many dozens of policy, guideline and information pages, I will certainly support you in that endeavor. I don't see any indication that those special handling instructions apply only when your browser is displaying a particular policy page, and cease to apply when you bring up a different policy page. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this will get us back on track. Do you see the following wording at WP:BLPCAT? Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) ... should not be used unless ... the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. These principles apply equally to ... Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs. Where on Wikipedia do you think this policy does not apply? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot dive too deeply into these questions right now. I'll just say this.... If Wikipedia has a policy or guideline that quite rightly singles out religion as a characteristic requiring clear self-identification in infoboxes and everywhere else, I don't think it necessarily follows that every other Wikipedia policy and guideline that singles out religion (e.g. in opening sentences) therefore must completely apply to infoboxes too. On the contrary, if a guideline or policy specifically refers to a spot in an article (e.g. the opening sentence), then that implies some deliberate targeting of that spot, and should not be extended to other spots by vague inference.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole thing is kind of stupid. It does not serve the BLP policy objectives or anything else to insist that politicians cannot be identified by their religious affiliation based on an obscure RfC or policy decision that addresses a different issue when, in fact and according to all the sources, in the United States, they are. Pointing and screaming to a supposed project-wide process, that apparently involved 35 editors commenting, 12 against and some other number for, is ridiculous. Indeed, these policy pages and RfC closures do mean something, but they are not addressed to this question. Certainly there is no BLP issue here, so why try to invoke BLP policy? We're trying to maintain an encyclopedia here, not argue about angels dancing on pinheads. 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)

...to insist that politicians cannot be identified by their religious affiliation...

Now THAT is beyond stupid. No one has insisted such a thing here, nor has anyone "screamed" that an obscure RfC or policy insists such a thing. Such a gross mischaracterization of this issue can be attributed to only two things: an intentional attempt at disruption, or a genuine ignorance of the specifics regarding this issue we're discussing. Since I've never known you to be intentionally disruptive, let's go with the latter, and I will attempt to fill in the apparent gaps in your understanding on this matter. First, as you now know, the problematic ethnicity and religion fields are being removed from all biographical infoboxes. The reasons for the removal have nothing specifically to do with the subject of this article (Hillary Clinton) or with her religion or ethnicity. Just so you are clear, the problematic fields are being removed project-wide for a great number of reasons that have nothing to do with any individual biographical article. THIS ISSUE, or rather this discussion, only concerns whether we should reinstate (or maintain, if the field hasn't yet been removed), the field as a special exception to the project-wide consensus. The initiator of this discussion has preemptively given interested editors the opportunity to "provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability", in case an exception was to be made here. Again, no one ever suggested, much less "insisted", that our Wikipedia biographies couldn't cover religious affiliations - and that goes for the subset of living people known as "presidential candidates in the US" as well. This is strictly about the epidemic misuse of an infobox field, and unless Clinton is a Minister, or a Nun, or otherwise famous because of her religion, that restricted field is blank.

Certainly there is no BLP issue here, so why try to invoke BLP policy?

No one is trying to invoke policy. You expressed confusion over why the community has decided to remove a problematic field from general use and abuse in biographical infoboxes, so I quoted from several policies (including BLP) to help you understand just how limited and restricted the use of these five categories and fields were intended to be. You sound incredulous that such a decision could have been made by the community, which leads me to conclude that you must be oblivious to the long history of problems involving these specific fields/cats. Is that the case?

the argument that inclusion of an infobox parameter should be on an exceptional basis is manifestly nonsensical

That statement is nonsensical. If by that you mean that inclusion of fields such as sexuality, religion or ethnicity should not receive exceptional handling, compared to place of birth, alma mater or years in office, then I really do not know what to say to you. If by that you mean that there should be no exceptions to the consensus to completely remove the field from non-professional-religionist biographical infoboxes, fine by me. That would significantly reduce this drama around implementing community consensus. After all, I wasn't one of the people who argued that the parameter should still be available for rare exceptions like, arguably, Tom Cruise or Barack Obama, where their religion is or became a significant defining characteristic of their public notability. Or perhaps you just misread whenever I used the word "exception"; you see, I never made an "argument that inclusion of an infobox parameter should be on an exceptional basis". I did, however, make an observation that living people, other than those in the business of religion, would not meet the "defining characteristic" requirements to allow the use of the religion field, except possibly for rare exceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What I like about Xenophrenic's position is that it is based upon clearly defined requirements that a person either meets or does not meet. What I don't like about some of the arguments made against Xenophrenic's position is that they either claim that perfectly clear requirements are not clear, claim that the requirements don't apply because they don't like them, or pretend that our policy at Wikipedia:Local consensus doesn't exist. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, the whole thing is rather stupid, and now so wrought up as to include personal attacks. If that isn't screaming on Wikipedia, I don't know what is. Let's go down my list. "Stupid" meaning a ridiculous exercise, directed at our collective process here, not a particular editor, check. Does not serve policy, check. Insisting that politicians cannot be identified by their religious affiliation, check. Note to overwrought editors, I chose word "identify" meaning noting as a defining attribute such as an identity category, rather than saying we're merely describing a religious affiliation. Obscure RfC and policy decision (BLPCAT) address a different issue, check. Sources establish that Amreicans identify politicians by religion, check. Pointing, check. Screaming, check. So back to the point, leaving it up to editors to decide by local consensus whether each individual politician will have their religion noted in the infobox, and basing that decision on whether the politician is notable on account of their religion, is a very poor way to organize things. Suppose for the sake of discussion that Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Barak Obama (and actor Tom Cruise) fit the bill, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders do not. Bill Clinton does but Hillary does not. A reader perusing the encyclopedia notes that Carson is categorized as a Seventh Day Advocate, Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, Obama is a nondenominational Protestant, B. Clinton is a formerly Southern Baptist, and Cruz is also a Southern Baptist, at least the reader would have learned that's his category until Xenophrenic removed it[17]. Trump, Sanders, and H. Clinton have no religious category (again, for the sake of argument). What good does that inconsistency do the reader? Or the BLP subjects? Or the encyclopedia? Xenophrenic, you and I are on the same track with the "there should be no exceptions to the consensus to completely remove the field from non-professional-religionist biographical infoboxes". I won't generalize to all professions and all times and places, but at least with modern era American politicians, I think we should deprecate the field entirely rather than have a discussion on each article about removing it. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

Some categories and their associated infobox entries are "regular categorization". Others, such as Category:People convicted of child pornography offenses and the associated "conviction = " entry in Template:Infobox criminal have special rules and requirements for inclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I was talking specifically about infoboxes, not categories. Whereas categorizing somebody as a child porn convict is understandably a matter of finding exceptions, the conviction parameter from criminal infoboxes is not, right? If they were not convicted, then they would not be a member of the category, nor would they get a convict infobox (unless they were convicted for some other reason, in which case the infobox would not be referring to child porn). The solution wouldn't be to remove the "convicted" parameter from the infobox based on being a child porn convict not being directly related to their notability. You'd probably choose a different infobox. Anyway, please see my new comment in the subsection below, I'm agreeing now that the parameter should be removed from this article and noting that my objection is really a matter of process, not article content. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

New RfC?

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)

I hate to break it to you, but we just did exactly that. An RfC was opened at a 2016 Presidential candidate article Talk page on what to do with the religion field. Every argument you see above was raised and debated. The ultimate result was to blank out the religion field and not use it. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth before, during and after that RfC. While that RfC was still fresh and not yet archived, another RfC was launched, this time project-wide (The Village Pump), and not just about the religion field for one 2016 candidate, but for all 2016 national election bios (technically, for all biographical infoboxes). Again, every argument you see above, and others, was raised and debated. The ultimate result was to remove the religion field from biographical infoboxes. Now that implementation of that decision has started in earnest, there is of course more wailing and gnashing of teeth. We can, of oourse, launch yet another RfC. And when we get the same result, launch yet another, and another, until we get ... what? A different result?

I'm sure everyone here would respect the outcome...

Like they respect the outcome of the most recent one, or like they will respect the 7th one from now? I suspect that no RfC close will please everyone, but perhaps if notifications are placed in carefully selected venues, a future RfC could be skewed to produce any number of close decisions. In my opinion, the originator of the most recent RfC, SMcCandlish, performed due diligence in avoiding that kind of rigging. Read his initial post, especially the small print just before his signature, and tell me if you disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I said. An RfC specific too this issue would be dispositive and respected, and would green light a broad implementation. In fact, implementation could be discussed in the RfC. As of now there is reasonable disagreement, and as far as I can tell no mandate for making any mass edits to political articles. Of course, disputed mass edits, particularly if implemented by bots or editors who don't usually edit the articles, are going to create a lot of dissent if there is not a clear mandate. Which presidential article talk page are you referring to, btw? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The mandate to remove the |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.

As of now there is reasonable disagreement...

To what, specifically? I've scanned the whole discussion above, which was started as a request for sources showing that the subject of this article (Hillary Clinton) qualifies as a special exception justifying the use of the restricted |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?

As for articles where it has already been implemented, those include Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Bev Perdue, Pat McCrory (not a candidate, but still a headliner lately with all this North Carolina bathroom business), and others. I'm not sure of the wisdom behind selecting 40 of the arguably most-watched biographies as the place to start enforcing lesser-known BLP policies, but I guess the OP felt we had to start somewhere. The goal is to repair all biographical infoboxes presently in violation of policy. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I and some others here do not believe there is a mandate to remove the field from political articles. You and some others believe there is. Sitting here on this page, I have no idea what people think regarding other individual bios. That is a disagreement of the sort that a more "directly on point" RfC would solve. The RfC I am suggesting is exactly what I said it was. Quoting the paragraph at the top of this section: "what to do about religious affiliation infobox parameter for US political candidates project-wide?" I would actually support that outcome, and I would expect something close to it to prevail in a neutrally worded discussion. What I don't think are good for the project are either case-by-case discussions at each article that generate inconsistent results, or else somebody beginning mass removals without discussion. Above, you say " An RfC was opened at a 2016 Presidential candidate article Talk page on what to do with the religion field." Sorry if I'm being dense here, but would you kindly point to which page that is so I can review? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I and some others here do not believe there is a mandate to remove the field from political articles. You and some others believe there is.

No; that is incorrect, the way you worded it. Allow me to restate that more precisely: The Wikipedia community says with regard to the religion field in biographical infoboxes, there is "Overwhelmingly clear consensus to remove the parameter from the infoboxes." You, and presumably unnamed others - it is not apparent who, do not feel that mandate applies to the religion field in infoboxes for presidential candidates. That consensus decision applies to all biographical infoboxes, including this one in Clinton's article. You mention "political articles", but those don't usually have a biographical infobox, and Clinton's certainly does not, nor does it mention her religion even once.

The RfC I am suggesting is exactly...

Redundant. Your "infobox parameter for US political candidates project-wide" is a subset of the "biographical infobox project-wide" scope of RfC recently concluded. If you disagree with the closing decision or conclusions of that project-wide RfC, I believe the proper step is to file a close review, rather than file redundant RfCs until you get a different result.

kindly point to which page

Of course; I was referring to the Sanders RfC located here. That RfC, along with several other recent RfCs on the problematic religion and ethnicity fields in the biographical infoboxes, were the impetus for the recently concluded project-wide RfC. I'm still waiting to see an argument here (one that wasn't already raised and discussed at the RfC) as to why the field in Hillary's infobox is an exception to the project-wide community consensus. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community has made no such determination. This is your interpretation, not mine. The decision does not apply as you suggest. I do not need to seek a decision review in order to propose that it does not apply in the way you suggest. I am not sure why you seem to be opposing an RfC that will likely confirm your apparently favored resolution, and mine too. The current RfC does not support a campaign of mass edits to remove religion from politician infoboxes, and to do so would be a WP:BOLD edit subject to reversion. I'm wondering why you would possibly oppose a further step to confirm what to do about this, project wide, in hundreds of articles. A new RfC could endorse that action. Absent that step, you and others favoring removal are going to face an article-by-article review process to decide whether the candidate's religion is critical or directly linked or relevant or whatever imprecise wording somebody has proposed somewhere, vis-a-vis, their notability, when deciding whether to remove the religious affiliation from the bio infobox. Why can't we decide, once and for all, that religious affiliation should not be part of the infobox for any American politician — not necessarily because policy completely forbids it, but because as a matter of editorial discretion that is not a good way to identify politicians. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This is neither a "matter of editorial discretion" question nor a "because policy completely forbids it" question. This is a "do the sources meet the requirements Guy listed at the top of this section?" question. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't opposed your suggested "RfC about what to do about religious affiliation infobox parameter for US political candidates project-wide?" I merely pointed out to you that such an RfC just concluded, but slightly wider in scope (it covers your political candidates, and all other living people as well). The recently closed RfC says that the religion fields are to be removed from the biographical infoboxes. If you think the RfC has not made that determination, that is your personal interpretation, not that of the community. I don't know what you are referring to when you say "whatever imprecise wording somebody has proposed somewhere", but on the off chance you are referring to your confusion over Wikipedia policies on determining what is or isn't a defining characteristic, I have no problem at all with you doing whatever is necessary to get the wording on policy pages clarified to your satisfaction. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Got it. My objection is a process concern more than a content concern about this article, so I'll drop any objection to removing the parameter from this article per WP:NOT#BURO. Granting your point, that the community (and common sense, policy, etc.) dictate that it should be removed broadly from all articles, I still may want to propose an RfC or some other consensus process to launch an effort to do so with respect to US political candidates. Rather than go about this one article at a time, I think we ought to just remove it from all, then let the editors at each article decide whether their article is an exception. I agree with you that there really shouldn't be many exceptions, but I also believe in "never say never". For example, a political candidate may also be a current or former religious official. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)