Jump to content

Talk:Vesna Pusić

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

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes.

[edit]

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

There are many reasons for saying "Religion = None" rather than "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It goes against our manual of style for infoboxes.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Purpose of an infobox says:
  • "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."
I might add that the infobox talk pages have a long history of rejecting the arguments of various editors who insist on trying to cram more and more information into the infoboxes, using the same basic argument: "yes this is well covered in the article, but this VITALLY IMPORTANT detail MUST be in the infobox as well because mumble mumble (waves hands)." Again and again, the overwhelming consensus has been to put only the bare minimum into the infobox and to expect the reader to read the actual article for the fine details and distinctions.

There is no consensus for it.

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
A bit later, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. The result of that discussion in in the closing summary: "The preferred phrase would be 'Religion: None'."
More recently, I did a survey and found that hundreds of Wikipedia pages use "Religion: None" in the infobox and only five use "Religion = None (atheist)"
Extended content

METHODOLOGY:

Before I started this project I searched to find what wording most pages use and found a strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages. More recently I did a count to see how strong that consensus really is.

First, I did a search on "Religion: None" in article space [1], grabbed the first 500 results, and deleted everything that wasn't "Religion: None" in the infobox of a BLP (including many pages such as Ysgol Bryn Alyn that use "Religion: None" in the infobox but are not BLPs). This left me with the following 280 pages:

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

To test whether the above might be the results of my own efforts, I spot checked a couple of dozen of those pages and found that the vast majority of those pages have never been edited by me and that most have used "Religion: None" for months or years.

I then did the same search on "Religion: None (atheist)"[2] and "Religion: None (atheism)"[3] in article space and found five pages:

This reflects the strong consensus for "Religion: None" across multiple Wikipedia pages.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to anything that even hints at calling atheism a religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
One of the standard arguments that evangelic christian apologists use in an attempt to refute atheism is "atheism is just another religion. You need faith to believe that there is no God".[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] That's why so many atheists object to any hint that atheism is a religion and why before adding "(atheism)" there must be a reliable reliable source that establishes that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.
In addition, "Religion: None (atheist)" usually fails to tell the whole story. Most atheists do reject theism, but they also reject all nontheistic religions and a wide variety of non-religious beliefs. "Religion = None (atheist)" actually narrows down the meaning of "Religion = None" to the point where in many cases the infobox entry is no longer accurate.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = 1986 (banana)" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In my opinion, "Religion = None" remains the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

[edit]

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Active politician

[edit]

Tuvixer, I removed the |activepol= parameter because it says:

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

The election is finished, and Pusić does not meet any of the above criteria. For this parameter to make sense, it should be used sparingly, i.e. not for all politicians that are currently active in politics. Just recently I revised it for Croatian politicians, and left (or set) it on for:

  • Sanader, Bandić, Rimac, Glavaš, Vidošević (controversy over criminal investigations)
  • Milanović, Karamarko, Petrov, Orešković (current political conflict)
  • Grabar-Kitarović (does not strictly meet the criteria, but is a high-level figure (standing President) who is presumably more or less continuously involved in conflicts and controversies; the same might reasonably apply to the standing PM and the leader of the opposition)

Josipović is also not an active politician in any sense, according to the above definition. Some of the above people might be removed in the near future, depending on circumstances (e.g. Milanović). GregorB (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The election didn't even start, so to say. She will run for the office of UN Secretary General. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UN Secretary General - that's true, so fair enough. I'll remove Josipović from active politicians, though. GregorB (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also she is still a minister in the government. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically she is, but it's a matter of days now, and a controversy is rather unlikely. Others will assume the posts in the new Government shortly, but unless they're involved in an actual high-profile controversy, I don't think there is a case for marking them as active politicians in the sense described above. GregorB (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a huge controversy already happened, so anything is possible. Don't presume anything. --Tuvixer (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vesna Pusić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vesna_Pusić&oldid=1209511478"