Template talk:Infobox country/Archive 11

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
Summary for the RFC listing: For non-religious nations, how should infoboxes list their religion?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This RFC is closed.

Closing comments
Consensus in this request for comment has determined several things. Firstly, there is overwhelming agreement that the religion parameter is not to be used in infobox country if the only reasonable value for that parameter is "none", "atheist," "none official," "secular state," or variations thereof. Some of the reasoning outlined below is that it is the sensible thing to do; it maintains consistency with other infoboxes of the same calibre, like infobox person; and that there is no such religion as "none" or "atheism". The policy basis for this is that, to quote from JzG below, "[a]ssuming that every country must have a religion, and that any country that does not have a religion must have a religion parameter saying it has none," is not neutral, as it begs the question. Therefore, the religion parameter is only to be included in this infobox iff that nation's government has an official, definite state religion. Secondly (and this is a bit redundant given the last statement but still) there is consensus against adding "none" as a value to the religion parameter in this infobox, as it is unnecessary and even misleading. Thirdly, there is agreement that if the official position of a government on religion is state atheism, as in "a government that is either antireligious, antitheistic or promotes atheism," (to quote from the article on state atheism) the value of the religion parameter should be "none (atheist)" (it also makes sense to link "(atheist)" to the article on state atheism, or say "(state atheism)" with a link, but that's just me speaking). The point that Future Perfect at Sunrise about this is worth quoting: "If somebody asks me: "what's your hair colour?" and I answer, "none, I'm bald", I have given a perfectly adequate and true answer to the question. I certainly haven't made the nonsensical implicit claim that "bald is a hair colour"; what I have done is offering "being bald" as a contextually sensible explanation of why I don't have a hair colour. In the same vein, if somebody asks me: "what's the state religion of country XYZ?" and I answer, "none, they're explicitly atheist", I have given a perfectly adequate answer. What goes for question and answer in normal speech also goes for the infobox entry." As always, editors should use common sense in application of the consensus reached here, but, as is tradition, the agreements concluded upon should be used in all but exceptional circumstances.

Some individuals bring up some other interesting points below. For example, should the religion parameter read "State religion" or "Official religion" instead of simply "Religion"? There is not consensus that I see to do so, but it is a reasonable suggestion that several bring up, and could be considered at some point. Another suggestion brought up by several people is whether there should be a "religious demographics" parameter that would lay out the particular demographics in a country. There is no consensus for this either, but is also a reasonable point. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 23:50, 31 July 2015 (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 in cases where the subject of the page has no 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, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

This RfC is an attempt to create a bright line answer concerning exactly what the consensus is concerning the religion entry for nation infoboxes.

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 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.

Previous Discussions and related pages

 * Template talk:Infobox person
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
 * Template talk:Infobox person
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 25
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 13
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 12
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 11
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 5
 * Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 3
 * Manual of Style/Infoboxes

Ground Rules
Previous discussions have generated large numbers of comments, so no replies will be allowed in the support sections. This is the best way to make it clear who supports what. Please keep all threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section. Avoid commenting directly below other users as is often done.

As always with RfCs, the quality of your argument counts more than the !vote counts. A compelling policy-based argument is worth more than multiple "I like it" / "I hate it" comments.

Because this has been such a contentious issue in the past, I plan on letting this run the full 30 days and then asking an uninvolved administrator (more than one If I can get them) with experience closing controversial RfCs to close this RfC. An issue that this many people feel this strongly about should not be snow closed.

When you reply in the threaded discussion section, you may wish to add "@Example" to indicate who you replied to. If you reply in the support sections your reply will be moved to the threaded discussion section with a "@Example:" added at the start of the comment.

Support Omit Parameter
In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed.

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.


 * 1) Support. Athiest is not a religion, none is clutter, omitting the parameter would be best. GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Consistent with the usage of the parameter for individuals, if there is no religion then the field should be omitted. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. GuzzyG pretty much nails it on the head and Doniago is correct that usage should be consistent. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. per GuzzyG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs)
 * 5) Support. - The same arguments as for individuals. If a country does not have a religion, there is no need to say anything. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. per previous comments .  General Ization  Talk   14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per consensus at Template talk:Infobox person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Seems most consistent with what we do for other parameters. "Religion: None" seems somewhat snarky to me. We wouldn't say "Morals: None". Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support per arguments at Infobox person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per previous comments. And because it tells the reader next to nothing anyway - it would cover everything from countries where the overwhelming majority of the population are religious but the state recognises no specific religion to countries where few of the population are religious. The religious beliefs of a population are of course legitimate topics for coverage in an article body, where we can actually explain things, rather than reducing them to meaningless sound-bites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, per what I said at Person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, same as per the person infobox discussion. Though I am unsure if this is necessary, as I checked several country articles and found no mention at all of religion, even for heavily religious countries.  The paramater does exist, of course. Resolute 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 13) Support.  This seems like it might be the best option.  If there's an official state religion, that should should probably be stated in the infobox.  If there isn't, then we don't really have anything to say.  For state atheism, this seems perhaps inadequate, but that would more ideally fit under a different parameter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Seems a no-brainer. Why would you have a religion parameter for a country with no official state religion? Whatever the decision, we should avoid the "atheist" morass. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Obvious path. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  19:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Omitting the field entirely in these cases is going to be the easiest solution - declaring that a certain country mandates a "state religion" of "none" or "irreligion" would not be true, and other solutions have POV issues - balanced discussion of religious discrimination or anti-clericalism belongs in the article body under "religion" or "history" -- Aronzak (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. -M.Altenmann >t 02:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, per GuzzyG. Additionally, none is factually inaccurate unless the parameter is changed to display as "official religion", as many countries exist where a majority practices one religion without the country having an official national religion (see United States, for example). ~ RobTalk 02:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per above. -- Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 03:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Unless the country was formed explicitly as (and remains) a religious state, the parameter shoud be omitted altogether. pablo  10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Things that are subtle, complex, and and need explanation and context are very poor candidates for infobox inclusion, no matter how important someone feels them to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Per WP:V and WP:RS, any statement of "none" religion would have to be properly sourced; I don't see how that's possible.  Only the apparent lack of religion could possibly be sourced, which is weak, and probably would fail WP:UNDUE.  And one country's lack of religion won't match others', so labeling them all "none" would be WP:SYNTH at best.  Conversely, true anti-religious countries, by definition, would be much more emphatic and should yield proper sources for their particular style.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC); Striking part of my statement that is outside scope of RfC; I !voted when the RfC opening statement was temporarily altered.  I may have voted for "Atheist where appropriate" where heavily sourced, but now I think it's better to produce a more conclusive guideline given the apparent shenanigans.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 23) Support per many editors above and, well, common sense. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Atheism is not a religion. Not having an established state religion is not a religion. Assuming that every country must have a religion, and that any country that does not have a religion must have a religion parameter saying it has none, is not WP:NPOV, as it is begging the question. We should include religion if, and only if, the country has an official established religion. The UK has an official religion, the USA does not, precisely because the UK does. I don't think most Americans would be comfortable with Religion: Atheist in their infobox, even though this is formally and technically true from the First Amendment, and the reader would greet it with a giant "WTF?". Guy (Help!) 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. Obvious choice - absence of an official or state religion is literally that; the absence of something. Turning that into an affirmative statement (ie, "athiest," or "none," or whatever) is misleading. Omitting the parameter is the only honest option in such cases.  Fyddlestix (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose There's a big difference between a non-affirmative statement of religion and a sourceable affirmative statement of non-religion and support for atheism in place of religion while cracking down on religion. I would not define state atheist as the former. No one here would. To use a common simile, defining state-enforced baldness as a "bald" state hair color would be different from a state having no official state hair color being referred to as having state baldness. Please discuss in the threaded discussion section. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Listing lack of traits in infoboxes isn't particularly useful.LM2000 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, as long as there is a definition of how to decide if a state (not "nation") should be considered religious or not. Otherwise it would have to be discussed again for each country, which would make the result of this RfC meaningless. I suggest to set the criteria as "doesn't have an official religion or officially declares that it doesn't have a religion" &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 16:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 30) Support omitting the parameter for all degrees of state non-religion; from the merely ambivalent and secular to the actively anti-religious, and all gray areas in between. Infobox fields are only for succinct unambiguous factoids, and should never be used to display terms which generate more confusion than clarity. (i.e.; "State atheism", which our article admits in the lead sentence could mean this, or that or the other - or may refer to something else entirely...) Xenophrenic (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 31) Qualified Support Some countries might have a de facto State Religion and if that was reliably sourced it would be OK. Atheism is in the main not a religion, although it has been argued (Midgley and others)  that the scientism of professional atheists such as Dawkins is assuming a religious form.  So if a state is officially and actively non-religious that also might be worthy of note  Snowded  TALK 23:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Most liberal democracies do not have state religions today. TFD (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Omitting the parameter would be best in all 'grey areas'. Reasons and situations given by Xenophrenic. Also endorse observation that 'State religion' or 'Official religion', would often be clearer than 'Religion', UK has a state religion, which probably has a smaller % of active members than US, which has 'freedom of religion' as its official doctrine. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 34) Support per all reasons already put forward above. Ultimately, the pivotal argument surrounds qualifying atheism as a religion: no, it is not a religion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Support None
In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion may be indicated with "religion = None", which displays as "Religion: None".

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.


 * Oppose. No other infobox parameter uses "none". I also oppose all variations that try to work around this, such as "NA", "None (state atheism)", "none official", or any other variation. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC) (This was an error in judgement. When I saw someone else post an "Oppose" !vote in another section, not thinking about the consequences, I replaced the example !vote with an oppose. I now realize that this was a bad idea and a poor example. I apologize.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose. I would have to agree with GM even after what I wrote below. Normally, if the truth were some form of "none", then one option is to simply not use the parameter; however, I continue to support general readers who might want a quick answer or need a fast answer for something at school – whatever – if the only correct entry is some form of "none", then perhaps just a pointer to an anchored link in the article with a label something like See article content? – Paine  16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose We do not need to put articles without a de jure state religion under this category; it's not relevant to most. The U.S., for example, has a lot of Christians, which has a de facto effect on US politics and social life, but has de jure freedom of religion. I don't mean things like this and other secular states as "atheist" states either. Israel may be a different story, but by-and-large...   Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow "atheist" etc. where appropriate
Where appropriate, in infoboxes about nations that have explicitly anti-religious policies, this may be indicated with "religion: Atheist", "religion: none (atheist)" or similarly.

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.


 * 1) Support Speaking as someone who does not consider applicable articles to be personal favorites (and therefore an exception to the |nominator's impression of supporters later in the thread), it is clear to me that state atheism was propagated in PSR Albania and some Soviet states. Was it not declared as such by Hoxha? To quote WBritten: "I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967." From here. Even if the presuppositionalist Christian apologetic that "atheism is/is equivalent to a religion" is upsetting to you, that doesn't mean the term "state atheism" is not relevant to the infobox. My support cannot be applied to secular liberal democracies, but I like almost all the "[other]" suggestions. Edit: I would only apply it where it fits the purpose of an infobox. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, Discuss-Dubious beat me to it, though I had a different example in mind. The fix for the presuppositionalism issue is to tweak this so a different parameter is used (or an additional parameter changes the output), and for cases like this it says "Religion and the state: ...", but "State religion: ..." in the other. I'm not certain it should be used at all in absence of either one (or more?) official state religions ("State religion: ..."), or there is a particularly noteworthy state position on religion ("Religion and the state: ..."), like PSRA's official atheism, and USA's constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. I'm neural on stuff like "Chrisitian 60% ..."; if used, I'm thinking a third label is needed, "Religious demographics: ...".  Easiest and less error-prone ("I'm going to fill in all three ..."): Have a separate parameter that changes the heading display, and only produces one of those three labels (or however many it's decided we need). Omit parameter when there is none (and don't WP:OR and label "none" as something else, like "atheist" or "agnostic", nor put something indeterminate like "mixed".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support [None (atheist)]. Omitting the parameter seems a logical choice when necessary (with the only dispute would be if a nation was non-religous pantheist or deist, however such nations do not exist). While no such states exists, a nation may have atheism as a 'state religion', but in actuality the 'state religion' would be having no religion. It seems logical to only include the parameter, with 'none (atheist)', when the nation makes clear that they support atheism i.e. they think that theism is false. THIS IS NOT IMPLYING ATHEISM IS A RELIGION. This is telling the reader, that not only do they not support a religion, but they support atheism. On a related note, it is of course annoying when nations (e.g. US) claim to have no official religion, yet clearly do. Doc H e u h (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophical position in respect of religion. We already settled this in template:infobox person. This would only be defensible if the parameter were renamed "philosophy" or something similar. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, Atheism is a view which, whether held because it is the view that has been learned by rote or a whether it is held in response to considered thought, is a faith. No one can disprove the existence of a g/God and it takes a degree of faith to "believe" that existence has got to its current state of, well, existence without the involvement of a g/God.  We do not have all the answers as to how the universe got into its current and generally fortuitous state and to assume that there is no g/God involved is more than just a philosophy.  It is also against WP:NPOV to permit the presentation of some faiths and preclude the presentation of others.  The issue here, as has been presented, is State atheism.  Those editors wanting to one extreme within optional parameters are essentially saying that states can be presented as promoting religion but they can'f be presented as promoting irreligion.  Intentionally or not this smacks of an unacceptable departure from NPOV which any closing admin should reject out of hand.  I would not be surprised if several of the supporters of exclusion failed to read as far as the argument as presented by  above.  Ping   GregKaye 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But it's not a religion. By definition, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we please keep the threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section? See See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose As the saying goes, bald is not a hair colour. And absence is not presence. And how is it NPOV to tell me that my lack of belief is really belief/a faith? If the argument that it's a faith is going to be for support, mine is at least as good for oppose. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "bald" is not a hair color, but it's still used as a descriptor where appropriate by, say police department APBs, because it's actually useful and descriptive. . --Calton | Talk 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're arguing that atheism is a faith on the basis of that? Doug Weller (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we please keep the threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section? See See Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Support "State atheism" is an actual thing, whatever silly word games the definitional pedants play. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a thing. But it's not a religion. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K., we get it. You have realized that the DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION above isn't actually enforceable. The thing is, pretty much everyone else is replying in the threaded comments section, (it's everyone but you if we don't count those who stopped when politely asked) and you choosing to be the only one who responds in the section marked "DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION" gives your comments an unfair prominence above the comments of everyone else. As does your decision to be the first to start posting "Oppose" comments in the Support sections -- pretty much everyone else gets to have their say once but you get to make your point multiple times.
 * I can't stop you from behaving this way, and I happen to agree with the content of your comments, but I don't have to like it. In my personal opinion this sort of behavior is disruptive and borders on gaming the system. Also, your behavior has made it so that the numbers before each !vote no longer reflect a count of how many editors support that option. :(
 * Note: I have no problem with those who observed your behavior and decided that it must be OK for them as well; polite people tend to learn what is and is not acceptable by observing the behavior of others. To avoid adding to the disruption, this will my last comment on this subject. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Atheism is a biased term not used in "atheist" states.  Whether or not these states were atheist too is problematic.  The Soviet government appointed bishops, and East Germany had "Christian democrats."  Popes have been official guests in Cuba.  TFD (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: I'm not quite certain as to how it could possibly made clearer that 'atheism' is not a religion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Support [other]
None of the above choices is acceptable (please explain what is acceptable to you in your comment).

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.


 * 1) Decide on case-by-case basis. Obviously, in the most frequent case, as with most modern states, simply omitting the parameter will be the obvious choice. There may be exceptions though. In cases of decidedly anti-religious state policies, as in some communist states, "none (atheist)" remains a reasonable option. (Excursus: The objection that such an entry would imply the nonsensical proposition that "'atheist' is a religion" or even that "'no religion' is a religion", as previously argued by some opponents of such entries, is bogus. An infobox entry "A = B" doesn't entail that "B is a kind of A". What it does mean is: "B is the contextually appropriate answer to the question: 'what about A?'". If somebody asks me: "what's your hair colour?" and I answer, "none, I'm bald", I have given a perfectly adequate and true answer to the question. I certainly haven't made the nonsensical implicit claim that "bald is a hair colour"; what I have done is offering "being bald" as a contextually sensible explanation of why I don't have a hair colour. In the same vein, if somebody asks me: "what's the state religion of country XYZ?" and I answer, "none, they're explicitly atheist", I have given a perfectly adequate answer. What goes for question and answer in normal speech also goes for the infobox entry.) Other possible exceptions might be in cases where you would expect the existence of an official state religion from context – let's say, if all principalities of the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia had an official state religion but there was just one of them that didn't, it might be quite reasonable to mark this exception with "religion = none". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Decide on case-by-case basis, depending on what actions or posture the state or the bulk of the nation has taken, for example Tibet is both atheist and Buddhist, the state being atheist, the nation Buddhist. (only an example). Or Soviet Union, atheist and Russian orthodox. India, Hindu, and no established religion. Rough generalizations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove paremeter, except where "none" is official I have not actually looked up the statistics on this, but I believe there are some countries that are officially atheist (such as China) but also others where the constitution explicitly separates religion from the state, even if the state is not atheist. I believe that "none" is appropriate in both these cases. As a slight aside, it seems to me that the parameter should read "official religion" or some such, because it is the government, not the country itself, which has a religion; but this might be outside the scope of this RfC. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Omit parameter unless the country has an official state religion, and then change it to read "State Religion=" or "Official Religion=" It seems absurd to me to have a "Religion" parameter for an entire country at all UNLESS the country has a specific, LEGAL, official religion. Decide on case-by-case basis, and if "none" is the case, then remove parameter all together, and where appropriate add "State" or Official" Putting "Religion:None" or "Religion: Atheist" on a country like the USA would make absolutely no sense, as there are numerous religions practiced in the country, though none are legally "the" religion, so you may as well put "Religion: Varied" and then list them all, which would also be absurd. My argument for using "State" or "Official" as a modifier is because in places like England, where if I remember correctly the official Church/Religion is the Church of England, it is not the only religion that it is legal to practice, although it is the official religion of the nation. Unless the country has a constitutional/legal religion (or lack thereof) that is enshrined, then omitting the parameter all together seems like the best option. (Edit: After looking at WarKosign's arguments about Israel [see Arbitrary Break 002 below] there may be some cases, like Israel, where "none official" would be the better parameter, as long as it is clearly explained in the article). Vyselink (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Allow parameter/value where it clearly meets Purpose of an infobox: I fully endorse the argument made by  above. But I would hope that we can offer a little more guidance than "case-by-case". I suggest that the presence of the religion parameter should depend on the religion of the nation being a key issue, discussed within that article; and that the burden of proof that it is 'key' should fall upon the editor wishing to add the parameter (since The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose). Secondly, I suggest that that "None", "Atheist" or "None (atheist)" could, in exceptional circumstances, be an acceptable value (per FPaS above), but only when that particular stance is demonstrably a key feature of the country's policy toward religion: "Laissez-faire" is best served by omission of the parameter from the infobox. Again I suggest that the burden of proof should fall on the editor wishing to employ such a value for religion, since it would be an exception to the normal expectation that the name of a recognised religion would be there. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Distinguish between nation and state: the articles using this template will normally talk about both things at once, nation-states. As pointed out by the second and third last opinions it is important to have a parameter for countries whose law mandate or allow from a set of religions and those who might forbid them, in which case the value of the parameter should read None, not Atheism because it is not a religion, nor it should read None (atheism), because that label doesn't account for theists without religion such as many deists and pantheists who should be allowed to believe in a deity according to such policy, and because religions like Buddhism, Jainism and many other Eastern religions would be allegedly forbidden in the country even though most of their practitioners are atheists. On the other hand having a separate parameter for briefing a nation's popular religious denominations tells the reader something about that nation's demographics regardless of what the state's official position is, and the value of the parameter should even be allowed to be a list if the nation shows a heterogeneous religious landscape. For non-religious nations I support using the value None because I don't think a single parameter with a single word as value is overdoing, whereas omitting it is indistinguishable from missing information. None tells you as much about the nation as any other valid option. Either remove the parameter for both religious and non-religious nations or allow it for the irreligious as well. I fail to see why other commentators are bringing atheism to the mix because it strictly belongs to a different category than that of religiosity, but it is true that atheism is not a religion. I would also support None (atheism) if just to clarify a nation is notoriously irreligious as well as atheistic. TL;DR: It is not clear to me from reading this whole RFC and from previous experience with articles about nation-states what the purpose of this parameter is, so my response entirely depends on this being clarified.--isacdaavid 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Remove the religion parameter altogether. except where atheism or "none" is an official stand, or is enforced by actively removing religious elements Willondon (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Decide on a case-by-case basis. For some countries is it difficult to say that there is no official religion. For some, there is a marked difference between what is de jure, and what is de facto. Some countries will only recognize certain religions as being legal to practice. Some do not have a clear separation of religion and state, while others have a clear association of religion and state but not an officially declared religion. For example, some countries (without an official religion) write laws based on one religion,  do not allow legal marriages outside of that religion, or have specific legally binding courts based on religion. In the cases where there is a clear association, but no legal official religion, I believe there should be a listed unofficial religion. I am not suggesting based on majority, but based on laws and practices. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Decide on case-by-case basis, with guidance. I endorse arguments of FutPerfect and RexxS, however as Guy Macon has said, infobox should be clear and uncontroversial and as various discussions have shown there are many countries with no official religion, which in practice are very un-secular, conversely some (UK?) in which a particular denomination has a position enshrined in law, which in practice are very secular. Equally officialy/actually atheistic states. Am I missing something, but whenever the 'status' of a nation's religious affiliation or practice is ambiguous or complicated, is there some reason why we should not use a wiki-link (see 'religion of Illyria'), rather than trying to come to a one-word label?Pincrete (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * This RfC is on the wrong page, as the "infobox person" would never be used on a country article. Please move this RfC to some more appropriate place, such as Template talk:Infobox country. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't see my preference listed as one of the alternatives: remove the religion parameter altogether, except where atheism or "none" is an official stand, or is enforced by actively removing religious elements. Willondon (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That would be the "Support [other]" section. If a significant number of editors agree with you, it will be given a section of its own. That's what happened during the last RfC, and the added section ended up being the clear winner. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Point of order: Is this RFC to merely change the template documentation or is it intended to form a policy or guideline? That's an important distinction because template documentation is merely advice on how the template is to be used and is (so far as I know and I could be wrong) non-binding; on the other hand it would be unusual, I think, to have a policy or guideline focused on the proper use of a single template (though such a restriction on the use of a template might, I think, be included in the WP:MOS, but this would need to be an explicit creation or modification of a MOS provision, were that to be the case) and if policy/guideline creation is intended this RFC would need to be more explicit in that intent and would also need to follow WP:PROPOSAL. Or maybe it's been decided somewhere that a consensus of editors at a template talk page can dictate in a binding fashion how that template is to be used without going through policy/guideline formation and I just don't know about it, but that would seem to me to violate WP:CONLIMITED which says: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an attempt to determine the consensus of the community in the face of a handful of editors who really, really, really want the religion parameter on their favorite pages to contain atheism in the religion field. Like most RfCs, the consensus on how to handle a situation does not automatically create a policy or guideline, nor does it change any documentation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive: their purpose is to document practice and consensus, not to define rules on editing. It is therefore a mistake to assume that consensus determined through an RfC is not binding because of the absence of a WP:PROPOSAL –  WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY refers. The policy at WP:CONLIMITED documents the reality that consensus established within a limited group (e.g. a WikiProject) cannot overrule a consensus that was established project-wide. Nevertheless, it is obvious that a particular group of articles or within a particular scope can have a policy different from the general one: you only have to compare WP:MEDRS with WP:RS or WP:AT with WP:FLORA to see examples of guidance applied to a sub-set being different from that applied generically. In each case, the differing guidance was established by a process of project-wide consensus forming. There is no reason why a consensus established through this RfC should not create guidance on the issue of "Religion in infoboxes of nations" that is binding (subject to WP:IAR, of course). --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RexxS, I would suggest that while that while your descriptive/prescriptive point may be true in theory, that on a day-in-day-out practical basis at forums such as AN, ANI, MEDCOM, dispute resolution forums and noticeboards such as RSN and BLPN that policies and guidelines are enforced or observed (with varying degrees of laxness or rigidity) while rule-like consensuses reached in other forums are generally disregarded. The ultimate question is this: If this RFC were to conclude with a clear consensus that, for example, in "infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed," and two groups of editors subsequently became involved in a disagreement over that very point on an article talk page, could the group taking the opposite position simply be silenced by pointing to the consensus reached here and, if they continued to push their position, be sanctioned for disruptive editing? If a policy or guideline was formed through PROPOSAL here, maybe, if this is only an opinion poll (as it appears to be if I understand Guy Macon's response, above, correctly) or if it only were to modify the template documentation, probably not. Indeed, if the question came before one of the dispute resolution forums where I often work (Third Opinion, DRN, and MedCom), my opinion would ordinarily be that the documentation or the opinion expressed here ought to be followed as a default position but that virtually any marginally-reasonable reason to do it differently in the particular situation would be enough to set that default position aside and put it up for a consensus decision in that particular case. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've now requested listing at Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates to attract community-wide opinion. Any consensus reached under those circumstances reflects the considered opinion of the community and should not be disregarded lightly. I still maintain that consensus acquired by a project-wide RfC carries the same weight as consensus that happens to be documented in policy and guideline pages. I also strongly doubt that, if tested, ArbCom would espouse a view different from that of P&G being descriptive, not prescriptive. I respect your conciliatory attitude to dispute resolution, but I wouldn't recommend that you should be quick to set aside a formal RfC if one side wished to discount it without very good reason. A "marginally-reasonable reason" would almost certainly be insufficient in a singular case to overturn a project-wide consensus once formed - in fact, I would have to ask, why should it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said, above, and would note that my position is in line with the WikiProject Council wikiproject guideline, which is a "real" guideline, and which says that consensus at a wikiproject — which would, of course, include consensus arrived at by RFC — is not binding on the rest of the encyclopedia unless PROPOSAL is followed and, unless that is done, consensus decisions at wikiprojects have no more effect than essays. I would argue that by the same logic, taking CONLIMITED into effect, the same applies to templates. Finally, I disagree that RFC has the broad effect that you suggest for it merely because it's an RFC, and know of nothing here that says or suggests that it has that effect. Per WP:RFC it is merely a means of attracting additional editors to a discussion; it can be used through PROPOSAL and the other means suggested by POLICY as a framework for discussion to form or modify policy or guidelines, but when so used it's a technique in that greater process, not a means to create community-wide consensus in itself. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "...a means to create community-wide consensus" but that isn't what I am trying to do. I am trying to measure community-wide consensus and to demonstrate to others what the community-wide consensus is. You have to consider the background here. I have removed religion from the infobox on slightly over 600 pages. Six of those pages (1%) resulted in initial opposition -- the rest were just fine with the editors working on the pages. Half of those objections went away with the previous RfC. This 2nd RfC is to demonstrate the community consensus that, to me, is already clear from the notable lack of pushback on 99% of those pages, and thus resolve an otherwise intractable content dispute one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're both somewhat correct here. No, an RfC is not as binding as actual policy, but it's something that can be pointed to in dispute resolution if needed. It acts as a preemptive discussion on consensus, so that if the person you're disputing with mirrors the arguments here, there is debate that can be referred to that may help reach consensus more quickly. Also, assuming good faith, such a preemptive discussion on consensus in an RfC could change the views of other editors without the need for dispute resolution in the first place. You can just refer them here and see if they accept the arguments laid out on why this issue should be handled in a certain way. I don't think this is a serious enough issue to warrant developing a policy over, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we can't possibly develop policies for every single field in every infobox. It would take exceptional importance for a field in an infobox to warrant a policy, and that just doesn't exist in this case. There is significant value in finding a consensus that can be referred to in the future on an issue like this, even if some of this ground might have to be covered again in the future if something goes to dispute resolution. While RfC consensus likely isn't binding, it's a powerful tool to resolve disputes in the future. ~ RobTalk 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, Rob. @Guy Macon: Guy, I know and agree that's what you're seeking to do and I'm not opposing it, but merely responding to the points raised by RexxS. Frankly, I consider this part of this discussion as a theoretical aside (or rabbit trail) to what you're doing and I'm hoping we've both got it out of our systems at this point and can discontinue it at this point. (And I'm going to be mostly offline for several days starting on Saturday, anyway, so this would seem to be a good stopping point in any event.) Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 *  *GROUP HUG!!*  :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 000
Another point of order: some of the options above are bogus, straw-man options that nobody could possibly support and which appear to serve only as distractors. They should be removed from the RfC. For example, nobody will ever support the idea that all infoboxes on countries that merely "don't have a state religion" should be marked as "atheist" or "none (atheist)". Such a proposal would be nonsensical and self-defeating. A realistic option might have been something like "allow entries such as 'atheist' or 'none' where appropriate". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to edit the choices as you see fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - This RFC doesn't have a bot tag. Is that an omission on the part of its proponent, in which case a bot tag should be added, or is there a reason why the bot is not being used?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It was an omission; I forgot to add it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I am thankful that I have been asked to help determine consensus on this contentious issue. I'm sure that there are editors who are passionate about what, if anything, should come after the religion parameter in a nation's ibox; however frankly, I would support any decision that comes from this RfC discussion. I do like editor Vyselink's idea to have the parameter appear in the ibox as "Official religion:" or something similar. I have never agreed that WP:MEDRS, a very strict guideline that resulted from consensus of editors with an apparently superior knowledge of all things medical, should override the community consensus in some areas, which in my opinion violates WP:CONLIMITED, but my opinion seems to be overridden there. It might not be a good and helpful thing to omit the parameter altogether, because general readers often rely on the information in the ibox and don't always have the time to go into the article content to hunt down an answer. Rather than saying: or it could be better to make it appear: or or something similar. And I've often wondered why, in these "all-encompassing" templates, the religion parameter isn't made to appear as a centered heading with the perhaps many religions practiced listed below that, something like: Religion(s) Religion one (official) Religion two Religion three etc. Then for those nations in which the people practice no religion (?), it may appear as: Religion(s) Officially none practiced or something similar. I do hope this helps! Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine 23:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ReligionAtheism
 * ReligionNone
 * Official religionNone recognized
 * ReligionNone officially recognized
 * The infobox is principally a table with two columns. Each heading is in a table cell that is a row header and the values for that parameter are in the corresponding table cell to the right. If multiple values exist they can be marked up as a list. That means that assistive technology can correctly associate the heading with its value(s), and make that job easier for third parties who reuse our content with automatic tools. By placing the heading and its value(s) on the same row, the infobox also makes best use of the space available. Either


 * or even


 * have very significant advantages over the suggestion you make. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, however in this infobox, Template:Infobox country, there are both instances – those like the present "Religion" parameter and those that have centered headers. So "principally" does not appear to apply to this template's headers.  Headers like Leaders, Establishment, Population and Website are all centered above their entries, while others such as Official languages, Demonym and Member states are to the left of their entries. – Paine  00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, if you look at a sample of the countries using this infobox, you see that all of the label-value pairs are in the two columns I described. Section headers like "Area" and "Population" exist, but are not centred and only serve as a title for the section containing pairs like "Total 178.91 km2" or "2014 estimate 103,400". "Religion" is not a section heading and has a value like "81% Roman Catholic", in contrast to "Area", which has no value associated with it ("Total" is the label associated with the value "178.91 km2"). That's not to say that the presentation of this infobox can't be improved, but not by making it unlike any other infobox in the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 001
Comment: The problems I have with religion in a country infobox is much like the problem in the infobox for an individual – only more so as it is often political. The religion of Great Britain went back and forth based on marriages, alliances, agreements, and other such whims of the monarchies in order to maintain power, or satisfy personal lusts. Who knows how much attention the populace paid or what it meant to folks other than those given bits of power. We look at the Stalin era and say that his domain was “officially” atheist and the churches were all shut down. But, IIRC, he didn’t shut down his personal church, and was a devout Greek Orthodox adherent. And, does anyone believe that the populace all switched to atheist, or that the move wasn’t just Stalin’s paranoid fear of the power of the church and desire to have total control? Again, my point is that religion should not be reduced to one or two words, whether related to a person, country, or anything else.

The infobox is designed for obvious, undebatable, word or a few, aspects. Not complex attributions that will always engender disagreement. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (Side point: see Joseph Stalin. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC))


 * Much of what is said about religion is dubious. Will we ever know how many U.S. Presidents were atheists, but hid the fact because they would have never become president if it had been known? Objective3000 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a fascinating side point about Stalin. I highly recommend reading the link Discuss-Dubious posted. Related: this edit that I made to the same page as part of my last run of removing the religion parameter from the infoboxes of 600 pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Here is an example of use of the religion parameter in an article about a nations: Does anyone here really believe that "Afghanistan's religion" was atheism from 1978 to 1980 and Islam from 1980 to 1992? In this case, the infobox attempted to enshrine the idea that the pronouncement of a government, no matter how widely ignored, is more important than the religions that the inhabitants of that country actually belong to. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? Or is it better to handle the issue the way it is actually handled on that page (see England)? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Discuss-Dubious: Re "I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things...", this is a common misconception. According to Wikipedia's rules for filling out infoboxes, the reader should never, ever learn anything from the infobox that she/he would not learn by reading the body of the article. The infobox is supposed to only contain brief summaries of noncontroversial and undisputed information that already exists in the body of the article. Furthermore, the infobox is for information that everyone understands fully from the one or two words in the infobox entry -- things like college degree achieved, date of birth, maiden name, political party, that sort of thing. It is a common misconception that we are writing for readers who only read the infobox and not the main article, and thus the things we feel to be important should be in the infobox. The actual rule is that the things we feel to be important should be in the article lead, and the "quick facts" sort of thing that someone may be looking for should be in the infobox. A classic example is elected politicians; many, many readers go to Wikipedia to find out what party they belong to and then immediately leave the page. That's why we list political party in the infobox -- to make it easy for those readers to find. Things that are subtle, complex, and and need explanation and context are very poor candidates for infobox inclusion, no matter how important they are. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Which page? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Help:Infobox, Manual of Style/Infoboxes, and extensive discussion on this and other talk:infobox pages. Related: Disinfoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I had looked to the first two. Stalin on religion seems somewhat complicated, but I don't think Enver Hoxha's Albania is particularly complex or disputable. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Further reading:

USSR:

Soviet Union,Religion in the Soviet Union,Joseph Stalin

Albania:

Religion in Albania, Enver Hoxha,State atheism, People's Socialist Republic of Albania

I think if there's anything that's more or less close to universal for this RFC, it's that secular lib dems like most of the West do not deserve the tag. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You either went way over or way under my head on that one. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The main takeaway here is that "It is important, thus it should be in the infobox" is an invalid argument, and that the community is in the process of once again soundly rejecting any combination of "None" or "Atheist" in any form in the religion entry.


 * Discuss-Dubious is also arguing that the religion of Stalin is too complex for an infobox entry but that the religion of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is not. It is a reasonable argument, but complexity is not the reason the community rejects "none" and "atheism". The community rejects "none" because we don't use "none" in any other infobox entry, and the community rejects "atheism" (and agnosticism, etc.) because atheism is not a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @ There are two different points. The small text is related to my first point. The second point is that some people are arguing in relation to the idea "what do we do with state atheism?", namely, and I'm not sure about (if any of these users is you, please correct me if I'm misreading your comment!), while for Guy, state atheism is not a meaningful concept, but rather an irrelevant one. I'm pretty sure omit parameter was intended to be all or nothing. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Religion is perhaps the wrong name. We have a few countries with a legally established state religion so for most countries 'not applicable' is the only thing that fits. Perhaps more common is the legal attitude toward religions/life stances. This can range from the Laïcité of France to the Pancasila of Indonesia (which is listed as a "National ideology") to an actual established religion. BTW the 'atheist' countries weren't/aren't so much atheist but a particular ideology (e.g., a variety of Communism for many) which happens to be atheistic. --Erp (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This makes sense re: Pancasila, etc. For your other point,
 * Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", even though this might apply to other countries. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed my original comment has garnered a couple of mentions, so I figured I'd make sure to clarify here. My thought was that, unless there is an official, legal state religion, then the parameter should be omitted. If there is an official state religion/lack there of (I.E. England is the Church of England, Iraq is Islam etc) then that should be mentioned, but the parameter should read "official" or "state" religion, not simply "religion". The difference between the two is obvious. Vyselink (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree... but is it accurate to say you were saying that you were not sure about atheistic states? (Both mentions are from me.) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. What I was saying was that, in regards to atheistic states, if the official legal stance in regards to religion is atheist then that should be put in as "Official Religion: Atheist" etc. But now that I think about it, I can't think of any state that states legally that atheism is the religion. Certainly communist states are de facto atheist, but I can't recall (and I could be wrong, so if I am please correct me) that they are, in fact, de jure atheist. Vyselink (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My original post ended with "Unless the country has a constitutional/legal religion (or lack thereof) that is enshrined, then omitting the parameter all together seems like the best option".Vyselink (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought my quote for Erp constituted a de jure concept. I wouldn't use it for one that isn't de jure. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with "Official Religion: Atheist" is that atheism isn't a religion, official or non-official, and that all variations that have religion (or any synonym) on the left side of the equals sign and atheism (or any synonym) on the right side of the equals sign have been soundly rejected by community consensus in at least half a dozen RfCs and discussions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks as though it can be used as part of a worldview that sits in the place of a state religion or freedom thereof. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 002
Sigh... Now I have a couple of editors on the Israel talk page openly declaring that this RfC does not apply to their page and that they have no intention of complying with the result. Why is this such a hot-button issue? Although I have my opinions on how to handle this I would be fine with implementing whatever the consensus turned out to be. Why is it that so many people feel so strongly about the content of infoboxes? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those editors, and I can explain my position. The way this RfC was worded, it tries to determine the general case for a non-religious nation*. Israel does not have an official religion, but it also lacks full separation between state and religion, and the majority of the people define themselves as religious. Israel can't be called non-religious therefore whatever the outcome of this RfC regarding non-religious nations* is, it is not applicable.
 * * Nation and State are distinct concepts, which is another problem with definition of this RfC. The term used should have been "state" or "country", since this is what this template serves. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign, the discussion is not whether a country is religious, it is whether it has a de jure statement of faith, as in the case of England (the Church of England is the official church/religion). Israel does not have a de jure statement of faith, even though as a nation (and by the way I believe your point should be well taken as regards to "nation" and "state") it is obviously Jewish. I point out the fact that there are incredibly few (if any realistically) states that have a "full separation between state and religion". Even in the US, where the official policy is there can be no state established religion (1st Amendment), the majority (71%) of the people define themselves as Christian, as do the majority of the goverment. However, putting "Religion: Christian" in the US infobox would be disingenuous as, officially/legally, it is simply wrong. The same thing strikes me as occurring in Israel. While the vast majority of the nation is Jewish, the official religion of the state is non-existent, i.e. none, and therefore should not be in the infobox. Vyselink (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the RfC was about countries that have no declared state religion, or countries that declare they have no state religion, or some other variation thereof - I agree that it would've applied. Meanwhile it's worded in a vague form open to (mis)interpretation.
 * Specifically regarding law and separation - while it may not be perfect in the USA, it is far worse in Israel. I'm not talking about number of people who declare what their religion/faith is, I'm talking about religious practices enforced by state law:
 * Untra-orthodox Jews are exempt from military service which is obligatory for the rest.
 * It is illegal for most business owners to open during Saturdays.
 * It is illegal for stores to sell or present bread during passover.
 * There is no legal way to marry a member of a different religion in Israel.
 * It doesn't make sense to call a country with such practices a non-religious one, even though there is no official religion. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WarKosign: I have just read the discussion on Israel's talk page. After reading it and seeing all the evidence, I have to agree with you that it is complicated. Technically, it should be removed if/when this RFC ends up as it is looking like it will. But if WP was purely built on technicalities we wouldn't all be so invested in it. I'm wondering why there isn't a sub-section under "Politics" that specifically talks about this issue? The citations given in the infobox would seem to make a great start on such a section, and I'm sure the regular editors on that page could flesh it out even more. As for the issue at hand, I find myself thinking that a separate RFC might be the best option in this and in similar cases. If it can be categorically shown that a de jure lack of statement of religion is in fact more de facto than it lets on, as appears to be the case in Israel, keeping the "none official" in the parameter and then having a section explaining it in the article might be the best way to go about it. Vyselink (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion "none official" in the infobox doesn't help in any way, so I do support removing the religion from the infobox on Israel - but I want to wait and see what other people think. I have no idea why there is no such section, especially considering there is a dedicated article that could be linked to as main article. I intent to fix it - again, after hearing other opinions. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I’m concerned about the nature of an encyclopedia publishing, for example, an info box in the article on South Africa during apartheid stating “Religion: Dutch Reform” despite the fact that the oppressed 90+% majority would likely have found this extremely offensive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The difference is descriptive versus prescriptive. If the 'Religion' info box gives the official state religion then it is giving the 'prescriptive' views; it may be offensive but the offense is caused by the state that prescribed an official religion (Wikipedia is just reporting the offense).  We then have countries like Israel where there are a small number of denominations  with state enforced legal power over individuals (e.g., to be wedded in Israel one has to abide by the rules of one of the recognized denominations; there is no civil marriage, though marriages that take place outside of Israel, civil or religious, are recognized).  I'm inclined to think that Israel's "none official" with footnotes (separate section) is the appropriate answer to their peculiar situation.  There are other countries where some denominations have legal power over certain areas of life (generally family related) like Israel but also have a parallel civil system (e.g., India), again others that delegate to some clerics the power to act as agents of the state in certain areas (e.g., US states in regards to marriage), and others that don't allow that (e.g., France).   --Erp (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the answer in such cases is to move the religion info out of the infobox where you get one or two words and into the body where you can properly explain the complexity. This RfC only covers "religion = none" and "religion = atheist" (and close synonyms like "none (atheist)", "state atheism", and "none official") but moving the information into the body is a good idea whenever the situation is full of subtleties and complexities. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the wording of this specific RfC, I have to agree that it would not apply to Israel. Israel has a religion. I agree with WarKosign that Israel isn't a case of separation of religion and state gone wrong, but a state in which there is absolutely zero separation of religion and state. A fact that is clear and obvious to anyone even obliquely familiar with the country. I believe that it would serve readers better to have "Judaism (de facto)" or "Judaism (unofficial)" in the infobox than to omit it completely. Goalie1998 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If (I don't think this is what you meant) by "it would not apply to Israel" you mean that that a variation on "religion = none" would be allowed on that page, then you are completely wrong; this RfC applies to all countries that have any variation of "religion = none" or "religion = atheist" in the infobox. If by "it would not apply to Israel" you mean that that the entry should be changed to "religion = [name of religion, presumably Judaism]", then you are correct. This RfC does not apply to any page that names an actual religion in the religion section of the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If your purpose with this RfC was to decide what to write about religion in Israel's infobox, it should have been worded accordingly. It is a matter of determining whether religion=none best describes Israel, and if this is the case - removing it from the infobox per the previous RfC. As I said, in its current state this RfC is pointless. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to keep saying that (despite the rather obvious fact that nobody agrees with you) but if you act upon your misguided belief you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep it civil please. That being said, while I am only one, I do agree with WarKosign on most things in this case. Goalie1998 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, this does show how complicated this is. Am I being pedantic to point out that UK has an 'Established religion', (not a 'state' one) the principal effect of which is that the monarch must be CofE and other similar effects. In practice, politics, laws and society are probably a great deal more secular (and probably more agnostic/atheist) than a large number of 'officially' religion-less states. The use of wiki-links in the infobox (see religion of Tuvalu), would seem to be the answer, in the very large number of cases where the answer is not 100% clear-cut.Pincrete (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 003
Perhaps the question that you meant when you opened this RfC was "how to treat countries with a variation of religion=none in the infobox". The actual question in the RfC is about "non-religious nations", which makes this RfC irrelevant. Whatever the outcome is, in each particular case a local consensus would have to be created whether a specific country can be considered a nation or not, and whether or not it's non-religious. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think that the result would be any different if you changed "nation" to "country", go ahead and post an RfC, but unless you do that, don't imagine that you are going to get out of following the result of this RfC through wikilawyering. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the primary definition of "nation" is "a large area of land that is controlled by its own government" and the primary definition of "country" is "an area of land that is controlled by its own government". And, I might add, Israel is a member of the United Nations. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In most of the cases nation and country can be used interchangeably, unless the state lacks a single majority nation or the nation lacks a state. See the article for Nation, it begins with "Not to be confused with State".
 * What "non-religious" means when applied to a country is the main issue, and if it's not well-defined then this RfC is worthless. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it worthless. It will settle the content dispute on the one remaining page that has not accepted removal of the religion parameter, and it will be the basis for WP:ANI warning then blocking anyone (including me) who refuses to follow the consensus. That is worth something. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (Hey, an 00:00 timestamp! I think that is a first for me. Do I get a prize?)
 * ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, and deciding whether a generally worded RfC applies to a specific case is a content dispute. The way to resolve a content dispute is to have a specific RfC about the specific issue. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. Whether this RfC applies to your favorite page will be determined by the closing administrator. Your proposed method makes all Wikipedia-wide community consensus discussions invalid by requiring a separate RfC for every affected page. And an editor refusing to follow the consensus as defined by the closing administrator's closing comments is a behavioral issue that ANI will deal with, as you will discover if you try it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If ‘what non-religious’ means when applied to a country is ‘not well-defined’, then this RfC is far from ‘meaningless’. Articles have text. Why include in a tiny, dot-point, parameter-driven summary any area that is not ‘well-defined’? I maintain that religion itself is not well-defined without including a book or nine on the subject. Why do we attempt to stick to one word summaries. The Catholic Church goes back almost two millennia, but is currently undergoing radical change in direction and priorities. Does that mean the 1.2 billion members and countries labeled “Roman Catholic” have changed their beliefs or policies? This arena is far too complex for a word or two in an infobox. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are making a good point for removing religion field from the infobox entirely, but it's not the issue at question. Currently the consensus seems to be to remove it only if the country is non-religious, but for a criteria to be useful it has to be well-defined, so the main issue is - what is the definition of a non-religious country ? A few options:
 * Lack of declared state religion
 * Declared lack of state religion
 * Certain level of Separation of church and state - I can't think of a specific threshold that can be defined
 * Percentage of religious citizens under a certain threshold
 * If the answer is "can't say, it has to be determined for every country separately" - this RfC is meaningless. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are free to keep saying that (despite the rather obvious fact that nobody agrees with you) but if you act upon your misguided belief you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 004
You know, it could be a good idea to probably rename the parameter. Just some thoughts, feel free to break apart, though I am probably too involved in this and may bow out: I don't think this RFC result has any real bearing on whether you being an atheist is actually the same as you having a religious belief. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously not. Doug Weller (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[Support vote] I'm not saying every country must have a state religion, so I'm not sure a country that allows all religions and takes no official position, like the United States, would count as having "Atheism" as its state religion. ["Atheism is not a religion, by definition..."] I think "Atheism", by etymology, is a non-belief in deities, but without qualifying terms has come to signify irreligion in general. Not all religions are necessarily theistic, but that's another story. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither am I. I am saying that atheism isn't one, and neither is agnosticism, and neither is parallelism. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that you might be overstating the variation within the idea of state atheism. "Antitheistic" and "antireligious" are pretty similar, "promotion of atheism" seems to be common to the first two in context of the article, though "anti-clericalism", I'd suppose might be slightly different, if only in a semantic sense, given the government doesn't already fit into the first two. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The variations in the conception of "atheism" cannot be overstated. (Just witness the wording in the lead of our article: Atheism is, in a broad sense ... In a narrower sense, atheism is ... Most inclusively, atheism is ... Although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere ... Since conceptions of atheism vary...) Survey and poll takers have bemoaned the fact that measuring atheist sentiment is impossible because every respondent defines atheism differently; it is a very ambiguous term. This is true whether we're talking about individuals or states/countries. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, but as you've observed above, some (obliviously) equate atheism with irreligion when using the term. This no doubt stems from the fact that many irreligious people are also atheist, but they are not the same, as "atheism and irreligion" and "atheism within religions" sections of our article make clear. Ambiguous terms like "atheism" require explanation, context and nuance — and as such, should never appear in an Infobox field. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if we were on the same wavelength at first, but I don't think that any positive, cite-able concept of state atheism would involve the amount of ambiguity within the philosophies held by individual atheists. [User:Discuss-Dubious|Discuss-Dubious]] (t/c) 21:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume by default all descriptions we're discussing are "cite-able", as required by Wikipedia. As already demonstrated, the term "atheism" ambiguously has many competing definitions and meanings, and this remains true if you prefix it with "state" or any other modifier (see the lead sentences for either article). In some applications, it properly conveys lack of belief in deities. In other applications, it is erroneously conflated with anti-religion. In still others, it is confusingly used interchangeably with anti-superstition or anti-"backward beliefs". Infobox fields in Wikipedia articles are not compatible with such ambiguous terms, where their use would likely generate more confusion than clarity. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... "Judaism" also has many definitions. If country X were to declare ″Judaism″ as state religion, would we need to know what kind of Judaism? Do we decide not include Judaism in an infobox until we ask if they are referring to Conservative Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, Haredi Judaism, Karaite Judaism, or do we just take their self-definition until informed otherwise? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Judaism is a religion, and thus is outside of the scope of these two RfCs. It would be up to the editors working on the page to decide what variation (if any) to put in the infobox. "None official" is not a religion, so I removed it. --23:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is about his argument "Atheism has a thousand definitions and we can never logically refer to it collectively", and therefore on-topic. I'm asking to look into the hypothetical minds of these hypothetical editors, who would hypothetically use this logic. Also, the hypothetical country is not "Israel"; it should heretofore be referred to as "Poompálufé" and assumed to be near the Equator to avoid confusion. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(re:oppose !vote): My test case for this is one that forbade all religious practice from 1967 to 1990¸. The term "atheist" was apparently used in a “literary monthly” known as Nendori around the former year. It appears to to have been viewed as a Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are e good examples of handling this sort of issue the right way. The world factbook says "Religions: Muslim 56.7%, Roman Catholic 10%, Orthodox 6.8%, atheist 2.5%, Bektashi (a Sufi order) 2.1%, other 5.7%, unspecified 16.2% note: all mosques and churches were closed in 1967 and religious observances prohibited; in November 1990, Albania began allowing private religious practice (2011 est.)" That's a good, short description suitable for the body of the article but too long for he infobox. The country-data.com page is pretty close to being a complete encyclopedia entry (or at least section) as is, and there are no copyright restrictions on it because it was produced by the US government. It sees clear to me that this too far too complex to cram into a one or two word description. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note that the World Factbook covers modern (post-1992) and communist (1946-1992) Albania. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 said, "The state recognizes no religion whatever and supports atheist propaganda for the purpose of inculcating the scientific materialist world outlook in people." I suppose one could say that made it the "first atheist nation in the world", but would want a better source than Nëndori.  I would also like to see a reliable translation of these documents.  But if it is correct, then it is a category that only applies to Communist Albania during part of its history, which would make it of limited use.  TFD (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to my math, C. Albania existed for 46 years. 1967-1992 is about half of its time period. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if sourced, it doesn't belong in the infobox. The consensus on that is clear. I would like to see this have extensive coverage in the body of the article. The country-data.com page is from a reliable source (US Library of Congress / US Army) and some of the things in that document (making people with Christian names change them to secular names) are quite notable. Of course we would really like to see multiple sources. This is definitely an area Wikipedia should cover -- in the body of the article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 005
So, where does the line in the sand begin for if what looks to be a de jure state religion is too complicated for an infobox? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's an actual religion, it is outside of the scope of the two RfCs and I don't touch it, leaving that decision to others. If it isn't a religion, I remove it per the consensus of the two RfCs. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we're not talking about population demographics, but de jure state !religions Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't touched any infoboxes that say things like "20% atheist, 40% Roman Catholic...". that seems like it is outside of the scope of the RfCs. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he wasn't sure about that. Thank you for helping clarify, though! :) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

, can we also ask if "non-denominational" implies atheism? I saw you remove it from a page in context of British high schools Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that is is pretty clear that the community consensus is to have the religion parameter contain only actual religions. Thus I have been removing a wide variety of variations like "religion = Marxism", "religion = spiritual" (with a cite to an opinion piece that says "X is a very spiritual person"), "Religion = Secularism", etc. "Nondenominational" is not a religion. Nondenominational Christianity and Nondenominational Muslim are. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not too big a deal, but in the context of "many schools are run by specific church denominations", I think "non-denominational" seems to imply that the school is Christian, but nothing specific, and therefore the former. Again, not a big deal. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then call it "non-denominational Christian", which is a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious, no source, but 'Nondenominational' in UK traditionally meant 'non-denominational Christian' (since this represented the vast mass of the population at that time, and the 'christian' element was principally cultural). In recent years the term's use has extended to mean 'no religious affiliation', which is certainly not 'atheistic', rather 'multi-cultural', reflecting the range of belief systems in UK society/in that school … … the history of UK state education meant that many denominational schools pre-existed the state system and were later absorbed into it, being allowed to maintain denominational character. More recent 'religious schools' have also been allowed to be created, when partly founded by religions, though funded by the state. 'Non-denoms' are usually the result of being founded by the local government. Private schools are of course free to be anything they wish, though I know of none defining themselves as 'atheist', but some as 'secular'. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly why I raised this, but not high on the importance scale for me. Thanks! Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ie 'Nondenominational', is a bit like 'none' above, it says nothing about what the school IS and very little even about what it ISN'T.Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding economic elements
Hello ! I would like to add the Real gross domestic product, the Unemployment rate and the General government gross debt in the Template:Infobox country, as I did on the French Wikipedia. But I can not do it because I'm not allowed.

1) Do you want to add these elements? 2) If yes, could you add these elements ? Or can I join the Template editors group to do it myself?

Cordialy --Appaches (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you add these elements ?--Appaches (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

support addition, unless it gives technical template problems (but those seem not to have been raised in 1.5 month). Let's add them as GDP and unemployment ... L.tak (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Territorial possession
I think it would be helpful if there were a tag for territorial possessions. I am writing in particular about the Holy See which is independently sovereign, but has territory under its control, but I would image that other countries have important territorial quirks that might be appropriate to mention in the infobox. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)