Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 2

Something changed in the formatting with the shift from Bio to Person?
See this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ann_Eliza_Bleecker&diff=prev&oldid=143652936 ... the older version looks bad now. Fixing it required removing carriage returns. That article formatted OK when it was written, even though the parm invocations had carriage returns in them. My wife brought this to my attention, as she's the author of the article in question. She likes using the carriage returns to help keep things organised, multiple lines of kids with birth/death years look better one to a line than all bunched up, and the same is true when editing. There may be a fair number of bios that have this problem... Was there something that changed that might have caused this? ++Lar: t/c 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be related to the fact that Infobox Person uses wiki table markup:






 * while Infobox Biography uses some HTML markup:


 * If no one else has fixed this by tomorrow I will make the corrections then. -- Zyxw 04:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation, I will keep my eye on this page to watch for updates. There may be some pages I need to adjust. I appreciate your efforts. - Epousesquecido 13:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This issue has been resolved. The parameters can now accept multi-line values and any leading spaces on each line are ignored. -- Zyxw 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Bug when image_size is empty.
It shows " " instead of defaulting to a thumbnail of ImageName.jpg. Compare empty size and filled in size. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-12t12:12z


 * I have seen this on other templates. If you use the field, it must have a parameter.  Just don't include image_size= if you want to use the actual image size.  Probably need to add a note to the doc.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This was not an issue until someone edited the template on 11 August 2007. It has since been fixed. As before, it defaults to 225px if the  parameter is either left blank or omitted. -- Zyxw 10:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection
It is probably time to protect this high-risk template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship
It is important to note that even though 'nationality' and 'citizenship' are often used as synonyms, they have different meanings. The former denotes membership in a nation, while the latter denotes formal membership in a state or similar institution.

In this context, 'nationality' is used to denote citizenship. This is common practice for many states, under the assumption that because they are supposed to be 'nation-states' (meaning that the boundaries of the nation and the state are congruent), making a distinction is unnecessary.

This is problematic for many reasons, including the fact that the vast majority of contemporary states are multi-national, and less than ten per cent can be described as ‘nation-states’ in the sense just described. It is not uncommon for people to identify with a different nation than the one traditionally associated with their citizenship (for example, some people in the Canadian province of Quebec consider their nationality to be 'Quebecois', but their citizenship is 'Canadian').

Accordingly, I suggest that 'Citizenship' be added as a separate category to this template for improved accuracy. – SJL 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Confusing hairsplitting, that will simply result in redundancies and mistakes. Others have previously proposed renaming this to "Citizenship", instead of having two fields as you propose, but that raises other problems (e.g., James Joyce was technically a British Citizen, because the UK then occupied all of Ireland, but is understood as an Irish, not British, author). It is best to leave "nationality" up to individual articles' active editors in the rather infrequent cases where self-identified or broadly understood nationality conflicts with legal citizenship. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: It is not 'hairsplitting' – it is a clear analytic distinction between two different concepts. Please provide references to support your claim that they rarely conflict, and justify why it is better to have just one category instead of allowing editors to choose between two (or use both, if appropriate).  I am happy to provide further evidence to the contrary if necessary.  It is also worth noting that your own example supports making this distinction, as the fact that Joyce's citizenship and nationality were in conflict is necessary to understand his political views. –  SJL 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please. Discussion of Joyce's nationality and citizenship belongs in the main article prose; no infobox is going to convey anything that subtle. The infobox code has been stable on this matter for a very long time, and while consensus can change, it does not do so willy-nilly because a lone editor or small handful of them object.
 * Please do not engage in fallacious straw man tactics with me; I did not say that citizenship and nationality "rarely conflict"; I said that such conflict was "rather infrequent". It certainly happens, and Wikipedia has been humming along just fine, with editors resolving the issue at articles on a case-by-case basis as necessary (sometimes with the conclusion to not use the nationality= line at all), just as they do with every other sort of issue that arises. The sky is not falling.
 * I delcine your invitation to treat talk page discussions like articles that must cite references. Have you not noticed that other editors do not conclude their talk posts with reflist?  I'd rather be working on articles and creating templates than arguing about a parameter there is no widely-perceived need for.
 * Infoboxes are very concise summaries intended to be skimmed for basic, clear and very rapidly digestable information. An infobox with "nationality=Irish|citizenship=British" will provide the opposite of that, and (due to the lack of explanatory context) simply sow reader confusion.
 * —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Response: Your condescension is both unnecessary and unhelpful — there is no reason that you should speak to anyone on Wikipedia this way. I am making a sincere proposal that I think is important and will improve the accuracy of Wikipedia, and your response is to ridicule me and suggest that you represent the consensus view.  At this point, however, you are the only person who has objected to my proposal, and the fact that you decline to support your objection with references is difficult to understand.  One of the central presmises of Wikipedia is that all claims must be verifiable, and this is just as important when engaging in discussions about the content of articles as it is in the articles themselves.  I have supported my proposal with good reasons and verifiable sources, and I am able to provide more if necessary.  What is the scholarly basis of your objection? –  SJL 13:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your extreme, put-upon hyperbole is what is unhelpful. There is nothing at all condescending about noting that infoboxes are concise summaries, that the proposal will make infoboxes into something other than concise summaries, that this will cause reader confusion and disputes, that talk pages are not articles, that talk page discussions are based on reason and logic, not the fallacy of argument to authority, that your demands that people cite sources for presenting their reasoning is not how we do things around here, that complicated issues like a conflict between conventional notions of nationality and legal citizenship must be handled in article prose, not infoboxes, that there is no consensus for this change, that there is longstanding consensus for infoboxes to be the way they are and that this consensus won't change without far better reasoning than has been provided and much more support, that engaging in bogus straw-man arguments with me will not go unnoticed or unchallenged, that the proposal will result in redundancies and factual errors, that there is no demonstrated need for this proposed new field, that this issue has been visited before and failed to get traction, because nationality/citizenship issues when unclear are best resolved on a case-by-case basis through consensus of the active editors at the articles affected.  I never questioned the sincerity of your proposal; I question its logic, usefulness and harmlessness.  Another straw man: I also have never stated that I "represent" anything.  I am also not the only objector to your proposal, and that would not be relevant anyway, as this is not a vote.  Many proposals are simply ignored because they don't make sense; that does not mean that the community has approved them!  Lastly, you appear to know enough to know full well that WP:V applies to articles, not to generic templates, talk pages, or guidelines, so please stop trying to bend it to suit your argumentation style.  You have supported your proposal with reasons the "goodness" of which have been challenged by opposing rationales, that you generally do not address, and by "sources" of no direct relevance to what the Wikipedia community wants in infoboxes.  Using the source citation mechanism to format your "sources" doesn't magically make them more pertinent.  Sorry.  And I'm sorry you are taking this so personally; don't.  This isn't about you (I'm sure you're a very nice and intelligent person), but about your proposal and the reasoning you've offered in its defense. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)  PS: I hope you've noticed by now that &lt;ref&gt; and &lt;reflist&gt; are not suited for talk pages, since you have to keep moving it down as you cite more "sources", which effectively orphans the original citations, since no one is going to go trawling through a long thread looking for a misplaced refs section that might not even be there; note also (I undid it) that later editors end up inserting their own comments in front of your refs block. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: Actually, you are the one who is arguing from authority, and your tone remains condescending. The essence of your position is that you are right because you know better, that what I am suggesting is "not how we do things around here", and that you do indeed represent "what the Wikipedia community wants".  You talk about consensus, but your aggressive attitude and language demonstrate that you have no respect for the process of building or revaluating one; if you were to behave this way in a work environment, you would be reprimanded or fired by your employer for your lack of civility toward and respect for your peers.  Your approach to this dispute is the opposite of how Wikipedia's editors should behave toward one another, however much they may disagree.


 * If I were to argue from authority, I would simply assert the expertise that I have in this field. I have instead provided evidence supporting the factual accuracy of my proposal, which is something that cannot be decided on the basis of "reason and logic" alone, as you contend.  While I agree that the way I have cited the references here may not be the most functional, I completely disagree that verification should only apply to the body of articles.  If the talk page is the place to resolve disputes, how can you reasonably suggest that no one should use evidence to support their position?


 * Finally, I agree that having both nationality and citizenship as options may complicate things, but I think that complexity should win out over inaccuracy every time on Wikipedia. How else will it ever become the reliable source that we all hope it will one day be? –  SJL 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The last time I decided to work for an employer rather than be a consultant, that lasted about nine years; the ones who were histrionic and could not stand their arguments being questioned were the ones that did not last; I outlasted every employee there, in terms of "time served", with only a sole exception who predated me by 6 months and is now the executive director, and I outlasted all but two the boardmembers as well. But anyway... I'm sorry that you feel I'm being condescending. I'm not condescending to you, I'm simply irritated with your behavior.  I have no doubt that you are intelligent, I simply feel that you are misusing the gift, especially by throwing around "references" of dubious relevance.  My point with regard to that isn't that one should never, ever mention references in a talk page discussion (that would be a rather silly point). Rather it is that no one is questioning the fact that the concepts of nationality and citizenship can sometimes be confusing, that the definition of "nation" is shifting, the the true "nation-state" is becoming less common, etc., etc., so adding citations to such facts is a handwave; most of us around here have been in enough debates, online and off, over the years to recognize and (when it is not done in the "I'm skipping a bunch of boring math you all trust me to do correctly, so I can get to the point" way) reject handwaving when we see it. Getting upset at people who have called you on it doesn't ingratiate you to anyone.  To address the latest straw man: I have never asserted that I "represent" anything here.  Noting what consensus observably is, and claiming to somehow be a representative, as if elected to public office, of that consensus are radically different ideas.  My consensus-building track record on WP, which includes a lot of compromising, mediating disputes, and simply leaving discussions when either they or my participation in them seems likely to be counterproductive (and declining to do so other times when it is clear that I'm making a difference, even if certain parties would rather that I shut up and let them railroad an issue) speaks for itself in my view, so I'm not offended by being accused of not respecting consensus; I simply think that such a summation is off the mark.  The fact that you are or think that you are an "expert in the field" (of what? nationality and citizenship?) isn't of superlative bearing here. You needn't stress your eminence on the topic (the fact that you want to cite references about it is indication enough that you know what you are talking about to at least the extent that you can source some details... but they aren't very germane). Again the issue is not that citizenship and nationality can conflict or be a complicated issue - we all already know that.  The bare fact of this does not automatically support a logic leap from observing that there is a problem to insisting upon one proposed solution to the problem.  Many problems (including this one in my view) are not so problematic at all that they need a top-down solution imposed on them; simple editor consensus at the affected articles on a case by case basis has, to date, worked just fine in virtually all cases, and where it hasn't, the issues run much, much deeper (especially with regard to places like Northern Ireland, where politically opposed editors will fight over just about anything simply to have a fight and keep it going.)  There is no nail for the particular hammer you are swining around here; the articles that potentially could be positively affected by such a change are already self-demonstrably resolvable through extant means, and those that are not, well, are not.  Next, I cannot accept your complexity vs. inaccuracy setup; it is a false dichotomy.  Many complex propositions can be false, and accurate ones simple.  You appear to presuppose that all bio infoboxes will have a nationality line and that this concomitantly means that many of them will be incorrect (which would be a plausible deduction if the initial condition specified weren't false).  I reject that reasoning, on the basis that it is clearly already not true.  Many infoboxes have no nationality asserted, and in at least some cases (i.e., barring those that are that way because someone was lazy or made a mistake) this is on purpose because an editorial consensus arose that the issue would be confusing or contentious in that case.  Having a citizenship field available would not be of any help in such situations, because the average reader draws no distinction between nationality and citizenship, so the infobox would still generate flame wars, edit wars and revert wars.  To repeat myself in summary form: Complex cases are best handled in main article prose, with infoboxes not attempting to encapsulate things that they can't adequately handle. I hope this is clearer.  I am also making a very conscious attempt to write as clearly and as dispassionately as possible; I hope that defuses some of the angst in the air here.  If not, then I'm not sure what more I can do. PS: "Citizenship" ideas previously raised (at WP:BIO talk, etc.) have made it clear that a citizenship field is more, not less, problematic than a nationality one, because a nationality one can more readily be opposed on the grounds that, in this article or that, the concept is just too squishy to be of any use.  By contrast, there's simply absolutely no way around the fact that James Joyce, known the world over as one of the greatest Irish writers, was technically a British citizen; labelling him as such in his infobox would spark off raging wikiwars, and not be helpful to the reader in any way, yet sticklers would insist upon it, because it has a narrower definition that can be proven true or false robotically, without any human judgement of usefulness being applied. Giving him a nationality of Irish, on the other hand, suits pretty much the entire world's expectations, and the nitpicky politico-technical fact of his legal citizenship, which really no one cares about, can (but needn't necessarily, per WP:CONTEXT), be mentioned in passing in the prose. Just because something is "true" doesn't necessarily make it useful to the reader; it may in fact be pointless and trivial.  Just because something else can be individually and willfully construed as inaccurate through the very persnicketty filter of a highly personal definition of a term, does not mean it will necessarily be confusing or unhelpful to the vast majority of our readers. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: My use of references does not constitute a “handwave”. In your initial response, you suggested that there is no meaningful difference between nationality and citizenship.  I argued against this and, as I think everyone should, provided references to support my argument – not to circumvent debate.  And yes, I do have expertise regarding these concepts.  I am currently completing a Ph.D. in political science, and one of the topics that my dissertation covers is the relationship between nationality and citizenship.  Accordingly, I can say with confidence that the sources I have cited are “germane” to this discussion.  Since you now seem to agree with me that there is a meaningful difference between nationality and citizenship, though, I will consider this part of the discussion closed and address the compromise that you have proposed below. –  SJL 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: an unnecessary nationalistic distinguishing that would serve no other purpose than to foment edit wars and confusion. --emerson7 | Talk 16:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: Could you explain how recognizing that citizenship and nationality are distinct categories is 'nationalistic', and treating them as the same thing is not? The premise that the state and nation (and by extension citizenship and nationality) should be congruent is one of the central tenets of nationalism. –  SJL 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * though admittedly a tad paternalistic, my position is based on the fact that editors already find it difficult enough to agree on all but the most unambiguous cases. when you add to that immigration and naturalisation status, dual citizenships and the permutations, i just think it's just another level of unnecessary complexity. --emerson7 | Talk 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and all of those situations are generally no-brainers to resolve under the current "nationality" template parameter and its widespread usage, without any quasi-competing "citizenship" one:
 * 1) Immigrant from Japan to US, not nationalized yet, still citizen of Japan:
 * 2) Same, but nationalized US, renounced Japan:
 * 3) Dual citizenship, for whatever reason:
 * If it genuinely is a complicated case:  (i.e. empty).  In all of these cases, the main article prose would explain the situation in more detail.  Easy-peasy.—  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Easy, but inaccurate. In all three examples, you are talking about citizenship, not nationality. –  SJL 14:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to concur with you; you are selectively choosing definitions of those terms that you prefer, but which do not match common usage. I return to my original comment, full circle: "Confusing hairsplitting". —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 14:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: By way of support for this I offer that Wiktionary defines "nationality" as "citizenship" (period). Dictionary.com Unabridged provides, in relevant part (i.e. excluding definitions that pertain to nations themselves rather than individuals), "the status of belonging to a particular nation, whether by birth or naturalization" (i.e. "citizenship" by most definitions; a defensible summary at least in American English, because "naturalized American" has no definition other than "immigrant who was officially become a US Citizen citizen"; I am highly skeptical that this is different in other jurisdictions speaking other dialects of English).  The American Heritage Dictionary says, in relevant part, "The status of belonging to a particular nation by origin, birth, or naturalization", i.e. "citizenship plus" - recognizes a more flexible concept, with the inclusion of the term "origin".  WordNet: "the status of belonging to a particular nation by birth or naturalization", i.e. "citizenship"; also recognizes the "origin" version. Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version): "(the state of belonging to) a particular nation", i.e. "citizenship", in relevant part.  Merriam-Webster Online: "a: national status; specifically: a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state; b: membership in a particular nation", i.e. "citizenship".  Shall I continue?  The only potential issue here is that some editors could insist upon treating "nationality" too loosely, (as in "I personally identify as a Martian so my infobox should say I'm a Martian) or too literally in equating nationality with legal citizenship, in both of which cases consensus is clearly against them.  As a somewhat silly but entirely real example of the latter case, there is no encyclopedically-useful rationale for considering my sister British because she happened to be born (cf. "origin", above) in the UK on an American military base.  To really drive home how useless "citizenship" is in the Wikipedia context, it would be perfectly "correct", from a legalistic nitpick standpoint, but utterly useless and downright misleading, to label her  . "Correct", because (at least at the time of her birth; I doubt this remains true today) anyone born on British soil was granted automatic British citizenship, so she technically, legally can be said in some sense to be a British citizen; but "useless and misleading" because she has never claimed British citizenship, owes no fealty or allegiance to the UK whatsoever, does not have an UK passport, is so American that she works at Graceland as a tour guide (I'm honestly not making this up!), and has never set foot in the UK since she was 2 years old. Legal citizenship is generally a not helpful detail in Wikipedia biographical articles when there is not a 1:1 match between that citizenship and "nationality" as more generally perceived ("belonging to" a particular country, in a sense that the vast bulk of readers have internalized), except in unusual cases. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial retraction: I am not utterly opposed to a citizenship field, only to one that is supplied without an admonition to not use it except in unusual cases, such as Albert Einstein, where I think it has been used appropriately, both because his "nationality" and citizenship question is complicated, and because his nationality could be debatable, and is best covered in the prose, e.g. as to how Americanized he became, etc. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Response: I agree that there should be instructions on how to use a ‘citizenship’ field instead of leaving it open to interpretation. I also think, however, that these instructions should extend to the nationality field as well, and that the latter should not be considered the default option.  Accordingly, I revise my proposal to the following:


 * the addition of a ‘citizenship’ field to this infobox; and
 * the provision of clear instructions that explain the differences between nationality and citizenship, why they are sometimes mistakenly used as synonyms, and how to decide whether either is appropriate for use in a given circumstance. – SJL 03:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a real example: What would the citizenship be for Arthur Rudolph?  How would a sequence like "German → naturalized US → stateless → West German" be presented?  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I think that there are three options:


 * Omit both nationality and citizenship from the infobox, and leave this information to the main text of the article;
 * Include just nationality (it is unlikely that anyone concerned thought that he ceased being 'German' in this sense by renouncing his German citizenship);
 * Include both nationality and citizenship, but list citizenship something like this:
 * Citizenship: Germany (1906-54); United States (1954-84); None (1984-87); Germany (1987-96)


 * All three would be acceptable, but I think the last option is more interesting from a reader's perspective. – SJL 02:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I have written a guideline for this issue, which I am proposing here. I look forward to your comments! – SJL 05:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)