Template talk:Reli-bio-stub

Should this be centered? It would be uniform with the other stub templates if it were not. MithrandirMage 02:24, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right.  &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 03:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing
I've modified this template to conform with NPOV. As I was corrected by Grutness on Template:reli-stub, the inclusion of a religious image from a particular point of view is inherently POV. Additionally, I seem to believe that the use of it would truly be a blessing, while funny, is a POV statement so I've moved this towards a more conventional language.

Why don't you tell me what religious point of view that image conveyed?  &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * [[image:Praising-hands.svg|30px|Praising Hands|middle]] I'm following my post from before up because I worked hard on an image that would not convey any religious point of view. Stained glass is used in many different religions, as are hands clasped together.  This sort of image would be appropriate in any temple, mosque, or church that allows for imagery.  If you percieve it as such, I apologize, but please take it up on some sort of VOTE if you have any further objection, rather than removing it.   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 15:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"It would truly be a blessing"
Is the "It would truly be a blessing" text really appropriate? -Grick(talk to me!) 05:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why not...the article is about religious figures. And since it's a stub template, it shouldn't remain on the article forever.  Why not expand the article in question and get rid of it?   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 05:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought it was amusing, but fairly appropriate. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   12:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I find this bit of text appalling. I thought someone must have vandalised the template when I saw it for the first time.  I personally find it offensive, and I think many others would too.  It is wholly unnecessary, and entirely inappropriate.  "Funny" is certainly not a good reason to have something offensive in an encyclopedia.  smoddy 9 July 2005 16:54 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should explain why you find it appalling, or offensive? Or why you suppose many others would to, seeing as your the first person to declare it offensive or furthermore, appalling.  What if it is just you that it bothers?
 * Please explain, what you find offensive or appalling, on a stub about "religious figures" that makes a cute remark about "blessings", a universal term in religion? You can't simply say, "it's appalling" with no explanation.   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I thought the reasoning would be obvious. To me, a blessing is something solemn and important.  To me, a blessing is a particular gift from God, and I know that others would feel the same.  My entire problem is that it is a "cute remark".  I think it is entirely inappropriate for a casual remark to be placed here that might offend some people.  It is not necessary for NPOV, it is not necessary to understand the template, and it is potentially offensive.  It should not stay. smoddy 9 July 2005 17:19 (UTC)


 * What you mean is "blessing from God" and that's not what the stub says. To me, the word "blessing", when used in casual conversation, means something good.  Very simply put.  "It would be a good thing if you would expand this article."  is what it's saying.  The fact that it's related to a religious biography supports the phrase, "it would be a blessing."


 * And I'm sure that's what it meant to the person that originally conceived of the phrasing for this particular template.  The use in English is widespread, and very frequently unrelated to religious purposes.  For example, phrases like "It's such a blessing that he's come home" or "Count your blessings," are frequently uttered without a universal force in mind.


 * And "potentially offensive" does not exclude anything from Wikipedia. See Jim Crow law if you have any doubts.  I have a feeling infinitely more people smile, like I first did when I saw it, than take offence at it.  So what if it's a little non-standard.  It makes most people feel good.  And being able to put a smile on people's faces while serving another purpose truly seems to me like a blessing.  A few people being offended by it is a very small price to pay for that.   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 02:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And I take a "blessing" as meaning a "blessing from God". Even so, with your reasoning, you suggest that this is being taken as being casual conversation.  Yet it quite plainly is not.  This is clearly a religious context, so I feel my understanding of it is perfectly valid.


 * Yes, those are both used. But they are, to me, only used in a context where that includes the religious roots of them.  I don't know the context you are using, so I won't try to understand why you hold this particular viewpoint.  The points you mention are exactly the things where the word "blessing" is in order.  Modifying an article on an online encyclopedia, well, isn't.


 * If you look at my previous statement, I said that this was not necessary. An article on Jim Crow laws is necessary, and I effectively acknowledged this in my previous message.  But this is wholly different.  It is not only potentially offensive, but also unnecessary.  If you want to make people laugh, go to Uncyclopedia.  This is an encyclopedia, not an attempt to make people laugh.  smoddy 11:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me preface my change by stating that you, smoddy, are a killjoy. I don't truly believe that you were offended.  I believe that when you had the chance to truly think about it, you were actually okay with it, as any normal human being would have been, religious or otherwise.  Considering the origin of most of the people at Wikipedia, I'm certain that if a poll would be taken, a full 40% or greater would self-identify as Christian.  Pardon my assumption, but based on your comments and what I've read on your page, I'm taking a leap of faith and guessing your beliefs lie in that direction.  Therefore, I am surprised how long this stub lasted without a single person expressing their offense in it.  And this is Wikipedia.  If someone is offended, they will say it.


 * I believe that you simply are arguing because you initially raised the objection. Your initial assessment was highly-hyperbolic (e.g. "appalled"), leaving doubt in my mind to whether you actually thought about what you were typing.  Having been raised in a religious household myself, I find your viewpoint completely incomprehensible.  In the end, however, your objection is in fact the only reason I changed the template.  Because it is true that standardization is a goal here at Wikipedia.  It is also true, however, that diversity at Wikipedia helps people maintain interest in this place.  If there were too many young smoddy's running around inflicting their unique, limited and narrow worldviews on the rest of us, Wikipedia would have far less participation.  Try to get some convenional world experience, and perhaps you'd be less apt to enforce morality.   &#08492; astique &#09660; talk 19:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * And I shall preface my reply with the observations that a) I know when I am offended, b) that I am fully capable of having a normal conversation. I dislike your blatant attempts to patronise me -- such behavious is most unwiki.  I have neither the energy nor the time at least until the weekend to respond to your comments fully.  I would comment, however, that divining that I am Christian (and proudly so) from the statement "I am Anglo-Catholic" is less than challenging.  I do, however, ask you to desist from your argumentum ad hominem, which is less than edifying.  smoddy 21:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I reverted and...
It's just a really bad joke. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It was just reverted, "to preserve topical language". I've changed it back, under the principle that templates are supposed to have NPOV language, not topical language. I first came across the religious in-jokery version on Jeremy Collier, a stub about a tough, extremist, theatre-hating, uncharitable old Puritan divine in the 17th century, and the context made the the wording about "charitable" quite incongrous: really not very topical at all. (If you want to see where Jeremy Collier was at, please see the article Short View of the Immorality and Prophaneness of the English Stage.) Conclusion: the "topical" version just doesn't fit all religious bio-stubs, not even in all Christian contexts; and of course the stub is used for other religions besides Christianity, too. Please lets keep it appropriate for any religious figure. You know, encyclopedic? Bishonen | talk 14:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Systematic Bias template
I have added a template for Systematic Bias, the image used in this template seems to represent a Christian view of the subject, rather than a global unbiased symbology. Please discuss and/or change the image to something more appropriate. Sfacets 01:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with systematic bias. That has to do with missorting of articles. This template is used for all material which does not have a better-scoped template, and in particular the material related to Islam and Judaism has been sorted better. I'm removing this tag. If you wish to see changes to the scope of this template, or propose new ones, the correct place to address such concerns is WP:WSS. Valentinian T / C 11:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)