Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FRSs with public religious stances


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete as a violation of WP:OR. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of FRSs with public religious stances

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list does not simply list Fellows of the Royal Society. It does not simply list, say, atheists. It does not simply list Christian apologists. It tries to synthesise information about people who fit into one category with what if anything they have said about religious matters, then does not simply list people who are both FRSs and willing to state their religious beliefs in public but also subcategorises them according to belief - all apparently to demonstrate some point (see the discussion on the talk page). This looks like someone's pet research project designed to push a point that they want to establish (apparently that most FRSs who have spoken up about religion have been favourable to it). Such an exercise is POV-pushing and inherently involves original research. Metamagician3000 10:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator, if there was any doubt of the outcome I'm seeking. Metamagician3000 11:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, for reasons explained by the nominator, and as discussed on the article's talk page. In brief, it's a matter of inescapable POV arising from the bias that is inherent in the methodology of such a list. Details here. Note that it is arguably quite a subtle and complex issue, and deserves some serious consideration. Please think about it and consider the issues before you add your opinion here. No knee-jerk reactions, please! Snalwibma 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (as initial author). WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." Making such a list cannot be considered WP:OR - if it were then all structured lists would be OR. I have no idea whether there will be more Atheists, Agnostics or Christians on this list - the intention is simply to present the information factually and without POV comment. When the people listed have their own articles which attribute religious positions in the articles (based on reliabile sources) additional refs seem superfluous, but can be provided if necessary. The fact that list A is not list B or C, or the possibility that people reading this list might draw conclusions which certain editors don't like, are not valid reasons for detetionNBeale 12:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - See also in which it says "It'd be great if the Royal Society could find some way to emphasise that there is a wide spectrum of religious views in the society from (one) miliant atheist to (two) ordained priests and...". This list is clearly part of this same sentiment as the list was started by, and that blog entry was written by, the same person (i.e. NBeale). Ttiotsw 09:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Beyond the above entry indicated by Ttiotsw, the full blog is well worth reading for quality insight into the POV charges made here.  --Plumbago 09:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment So far (24 March) the stated reasons for deletion below appear to be (a) that is it WP:OR "to demonstrate some point" or (b) that it is "pointless". The fact that the nominator and several other Editors opt for (a) demonstrates that it is not pointless.  And if it is OR then so is every other structured list - such as eg this this and this which are all Featured Lists. NBeale 08:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * New Comments I've just found that a List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society has been in Wikipedia since 2005. If the "delete" arguments here were valid, that list should not be there. Dawkins cites an unpublished survey of FRS's religious opinions in TDG p101. NBeale 07:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On those two specific points: (1) Go and look at List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society and see if you can spot the difference! (2) Dawkins is entitled to say what he likes in his own book - he is expressing his own opinions - but here the whole point is to avoid expressing your own opinions. Snalwibma 07:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no problem with a list of Jewish fellows unless it was then further grouped so instead of being alphabetical it was further sorted by what religion they were. For instance Harold_Kroto is simply listed under K whereas you would have him under "Atheist". It is this further separation that is when the WP:OR kicks in. The list also includes dead people; on this list we're talking about you have repeatedly said that dead people are not eligible for entry for some weird reason. Ttiotsw 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NBeale misses the point completely. The lists he shows are facts and inclusion is unequivocal - either they are or they aren't. For this list there is subjectivity (the font from which OR spills) as the term "public religious stances" could be interpreted many ways - could just attending church regularly be taken as a "public religious stance"? Sophia  09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tks Sophia. If that's the problem let's clarify (rename if necessary) that the "stance" is that recorded in their WP Article (based on reliable sources)- hence no OR here. NBeale 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NBeale also fails to point out that the lists he uses as examples i.e. List of HIV-positive people fails to include HIV-negative people, and that the List of Dartmouth College alumni fails to include other College alumni and that the List of Ohio county name etymologies doesn't include other counties. I'm all for a list of religious stances but atheism isn't a religious stance. To be religious it has to have a belief in and worship of a supernatural entity (or entities and they need not be a "god" in the theist sense e.g. Buddhists). Dawkins (the target of this article) as far as I know is approaching this scientifically and it's misleading to call this stance a "religious stance". These stances are comparing apples and oranges. Ttiotsw 10:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This list is pointless and misleading.  The fact that the only justification anyone has given for the list is to "dispel popular misconceptions" betrays the initial author's agenda.
 * As others have noted, the list will never reflect what "top scientists" believe since it can only include the tiny minority who have chosen to publicly discuss their religious beliefs. It's better to have no list at all than a hopelessly misleading list.
 * There's plenty of good survey data out there about what scientists think of religion and other supernatural beliefs. Better to present these data than to conduct our own sloppy, inaccurate survey. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can see why you don't like this list, and think it might be "misleading", but how does this ammount to a reason for deletion according to WikiPedia policies??NBeale 14:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - that is the whole point. The list is misleading. The entire methodology of compiling this list is seriously biased. See article talk page for full explanation. Snalwibma 13:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Metamagician3000. Mi kk er (...) 14:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom. An arbitrary subject - why the Royal Society and not some other organisation (e.g. Chelsea Football Club)? And, on a personal level, I object to atheism being described as a religious stance - I think that, in itself, demonstrates the POV of the article! Emeraude 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete FRS has nothing to do with personal stances on any topic other than their own field of science. Most biologists would naturally be atheists. Physicists tend to lean towards other possibilities due partly to inconsistencies in current theory but even that would probably have little to do with religion as religious leaders might want one to believe. Shyamal 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment “Most biologists would naturally be atheists”--that's about as POV as they come :-) Freederick 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Snalwibma (and second the concerns of Emeraude). Anville 16:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator and Snalwibma. I really don't see what useful purpose this list achieves beyond editor NBeale's interest in separating science from atheism à la Alister McGrath's dispute with Richard Dawkins.  --Plumbago 18:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -Barte 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Garcia-Fons 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a sock-puppet, whose only edits have been today, to a string of AfDs. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Gillyweed 05:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I seem to be almost alone, but--I would have said delete if it were FRSs by religion. But FRSs do tsomer of them take specifically religious public stances, and it is not OR to find out, because they will only belong here if obvious. It is further relevant, because most of the make specific use of the status as FRS when expressing religious views, or when others use the as examples: these are cases where both the status and the religion is clearly discernible. I personally do not care how tit will balance out -- I think that the majority wont think it worthwhile or appropriate to talk about their religion, so its not a poll. Obviously the categories will get more refined as the numbers increase. DGG 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as this list can be automatically generated through categories. I am also confident to state that it is also simply created for the purpose of showing the extent of disbelief in FRS. It is thus a synthesis of information. Why next we'll be AfD'ing a List of FRSs with public sexuality stances as homosexuality is usually targetted along with atheists by the same groups of people. Ttiotsw 08:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've added more "humanists". I'm using the term "stance" to include what someone sponsors e.g. the secular, rationalist and humanist association promotion or support is taking a stance. Ttiotsw 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ttiotsw. That's exactly what this list is for, and greatly adds to its value IMHO. NBeale 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The footnote in the article also says bizarrely that the article "is restricted to living FRSs because you cannot reliably determine the religious stance of a person who had died!", which is such a serious misunderstanding of WP:RS that the reliability of the whole article has to be rejected. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Your defence here is based on claiming a purpose for the list other than what this stated in the article, which again undermines credibility. In any case a list such as this will have constant changing content, as new FRSs are appointed and old ones die, as well as the changes in religious stance you have just instanced. So the list you describe here is journalistic rather than encyclopedic: it does not consist of durable knowledge. What is the encyclopedic logic for judging that the religious stance of someone is notable when they are alive but becomes non-notable when they die? See WP:NN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Use categories - this will be an OR minefield if not deleted. Sophia  08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' a random intersection such as this makes a very poor basis for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We'll I've tried to make a category as suggested but there seems to be an emerging consensus that this is not the way to do it. Balanced list avoids OR and is NPOV in my view NBeale 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. To address NBeale's points, I will say that this is WP:OR, a clear synthesis, and while it is obviously intended to make a point, it is, nevertheless, pointless.  FRS is arbitrary and "religious stances" is vague.  Why not a list of CoE Bishops with "public scientific stances"?  Xtifr tälk 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and xftr as OR synthesis, with no useful purpose other than trying to accumulate info for to support some partisan point. If this information was thought to serve a purpose, then to avoid being misleading it would need to be more discursive and nuanced, to distinguish between such variants as someone who says that he attends a Catholic church every christmas and Easter, someone who is an actively proselytising evangelical, and to allow for adequate discussion of people who change their religious stance.
 * Comment the point is that people's religious stances can change. Anthony Flew was one of the world's leading atheist philosophers - now he is a theist. If someone is dead there is unlikely to be any evidence what their present religious stance is.  I also point out that this is a list not a normal article - such a discursive discussion would not belong in a list at all. NBeale 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Nbeale, the list is called "List of FRSs with public religious stances", not "List of FRSs with current public religious stances", and the only reference to it being for "current" FRSs in a footnote. That lack of confusion about the list's scope doesn't enhance its credibility.


 * Keep Many of these people claim their status as FRS to give weight to their views on religious belief. The point of an institution such as the Royal Society is that its fellows speak for both themselves and the Academy to which they belong.  Given that science v religious faith is one of the great fault lines of modern thinking, this list is valuable and should be kept, added to and improved. Laura H S 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * has a particular attachment to AfDs of articles created by NBeale. --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is valid, verified information, and breaks no Wikipedia policies. What use anyone wants to make of it is their business, not Wikipedia's.  Nobody is pushing any partisan points here, and the contents of the talk page is not a valid criterion for judging an article.  If this was a less controversial topic (e.g. the public stance taken on homosexuality, as opposed to religion) would there be as much opposition?  Yes, the public positions of the fellows can change in time; the article would simply have to be updated accordingly.  I also object to the point made that the list would have to be "more discursive and nuanced".  That would raise the specter of introducing a POV. Freederick 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Homosexuality, as an alternate example, is not illegal in the UK any more (unlike a few years ago whereby Christians would support chemically altering sexuality of homosexuals) whereas it could be argued that a certain public support or stance on religion is still illegal. The still-extant UK Blasphemy laws only protect Christians and could (albeit unlikely) be used to imprison or cause hardship to those who highlight some of the more ludicrous nonsense promoted by Christians. To make a fair comparison you need to identify some human characteristic in which only 1 group is protected. Within religion, obviously women are discriminated against so that's a good candidate. The Catholic church actively rejects the equality of women with men, as does the Church of England and pretty much any other Christian organisation which fits under the papal thumb. I'm not, but wow a women atheist is screwed all ways by Christianity.
 * In the end my concerns are that we need not consider atheism or humanism to be a religion and thus not a religious belief but there does seem a drive towards equating the two for this list. Theism is about belief in a particular supernatural entity whereas atheism usually precludes this. It would be like having a list of astronomers with a stance of "aliens" and though implication that some support SETI equate this with a belief (or not) in UFOs. One side is an outright belief in "Area 51" nonsense and the other is a more scientific approach based on probabilities. With normal people this isn't an issue but FRS it is; the Christian FRS effectively believe in the existence of a supernatural being but cannot present any proof of this (or these) entities. Science, schmience. Ttiotsw 19:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this gives a very good indication of (a) why this list is useful and (b) why some editors with a strongly atheistic POV want to supress it. NBeale 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. OR minefield and POV-pushing. Gnusmas 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Having a list based on well-refed info in the articles on these people cannot be considered OR. And there is no rational basis to describe a broadly balanced list of theists and atheists as "POV pushing". WP:POV cited says "Some contributors to Wikipedia misuse the term POV, taking it to be the antithesis of "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided...Recall Larry Sanger's prescription that Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects." NBeale 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - isn't it precisely because it's a controversial subject that its methods must be above reproach? Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the list is doomed to failure because of insurmountable bias in the sources of information. You cannot get at the information you need for most of the people who might be included (whether or not they are alive!), and the likelihood of having the information is likely to be influenced by the stance of the person, producing seriously skewed data. Snalwibma 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The goal of the list does not appear to identify the scope of each persons religious or areligious belief. That information should be left for the individual to self-identify (ex Rees self-identifies) in a public capacity.  If other names need to be added to columns, let this happen.  The journalism "bias" suggested above is naturally favored against religious theism than say humanism.  Over time, a useful list of scientific peoples who have SELF-IDENTIFIED religious or areligious views will be available with accompanying sources.    The point is clear--there are a large number of theists who are scientists.  This information may have nuances that are difficult to quantify but it does not necessitate deletion.  Beginning the list by posting various Royal Society fellows is a decent place to start.  This could be extended to anyone wanting to do the research from other academic scientific bodies who have self-identified.  Under the wikipedia rules there seems little reason to delete such content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaugb (talk • contribs).
 * is another dedicated member of NBeale's fanclub. They haven't missed an AfD since the argument from love. Such dedication! --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Seems all roads lead to NBeale, I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion, where this is rightfully discussed as a textbook example of WP:SYNT.That this article needs a footnote telling editors to be careful is also a good sign this is a bad idea. --Merzul 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While the format could use some work, the basic idea seems reasonable, if one assumes that the relationship between science and religion is worth debate. The FRS qualifier is objective, and as long as the public stance in question is verifiable, I don't see a problem with this, as long as people are willing to contribute to the list.hajjiwallah 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Welcome to Wikipedia, interesting first edit. --Merzul 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: note to potential sockpuppets/meatpuppets, write "hi", "hello world" or something else on your user page before you make your first edit. That way, seasoned editors won't spot you straightaway by the colour of your signature.  ;-)  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Duly noted. As for the topic, seemed interesting enough to merit discussion, and the above represents an accurate summary of my position. --hajjiwallah 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not agree that there are grounds to delete this article since it is an accurate list and people are able to contribute to it
 * Comment: now, what did I just say? Another interesting first edit ...  --Plumbago 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure how Plumbago's comment is relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.mash (talk • contribs)
 * Comment - I think Plumbago is making it clear that this is the first ever edit by Peter.mash on wikipedia, and suggesting that a review of this AfD should take account of Sock puppetry. Snalwibma 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Comment: strictly speaking, my comment was entirely facetious. Following on from Merzul's earlier remarks, I was commenting on the remarkable number of first-time editors here.  By the way, I was most amused to see that you've added a place holder to your user page (cf. my earlier comment).  Who says people don't listen on Wikipedia?  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well I have to start somewhere! Peter.mash 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - true but what attracted you to this article out of the 1.6 Million or so on Wikipedia especially given the esoteric nature of the subject. Given that in good faith there is probably a high interest in this specific subject do you have any views on if the stance of dead FRS can be added to the list ? Please use the article talk page here.Ttiotsw 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR by synthesis. And a can of worms: are we to have lists or categories for every pairwise combination of characteristics? List of popes by whether they are left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous? List of cheeses by color? Ok, maybe that's a strawman, but there needs to be some argument why this particular combination of categories is both notable and sourcable. And by sourcable, I mean a reliable source for the notability of the subject of the list, not so much individual sources for the individual list members. —David Eppstein 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The idea that you can only have a list if the list has been mentioned in a reliable source is, I think, mistaken. By the criteria proposed by the deleters here this list is "blatant OR" and should be deleted, but it's a featured list. FRSs who comment on science and religion often do so as "X FRS" as do organisations like the Faraday Institute and the British Humanist Association when listing their supporters, and there are about 104k ghits. Most comment on Dawkins and Polkinghorne mentions their FRS status. See also Dawkins citation noted above. NBeale 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment but the two lists are not comparable as, for example, the Ohio county names are not then grouped by say potato production. I am happy to have a list of FRS who have mentioned religion (probably all have in their careers so fail to see what this would add) but the WP:OR synthesis is to then group them by religious belief or worldview and also stretching the limit as to what is deemed a religion by adding what are clearly not deemed to be religions by authorities to the list, namely "atheist". Ttiotsw 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Compromise proposal What about a "List of FRSs who public endorse theistic or atheistic organisations" which is pretty much what this list is in fact? NBeale 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple answer: No. Snalwibma 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might not meet your objection but it seems to meet all the others. NBeale 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No it doesn't. Snalwibma 14:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another answer: No. I object to the simplistic view on the relationship between science and religion that list will imply. I object to the idea of using people in this way, ignoring their nuanced views on the matter. How does counting heads help us improve the quality of the discourse on religion when it entirely trivializes the matter? Has somebody argued that the large number of FSRs who publicly endorse theistic organizations is relevant, then that person should be cited saying so on our article about religion and science. We don't need to create new primary source material to contribute to this debate. --Merzul 14:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And how do you propose to define a "theistic or atheistic organisation", and how do you define "endorse"? - but this is getting really silly, so I'll stop adding comments. Bye! Snalwibma 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm. I agree that the religion and science contains the underlying debate, and is ultimately where any such conclusions should reside. This article includes several "x% of scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of deities" statements, including a qualification of leading scientists based on their membership of a national organisation. Whether this is a good thing is open to debate (and I take it that you think it isn't, based on your above comment?) but similar information - using a different scientific academy - would seem to be equally relevant.--hajjiwallah 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be relevant if someone else had already done a survey and there was a reliable source that we could cite for the results. But if we are trying to put together bits of information from here and there to carry out, in effect, our own survey, that is a (poorly-designed) research project of our own, which is forbidden by NOR. As David Eppstein says below, if the article (or list) is trying to derive that kind information for the purpose you describe, it just confirms how much its construction is an exercise in original research. Metamagician3000 06:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My position is that WP should not be usable as a source for other people to say that x% of FRS's are religious, or atheists, or whatever. Because if a WP article were the best source for such a factoid, that article would clearly be original research. —David Eppstein 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think this is the reason for the creation of this list.  Or, rather, not so much to create a list for percentage purposes, but more to say "hey - look at all these non-atheist [sic] scientists!".  Classic argument from authority stuff.  As such, both POV and OR.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments (a) the inferences that people may draw from properly refed facts are not a reason for declaring the article POV. (b) A simple List of Christian FRSs must be OK because there is already a List of Jewish FRSs so if this article is deleted all that happens is that the handful of public atheists get removed - is that what you really want? (c) Obviously this list says nothing about the % of FRSs who are Christian/Atheist whatever - no doubt many FRSs not on this list have private views on the subject. (d) This list is no more OR than any other list that has not already been published elsewhere, consequently if this is list is OR then so are almost all the other WikiPedia lists. NBeale 14:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I don't personally think the List of Jewish FRSs was a very good idea for a list, it has survived a rather weakly argued AfD. I guess if you had started this as a simple list of Christian FRSs, at least my objections would no longer apply. And I think most people wouldn't mind, except if you somehow manage to include a very subtle attack on a certain "militant atheist" :P Funny how we have to go through AfDs before these things become compliant. If I may refer to some of you aptly named friends, why don't you think-it-through before you create a page, instead of thinking-it-through during the AfD? ;) --Merzul 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Main reasons to delete are POV concerns and the lack of a sufficient reason for such a list to exist -- that is, there is nothing inherently encyclopaedic about such a list.  The fact of public assertion of a religious stance is certainly encyclopaedic and that information should be included in each individual's article.  I also think some category or list identifying religious position could be encyclopaedic, though I'd have to think about any specific case; it's just that restricting this to FRSs is too specific.  Mike Christie (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notion that this information is important to be presented in this manner is original synthesis, violation of WP:SYN. The list appears to be a violation of WP:POINT as well, as the author points out the purpose of the list is "dispelling popular misconceptions". NBeale, you have a blog. Please use it. That's the appropriate outlet for your POV. — coe l acan — 14:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think this list is unsalvageably original research. If it truly only lists individuals who have made public their religious stance, it is inherently attributable.  As it currently stands, however, it violates WP:BLP (only one source when dozens of persons are listed).  I was surprised to discover that List of Fellows of the Royal Society is not yet an article.  If it ever becomes one, perhaps religion could be noted there (although there is probably more important information that could be included, such as dates of birth and death, nationality, subject specialisation, year of election as a Fellow, and so on). -- Black Falcon 20:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.