Talk:Joseph Stallcop

Religion in the infobox

There have been several RfCs on religion in the infobox:

• 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

• 17 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

• 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

• 11 April 2016 RfC: RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all biographical infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw your verbose comments elsewhere about the Southern Poverty Law Center. I don't think it's worthwhile getting into a huge long debate with you. You seem very committed to the idea that "Agnostic" is not a religious affiliation, and are evidently willing to fight the battle over the presence of a "Religion=Agnostic" line in Rep. Stallcop's infobox out to the death. I really don't care that much about what is or is not included in Rep. Stallcop's infobox. Also, I know I am not nearly as smart as you think you yourself are. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I see that you are one of those who think that insults and personal attacks are an acceptable substitute for a logical argument. I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

What part of "in all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox" are you having trouble understanding? Competence is required.

Agnosticism is not a religion. Agnosticism is the lack of any religion. Agnosticism is not a religious affiliation. Agnosticism is the lack of any religious affiliation. Bald is not a hair color. Bald is the lack of any hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Off is the lack of any TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Barefoot is the lack of any shoe. Silence is not a sound. Silence is the lack of any sound. Never is not a date. Never is the lack of a date. Clear is not a color. Clear is the lack of a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)