Talk:Shane Carruth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Religion[edit]

Why is his religion here, I understand a lack of info, but expand this or delete this reference. Zendu (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know you posted this like a year ago, but it seems like this is still under contention. I have to agree that it doesn't belong. To me it seems irrelevant but I'm having trouble finding policy/guidelines that promote keeping it or removing it. Any opinions? ~a (usertalkcontribs) 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what there is for me to say here that I haven't already said in edit summaries. A person's religion is a basic biographical fact, like their age, politics, birthplace, etc. It's as relevant and appropriate to include in an article about that person as any of those things. If it's something they've discussed publicly, then it would be part of a comprehensive encyclopedia article.Prezbo (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree on principle, we don't have any of that other information, so it seems to just stick out in the article as poor formating. I hopped on two other directors in an attempt to discredit religion as biographical (lucas and kubrik) and it seems you are right (good show old chap). Still, I would be much happier if it was in a block of other such facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zendu (talkcontribs) 21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's more out of place than anything else. It would be like having a "Shane is white.[4]" sitting by itself. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 05:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
So rewrite it if you want, but I don't think it's justifiable to remove relevant content just because it makes the article read more awkwardly. Wikipedia articles aren't generally noted for their readability in any case.Prezbo (talk) 06:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's 3 paragraphs in the article. One is about his religion, which is irrelevant to his notability. Also, I'm sure about 75% of Americans have been baptized, which is one definition of "Christian".'

As I basically said above, this is a short article because Carruth is only marginally notable and no one cares enough to write about him, but that shouldn't be a reason to leave out basic biographical facts, like religious beliefs which appear to be strongly held. If he was married and had a family there would be one sentence about that; would that also be "undue weight"? Not everything in a biography needs to be relevant to the subject's notability, although in this case it is relevant to his notability since he's described his religion as an influence on his art. Being baptized is one definition of "Christian," but as is clear from reading the interview that isn't the relevant definition here.Prezbo (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case you should write a paragraph based on the interview for the main article. But even so, I'm dubious. We don't have any information about his family, either. john k (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)