Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox country: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 184: Line 184:
#: But it's not a religion. By definition, in fact. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
#: But it's not a religion. By definition, in fact. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' As the saying goes, bald is not a hair colour. And absence is not presence. And how is it NPOV to tell me that my lack of belief is really belief/a faith? If the argument that it's a faith is going to be for support, mine is at least as good for oppose. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' As the saying goes, bald is not a hair colour. And absence is not presence. And how is it NPOV to tell me that my lack of belief is really belief/a faith? If the argument that it's a faith is going to be for support, mine is at least as good for oppose. [[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]]) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
:#No, "bald" is not a hair color, but it's still used as a descriptor where appropriate by, say police department APBs, because it's actually useful and descriptive. . --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
#'''Support''' "State atheism" is an actual thing, whatever silly word games the definitional pedants play. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


=== Support [other] ===
=== Support [other] ===

Revision as of 08:20, 21 June 2015

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCountries Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Template-protected edit request on 23 March 2015

When I added data to the the field "nationalities" in Svalbard, it didn't show up. It doesn't seem to exist in the source code. Can someone with editing privileges fix it? It should be of the same layout as the field "ethnic_groups". - Anonimski (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Anonimski (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonimski: I take it this is in relation to this edit? There is no such parameter as |nationalities=; if you undo that edit it will display again. But if you want an entirely new parameter, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It exists in the template documentation, that's why I submitted this request. Anyway, what do you think about adding the field? Some countries keep statistics of ethnicities, while others register nationalities only. - Anonimski (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the documentation because of these edits by Le Sabre (talk · contribs). At that time, the template had no parameter of that name, and I cannot find any subsequent addition or removal, so it appears to have been added to the documentation in error. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Anyway, what is your opinion on having such a field? The current template is somewhat incompatible with nations and regions that keep track on nationalities and not ethnic backgrounds. - Anonimski (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ping @Redrose64: - Anonimski (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally have an opinion. It's the sort of thing that should be discussed by those who actually use the infobox, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlinking a parameter

Hello, is there any way to force a parameter not to be wikilinked? I'm trying to remove the link from the demonym parameter on Republic of the Congo. It's currently pointing to a dab page, which it shouldn't. And there isn't a specific article for the people of Congo-Brazzaville as well, it should simply be unlinked. Thanks, --Midas02 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you. Basically, anything that prevents the '#ifexist' from working will do it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I had tried to fix it by adding an invisible character, but then a bot came along and undid it again. So I'll make a note of your solution. Rgds, --Midas02 (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2015 Suggestion

Can the borders and/or size of image_map and image_map2 be made the same? Right now the first one is 250 px and the second is 280 for some reason. Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the offending edit. Since no justification was given, and the author is now blocked, meaning we can't ask them to explain it, I've restored the second map's original width default. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flag captions

The article for Sweden includes a "state and civil flag" in the infobox captioned simply as "Flag" with a wikilink to Flag of Sweden, which is fine. However, further down, the infobox has a footnote:

^ Above the civil and state flag. Here the naval flag:

However, the footnote symbol was not linked to anywhere. The flag caption should have a footnote link to it (similar to the corresponding footnote for the coat of arms), like so:

I tried several options utilising the undocumented flag_caption parameter before I finally figured out how to do it:

  • | flag_caption = Flag{{ref label|aaa|a}} → [[Flag of Sweden | Flag[a]]]
  • | flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}} → Flag[a]]]
  • | flag_caption = Flag]]{{ref label|aaa|a}}<span style="display:none"> → Flag[a]

This is a workaround to break the wikilink automatically created by the template and stop the errant ]] wikicode inserted by the template from showing in the infobox. Is there a neater way to fix this? —sroc 💬 22:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether this footnote is necessary. Alakzi (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question for the article's talk page and rather misses the point of the question about how to customise the flag caption on this template. —sroc 💬 22:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in adding a feature there's no use for; my response was right on point. Alakzi (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there no point in allowing footnotes in flag captions? And why is this footnote "unnecessary"? —sroc 💬 22:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because no use case has been identified. It is not a coincidence that the naval flag is not found in any other country infobox. It is because the infobox serves as a summary of key points; the naval flag variant is not one such key point. Kindly peruse WP:IBX. Alakzi (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you think the article is wrong in having the footnote, you should direct your comment to that article's talk page. —sroc 💬 23:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alright place to discuss whether a naval flag belongs in this very infobox, and whether it would merit the addition of a new flag footnote parameter to this very infobox. Alakzi (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the text "Drives on the" be a link to Right- and left-hand traffic. This would be clearer and more consistent than some countries making "right" or "left" link to that page.

Jruderman (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jruderman: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. It was removed at 13:47, 12 September 2011 by MSGJ (talk · contribs), as part of this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

Summary for the RFC listing: For non-religious nations, how should infoboxes list their religion?

Proposer: Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Comments

(To be filled out by closing administrator)

Background

The religion entry in infoboxes has been a contentious issue for many years, with multiple participants disputing what, if anything, should come after the "Religion = " entry in cases where the subject of the page has no religion.

A previous RfC determined that there is a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

This RfC is an attempt to create a bright line answer concerning exactly what the consensus is concerning the religion entry for nation infoboxes.

What this RfC is and is not

This RfC only applies to infoboxes, not to the body of the article.

This RfC only applies to the religion field of the infobox.

This RfC does not address the existing strong consensus that religion in the infobox must be relevant (per the template guideline), supported by reliable sources, and covered in the body of the article.

Ground Rules

Previous discussions have generated large numbers of comments, so no replies will be allowed in the support sections. This is the best way to make it clear who supports what. Please keep all threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section.

As always with RfCs, the quality of your argument counts more than the !vote counts. A compelling policy-based argument is worth more than multiple "I like it" / "I hate it" comments.

Because this has been such a contentious issue in the past, I plan on letting this run the full 30 days and then asking an uninvolved administrator (more than one If I can get them) with experience closing controversial RfCs to close this RfC. An issue that this many people feel this strongly about should not be snow closed.

When you reply in the threaded discussion section, you may wish to add "@Example" to indicate who you replied to. If you reply in the support sections your reply will be moved to the threaded discussion section with a "@Example:" added at the start of the comment.

Support Omit Parameter

In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed.

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Support. Athiest is not a religion, none is clutter, omitting the parameter would be best. GuzzyG (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Consistent with the usage of the parameter for individuals, if there is no religion then the field should be omitted. DonIago (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. GuzzyG pretty much nails it on the head and Doniago is correct that usage should be consistent. MarnetteD|Talk 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. per GuzzyG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs)
  5. Support. - The same arguments as for individuals. If a country does not have a religion, there is no need to say anything. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. per previous comments . General Ization Talk 14:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support per consensus at Template talk:Infobox person. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Seems most consistent with what we do for other parameters. "Religion: None" seems somewhat snarky to me. We wouldn't say "Morals: None". Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support per arguments at Infobox person. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per previous comments. And because it tells the reader next to nothing anyway - it would cover everything from countries where the overwhelming majority of the population are religious but the state recognises no specific religion to countries where few of the population are religious. The religious beliefs of a population are of course legitimate topics for coverage in an article body, where we can actually explain things, rather than reducing them to meaningless sound-bites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, per what I said at Person, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, same as per the person infobox discussion. Though I am unsure if this is necessary, as I checked several country articles and found no mention at all of religion, even for heavily religious countries. The paramater does exist, of course. Resolute 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. This seems like it might be the best option. If there's an official state religion, that should should probably be stated in the infobox. If there isn't, then we don't really have anything to say. For state atheism, this seems perhaps inadequate, but that would more ideally fit under a different parameter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Seems a no-brainer. Why would you have a religion parameter for a country with no official state religion? Whatever the decision, we should avoid the "atheist" morass. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Obvious path. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Omitting the field entirely in these cases is going to be the easiest solution - declaring that a certain country mandates a "state religion" of "none" or "irreligion" would not be true, and other solutions have POV issues - balanced discussion of religious discrimination or anti-clericalism belongs in the article body under "religion" or "history" -- Aronzak (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. -M.Altenmann >t 02:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, per GuzzyG. Additionally, none is factually inaccurate unless the parameter is changed to display as "official religion", as many countries exist where a majority practices one religion without the country having an official national religion (see United States, for example). ~ RobTalk 02:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Unless the country was formed explicitly as (and remains) a religious state, the parameter shoud be omitted altogether. pablo 10:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Things that are subtle, complex, and and need explanation and context are very poor candidates for infobox inclusion, no matter how important someone feels them to be. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Per WP:V and WP:RS, any statement of "none" religion would have to be properly sourced; I don't see how that's possible. Only the apparent lack of religion could possibly be sourced, which is weak, and probably would fail WP:UNDUE. And one country's lack of religion won't match others', so labeling them all "none" would be WP:SYNTH at best. Conversely, true anti-religious countries, by definition, would be much more emphatic and should yield proper sources for their particular style. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC); Striking part of my statement that is outside scope of RfC; I !voted when the RfC opening statement was temporarily altered. I may have voted for "Atheist where appropriate" where heavily sourced, but now I think it's better to produce a more conclusive guideline given the apparent shenanigans. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per many editors above and, well, common sense. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Atheism is not a religion. Not having an established state religion is not a religion. Assuming that every country must have a religion, and that any country that does not have a religion must have a religion parameter saying it has none, is not WP:NPOV, as it is begging the question. We should include religion if, and only if, the country has an official established religion. The UK has an official religion, the USA does not, precisely because the UK does. I don't think most Americans would be comfortable with Religion: Atheist in their infobox, even though this is formally and technically true from the First Amendment, and the reader would greet it with a giant "WTF?". Guy (Help!) 17:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support None

In infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion may be indicated with "religion = None", which displays as "Religion: None".

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Oppose. No other infobox parameter uses "none". I also oppose all variations that try to work around this, such as "NA", "None (state atheism)", "none official", or any other variation. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I would have to agree with GM even after what I wrote below. Normally, if the truth were some form of "none", then one option is to simply not use the parameter; however, I continue to support general readers who might want a quick answer or need a fast answer for something at school – whatever – if the only correct entry is some form of "none", then perhaps just a pointer to an anchored link in the article with a label something like See article content? – Paine  16:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow "atheist" etc. where appropriate

Where appropriate, in infoboxes about nations that have explicitly anti-religious policies, this may be indicated with "religion: Atheist", "religion: none (atheist)" or similarly.

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Support Speaking as someone who does not consider applicable articles to be personal favorites (and therefore an exception to the impression of supporters later in the thread), it is clear to me that state atheism was propagated in PSR Albania and some Soviet states. Was it not declared as such by Hoxha?
    To quote WBritten: "I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things: 1) That the PSR of Albania had no official religion (like many countries today), and 2) That state atheism was enforced. If you want the facts, state atheism was actively pursued especially during the Cultural and Ideological Revolution of 1967." From here.
    Even if the presuppositionalist Christian apologetic that "atheism is/is equivalent to a religion" is upsetting to you, that doesn't mean the term "state atheism" is not relevant to the infobox. My support cannot be applied to secular liberal democracies, but I like almost all the "[other]" suggestions. Edit: I would only apply it where it fits the purpose of an infobox. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, Discuss-Dubious beat me to it, though I had a different example in mind. The fix for the presuppositionalism issue is to tweak this so a different parameter is used (or an additional parameter changes the output), and for cases like this it says "Religion and the state: ...", but "State religion: ..." in the other. I'm not certain it should be used at all in absence of either one (or more?) official state religions ("State religion: ..."), or there is a particularly noteworthy state position on religion ("Religion and the state: ..."), like PSRA's official atheism, and USA's constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion. I'm neural on stuff like "Chrisitian 60% ..."; if used, I'm thinking a third label is needed, "Religious demographics: ...". Easiest and less error-prone ("I'm going to fill in all three ..."): Have a separate parameter that changes the heading display, and only produces one of those three labels (or however many it's decided we need). Omit parameter when there is none (and don't WP:OR and label "none" as something else, like "atheist" or "agnostic", nor put something indeterminate like "mixed".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support [None (atheist)]. Omitting the parameter seems a logical choice when necessary (with the only dispute would be if a nation was non-religous pantheist or deist, however such nations do not exist). While no such states exists, a nation may have atheism as a 'state religion', but in actuality the 'state religion' would be having no religion. It seems logical to only include the parameter, with 'none (atheist)', when the nation makes clear that they support atheism i.e. they think that theism is false. THIS IS NOT IMPLYING ATHEISM IS A RELIGION. This is telling the reader, that not only do they not support a religion, but they support atheism. On a related note, it is of course annoying when nations (e.g. US) claim to have no official religion, yet clearly do. DocHeuh (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Atheism is not a religion, it is a philosophical position in respect of religion. We already settled this in template:infobox person. This would only be defensible if the parameter were renamed "philosophy" or something similar. Guy (Help!) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, Atheism is a view which, whether held because it is the view that has been learned by rote or a whether it is held in response to considered thought, is a faith. No one can disprove the existence of a g/God and it takes a degree of faith to "believe" that existence has got to its current state of, well, existence without the involvement of a g/God. We do not have all the answers as to how the universe got into its current and generally fortuitous state and to assume that there is no g/God involved is more than just a philosophy. It is also against WP:NPOV to permit the presentation of some faiths and preclude the presentation of others. The issue here, as has been presented, is State atheism. Those editors wanting to one extreme within optional parameters are essentially saying that states can be presented as promoting religion but they can'f be presented as promoting irreligion. Intentionally or not this smacks of an unacceptable departure from NPOV which any closing admin should reject out of hand. I would not be surprised if several of the supporters of exclusion failed to read as far as the argument as presented by Discuss-Dubious above. Ping JzG GregKaye 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not a religion. By definition, in fact. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose As the saying goes, bald is not a hair colour. And absence is not presence. And how is it NPOV to tell me that my lack of belief is really belief/a faith? If the argument that it's a faith is going to be for support, mine is at least as good for oppose. Doug Weller (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No, "bald" is not a hair color, but it's still used as a descriptor where appropriate by, say police department APBs, because it's actually useful and descriptive. . --Calton | Talk 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support "State atheism" is an actual thing, whatever silly word games the definitional pedants play. --Calton | Talk 08:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support [other]

None of the above choices is acceptable (please explain what is acceptable to you in your comment).

DO NOT REPLY IN THIS SECTION.

  1. Decide on case-by-case basis. Obviously, in the most frequent case, as with most modern states, simply omitting the parameter will be the obvious choice. There may be exceptions though. In cases of decidedly anti-religious state policies, as in some communist states, "none (atheist)" remains a reasonable option. (Excursus: The objection that such an entry would imply the nonsensical proposition that "'atheist' is a religion" or even that "'no religion' is a religion", as previously argued by some opponents of such entries, is bogus. An infobox entry "A = B" doesn't entail that "B is a kind of A". What it does mean is: "B is the contextually appropriate answer to the question: 'what about A?'". If somebody asks me: "what's your hair colour?" and I answer, "none, I'm bald", I have given a perfectly adequate and true answer to the question. I certainly haven't made the nonsensical implicit claim that "bald is a hair colour"; what I have done is offering "being bald" as a contextually sensible explanation of why I don't have a hair colour. In the same vein, if somebody asks me: "what's the state religion of country XYZ?" and I answer, "none, they're explicitly atheist", I have given a perfectly adequate answer. What goes for question and answer in normal speech also goes for the infobox entry.) Other possible exceptions might be in cases where you would expect the existence of an official state religion from context – let's say, if all principalities of the Holy Roman Empire after the Peace of Westphalia had an official state religion but there was just one of them that didn't, it might be quite reasonable to mark this exception with "religion = none". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Decide on case-by-case basis, depending on what actions or posture the state or the bulk of the nation has taken, for example Tibet is both atheist and Buddhist, the state being atheist, the nation Buddhist. (only an example). Or Soviet Union, atheist and Russian orthodox. India, Hindu, and no established religion. Rough generalizations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Remove paremeter, except where "none" is official I have not actually looked up the statistics on this, but I believe there are some countries that are officially atheist (such as China) but also others where the constitution explicitly separates religion from the state, even if the state is not atheist. I believe that "none" is appropriate in both these cases. As a slight aside, it seems to me that the parameter should read "official religion" or some such, because it is the government, not the country itself, which has a religion; but this might be outside the scope of this RfC. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Omit parameter unless the country has an official state religion, and then change it to read "State Religion=" or "Official Religion=" It seems absurd to me to have a "Religion" parameter for an entire country at all UNLESS the country has a specific, LEGAL, official religion. Decide on case-by-case basis, and if "none" is the case, then remove parameter all together, and where appropriate add "State" or Official" Putting "Religion:None" or "Religion: Atheist" on a country like the USA would make absolutely no sense, as there are numerous religions practiced in the country, though none are legally "the" religion, so you may as well put "Religion: Varied" and then list them all, which would also be absurd. My argument for using "State" or "Official" as a modifier is because in places like England, where if I remember correctly the official Church/Religion is the Church of England, it is not the only religion that it is legal to practice, although it is the official religion of the nation. Unless the country has a constitutional/legal religion (or lack thereof) that is enshrined, then omitting the parameter all together seems like the best option. (Edit: After looking at WarKosign's arguments about Israel [see Arbitrary Break 002 below] there may be some cases, like Israel, where "none official" would be the better parameter, as long as it is clearly explained in the article). Vyselink (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Allow parameter/value where it clearly meets Purpose of an infobox: I fully endorse the argument made by Future Perfect at Sunrise above. But I would hope that we can offer a little more guidance than "case-by-case". I suggest that the presence of the |religion= parameter should depend on the religion of the nation being a key issue, discussed within that article; and that the burden of proof that it is 'key' should fall upon the editor wishing to add the parameter (since The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose). Secondly, I suggest that that "None", "Atheist" or "None (atheist)" could, in exceptional circumstances, be an acceptable value (per FPaS above), but only when that particular stance is demonstrably a key feature of the country's policy toward religion: "Laissez-faire" is best served by omission of the parameter from the infobox. Again I suggest that the burden of proof should fall on the editor wishing to employ such a value for |religion=, since it would be an exception to the normal expectation that the name of a recognised religion would be there. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Distinguish between nation and state: the articles using this template will normally talk about both things at once, nation-states. As pointed out by the second and third last opinions it is important to have a parameter for countries whose law mandate or allow from a set of religions and those who might forbid them, in which case the value of the parameter should read None, not Atheism because it is not a religion, nor it should read None (atheism), because that label doesn't account for theists without religion such as many deists and pantheists who should be allowed to believe in a deity according to such policy, and because religions like Buddhism, Jainism and many other Eastern religions would be allegedly forbidden in the country even though most of their practitioners are atheists. On the other hand having a separate parameter for briefing a nation's popular religious denominations tells the reader something about that nation's demographics regardless of what the state's official position is, and the value of the parameter should even be allowed to be a list if the nation shows a heterogeneous religious landscape. For non-religious nations I support using the value None because I don't think a single parameter with a single word as value is overdoing, whereas omitting it is indistinguishable from missing information. None tells you as much about the nation as any other valid option. Either remove the parameter for both religious and non-religious nations or allow it for the irreligious as well. I fail to see why other commentators are bringing atheism to the mix because it strictly belongs to a different category than that of religiosity, but it is true that atheism is not a religion. I would also support None (atheism) if just to clarify a nation is notoriously irreligious as well as atheistic. TL;DR: It is not clear to me from reading this whole RFC and from previous experience with articles about nation-states what the purpose of this parameter is, so my response entirely depends on this being clarified.--isacdaavid 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Remove the religion parameter altogether. except where atheism or "none" is an official stand, or is enforced by actively removing religious elements Willondon (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Decide on a case-by-case basis. For some countries is it difficult to say that there is no official religion. For some, there is a marked difference between what is de jure, and what is de facto. Some countries will only recognize certain religions as being legal to practice. Some do not have a clear separation of religion and state, while others have a clear association of religion and state but not an officially declared religion. For example, some countries (without an official religion) write laws based on one religion, do not allow legal marriages outside of that religion, or have specific legally binding courts based on religion. In the cases where there is a clear association, but no legal official religion, I believe there should be a listed unofficial religion. I am not suggesting based on majority, but based on laws and practices. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

  • I didn't see my preference listed as one of the alternatives: remove the religion parameter altogether, except where atheism or "none" is an official stand, or is enforced by actively removing religious elements. Willondon (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the "Support [other]" section. If a significant number of editors agree with you, it will be given a section of its own. That's what happened during the last RfC, and the added section ended up being the clear winner. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: Is this RFC to merely change the template documentation or is it intended to form a policy or guideline? That's an important distinction because template documentation is merely advice on how the template is to be used and is (so far as I know and I could be wrong) non-binding; on the other hand it would be unusual, I think, to have a policy or guideline focused on the proper use of a single template (though such a restriction on the use of a template might, I think, be included in the WP:MOS, but this would need to be an explicit creation or modification of a MOS provision, were that to be the case) and if policy/guideline creation is intended this RFC would need to be more explicit in that intent and would also need to follow WP:PROPOSAL. Or maybe it's been decided somewhere that a consensus of editors at a template talk page can dictate in a binding fashion how that template is to be used without going through policy/guideline formation and I just don't know about it, but that would seem to me to violate WP:CONLIMITED which says: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to determine the consensus of the community in the face of a handful of editors who really, really, really want the religion parameter on their favorite pages to contain atheism in the religion field. Like most RfCs, the consensus on how to handle a situation does not automatically create a policy or guideline, nor does it change any documentation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TransporterMan: Policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are descriptive, not prescriptive: their purpose is to document practice and consensus, not to define rules on editing. It is therefore a mistake to assume that consensus determined through an RfC is not binding because of the absence of a WP:PROPOSAL  – WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY refers. The policy at WP:CONLIMITED documents the reality that consensus established within a limited group (e.g. a WikiProject) cannot overrule a consensus that was established project-wide. Nevertheless, it is obvious that a particular group of articles or within a particular scope can have a policy different from the general one: you only have to compare WP:MEDRS with WP:RS or WP:AT with WP:FLORA to see examples of guidance applied to a sub-set being different from that applied generically. In each case, the differing guidance was established by a process of project-wide consensus forming. There is no reason why a consensus established through this RfC should not create guidance on the issue of "Religion in infoboxes of nations" that is binding (subject to WP:IAR, of course). --RexxS (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RexxS, I would suggest that while that while your descriptive/prescriptive point may be true in theory, that on a day-in-day-out practical basis at forums such as AN, ANI, MEDCOM, dispute resolution forums and noticeboards such as RSN and BLPN that policies and guidelines are enforced or observed (with varying degrees of laxness or rigidity) while rule-like consensuses reached in other forums are generally disregarded. The ultimate question is this: If this RFC were to conclude with a clear consensus that, for example, in "infoboxes on articles about non-religious nations, religion should not be listed in the infobox, and the religion parameter should be removed," and two groups of editors subsequently became involved in a disagreement over that very point on an article talk page, could the group taking the opposite position simply be silenced by pointing to the consensus reached here and, if they continued to push their position, be sanctioned for disruptive editing? If a policy or guideline was formed through PROPOSAL here, maybe, if this is only an opinion poll (as it appears to be if I understand Guy Macon's response, above, correctly) or if it only were to modify the template documentation, probably not. Indeed, if the question came before one of the dispute resolution forums where I often work (Third Opinion, DRN, and MedCom), my opinion would ordinarily be that the documentation or the opinion expressed here ought to be followed as a default position but that virtually any marginally-reasonable reason to do it differently in the particular situation would be enough to set that default position aside and put it up for a consensus decision in that particular case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now requested listing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates to attract community-wide opinion. Any consensus reached under those circumstances reflects the considered opinion of the community and should not be disregarded lightly. I still maintain that consensus acquired by a project-wide RfC carries the same weight as consensus that happens to be documented in policy and guideline pages. I also strongly doubt that, if tested, ArbCom would espouse a view different from that of P&G being descriptive, not prescriptive. I respect your conciliatory attitude to dispute resolution, but I wouldn't recommend that you should be quick to set aside a formal RfC if one side wished to discount it without very good reason. A "marginally-reasonable reason" would almost certainly be insufficient in a singular case to overturn a project-wide consensus once formed - in fact, I would have to ask, why should it? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said, above, and would note that my position is in line with the WikiProject Council wikiproject guideline, which is a "real" guideline, and which says that consensus at a wikiproject — which would, of course, include consensus arrived at by RFC — is not binding on the rest of the encyclopedia unless PROPOSAL is followed and, unless that is done, consensus decisions at wikiprojects have no more effect than essays. I would argue that by the same logic, taking CONLIMITED into effect, the same applies to templates. Finally, I disagree that RFC has the broad effect that you suggest for it merely because it's an RFC, and know of nothing here that says or suggests that it has that effect. Per WP:RFC it is merely a means of attracting additional editors to a discussion; it can be used through PROPOSAL and the other means suggested by POLICY as a framework for discussion to form or modify policy or guidelines, but when so used it's a technique in that greater process, not a means to create community-wide consensus in itself. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "...a means to create community-wide consensus" but that isn't what I am trying to do. I am trying to measure community-wide consensus and to demonstrate to others what the community-wide consensus is. You have to consider the background here. I have removed religion from the infobox on slightly over 600 pages. Six of those pages (1%) resulted in initial opposition -- the rest were just fine with the editors working on the pages. Half of those objections went away with the previous RfC. This 2nd RfC is to demonstrate the community consensus that, to me, is already clear from the notable lack of pushback on 99% of those pages, and thus resolve an otherwise intractable content dispute one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're both somewhat correct here. No, an RfC is not as binding as actual policy, but it's something that can be pointed to in dispute resolution if needed. It acts as a preemptive discussion on consensus, so that if the person you're disputing with mirrors the arguments here, there is debate that can be referred to that may help reach consensus more quickly. Also, assuming good faith, such a preemptive discussion on consensus in an RfC could change the views of other editors without the need for dispute resolution in the first place. You can just refer them here and see if they accept the arguments laid out on why this issue should be handled in a certain way. I don't think this is a serious enough issue to warrant developing a policy over, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we can't possibly develop policies for every single field in every infobox. It would take exceptional importance for a field in an infobox to warrant a policy, and that just doesn't exist in this case. There is significant value in finding a consensus that can be referred to in the future on an issue like this, even if some of this ground might have to be covered again in the future if something goes to dispute resolution. While RfC consensus likely isn't binding, it's a powerful tool to resolve disputes in the future. ~ RobTalk 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points, Rob. @Guy Macon: Guy, I know and agree that's what you're seeking to do and I'm not opposing it, but merely responding to the points raised by RexxS. Frankly, I consider this part of this discussion as a theoretical aside (or rabbit trail) to what you're doing and I'm hoping we've both got it out of our systems at this point and can discontinue it at this point. (And I'm going to be mostly offline for several days starting on Saturday, anyway, so this would seem to be a good stopping point in any event.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*GROUP HUG!!*  :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 000

Another point of order: some of the options above are bogus, straw-man options that nobody could possibly support and which appear to serve only as distractors. They should be removed from the RfC. For example, nobody will ever support the idea that all infoboxes on countries that merely "don't have a state religion" should be marked as "atheist" or "none (atheist)". Such a proposal would be nonsensical and self-defeating. A realistic option might have been something like "allow entries such as 'atheist' or 'none' where appropriate". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the choices as you see fit. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was an omission; I forgot to add it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am thankful that I have been asked to help determine consensus on this contentious issue. I'm sure that there are editors who are passionate about what, if anything, should come after the |religion= parameter in a nation's ibox; however frankly, I would support any decision that comes from this RfC discussion. I do like editor Vyselink's idea to have the parameter appear in the ibox as "Official religion:" or something similar. I have never agreed that WP:MEDRS, a very strict guideline that resulted from consensus of editors with an apparently superior knowledge of all things medical, should override the community consensus in some areas, which in my opinion violates WP:CONLIMITED, but my opinion seems to be overridden there. It might not be a good and helpful thing to omit the parameter altogether, because general readers often rely on the information in the ibox and don't always have the time to go into the article content to hunt down an answer. Rather than saying:

or

it could be better to make it appear:

or

  • Religion   None officially recognized

or something similar. And I've often wondered why, in these "all-encompassing" templates, the religion parameter isn't made to appear as a centered heading with the perhaps many religions practiced listed below that, something like:

Religion(s)
Religion one (official)
Religion two
Religion three
etc.

Then for those nations in which the people practice no religion (?), it may appear as:

Religion(s)
Officially none practiced

or something similar. I do hope this helps! Best of Everything to You and Yours! – Paine  23:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The infobox is principally a table with two columns. Each heading is in a table cell that is a row header and the values for that parameter are in the corresponding table cell to the right. If multiple values exist they can be marked up as a list. That means that assistive technology can correctly associate the heading with its value(s), and make that job easier for third parties who reuse our content with automatic tools. By placing the heading and its value(s) on the same row, the infobox also makes best use of the space available. Either
Religion
  • Religion one (official)
  • Religion two
  • Religion three
  • etc.
or even
Religion Religion one (official), Religion two, Religion three, etc.}}
have very significant advantages over the suggestion you make. --RexxS (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, however in this infobox, Template:Infobox country, there are both instances – those like the present "Religion" parameter and those that have centered headers. So "principally" does not appear to apply to this template's headers. Headers like Leaders, Establishment, Population and Website are all centered above their entries, while others such as Official languages, Demonym and Member states are to the left of their entries. – Paine  00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, if you look at a sample of the countries using this infobox, you see that all of the label-value pairs are in the two columns I described. Section headers like "Area" and "Population" exist, but are not centred and only serve as a title for the section containing pairs like "Total 178.91 km2" or "2014 estimate 103,400". "Religion" is not a section heading and has a value like "81% Roman Catholic", in contrast to "Area", which has no value associated with it ("Total" is the label associated with the value "178.91 km2"). That's not to say that the presentation of this infobox can't be improved, but not by making it unlike any other infobox in the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 001

Comment: The problems I have with religion in a country infobox is much like the problem in the infobox for an individual – only more so as it is often political. The religion of Great Britain went back and forth based on marriages, alliances, agreements, and other such whims of the monarchies in order to maintain power, or satisfy personal lusts. Who knows how much attention the populace paid or what it meant to folks other than those given bits of power. We look at the Stalin era and say that his domain was “officially” atheist and the churches were all shut down. But, IIRC, he didn’t shut down his personal church, and was a devout Greek Orthodox adherent. And, does anyone believe that the populace all switched to atheist, or that the move wasn’t just Stalin’s paranoid fear of the power of the church and desire to have total control? Again, my point is that religion should not be reduced to one or two words, whether related to a person, country, or anything else.

The infobox is designed for obvious, undebatable, word or a few, aspects. Not complex attributions that will always engender disagreement. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Side point: see Joseph Stalin#Religion 2. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Much of what is said about religion is dubious. Will we ever know how many U.S. Presidents were atheists, but hid the fact because they would have never become president if it had been known? Objective3000 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fascinating side point about Stalin. I highly recommend reading the link Discuss-Dubious posted. Related: this edit that I made to the same page as part of my last run of removing the religion parameter from the infoboxes of 600 pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is an example of use of the religion parameter in an article about a nations: [1] Does anyone here really believe that "Afghanistan's religion" was atheism from 1978 to 1980 and Islam from 1980 to 1992? In this case, the infobox attempted to enshrine the idea that the pronouncement of a government, no matter how widely ignored, is more important than the religions that the inhabitants of that country actually belong to. Would the encyclopedia be improved if we listed "Religion = Anglicanism" in the infobox at England to match the body of the article, which says "The established church of the realm is Anglicanism"? Or is it better to handle the issue the way it is actually handled on that page (see England#Religion)? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Discuss-Dubious: Re "I don't see why state atheism doesn't belong in the infobox. It needs to be there so people know two things...", this is a common misconception. According to Wikipedia's rules for filling out infoboxes, the reader should never, ever learn anything from the infobox that she/he would not learn by reading the body of the article. The infobox is supposed to only contain brief summaries of noncontroversial and undisputed information that already exists in the body of the article. Furthermore, the infobox is for information that everyone understands fully from the one or two words in the infobox entry -- things like college degree achieved, date of birth, maiden name, political party, that sort of thing. It is a common misconception that we are writing for readers who only read the infobox and not the main article, and thus the things we feel to be important should be in the infobox. The actual rule is that the things we feel to be important should be in the article lead, and the "quick facts" sort of thing that someone may be looking for should be in the infobox. A classic example is elected politicians; many, many readers go to Wikipedia to find out what party they belong to and then immediately leave the page. That's why we list political party in the infobox -- to make it easy for those readers to find. Things that are subtle, complex, and and need explanation and context are very poor candidates for infobox inclusion, no matter how important they are. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Help:Infobox, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, and extensive discussion on this and other talk:infobox pages. Related: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I had looked to the first two. Stalin on religion seems somewhat complicated, but I don't think Enver Hoxha's Albania is particularly complex or disputable. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Further reading:[reply]
USSR:
Soviet Union#Religion,Religion in the Soviet Union,Joseph Stalin#Religion

Albania:
Religion in Albania#Communist Albania, Enver Hoxha#Religion,State atheism#Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Albania#Cultural and Ideological Revolution

@Vyselink: I think if there's anything that's more or less close to universal for this RFC, it's that secular lib dems like most of the West do not deserve the tag. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You either went way over or way under my head on that one. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main takeaway here is that "It is important, thus it should be in the infobox" is an invalid argument, and that the community is in the process of once again soundly rejecting any combination of "None" or "Atheist" in any form in the religion entry.
Discuss-Dubious is also arguing that the religion of Stalin is too complex for an infobox entry but that the religion of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is not. It is a reasonable argument, but complexity is not the reason the community rejects "none" and "atheism". The community rejects "none" because we don't use "none" in any other infobox entry, and the community rejects "atheism" (and agnosticism, etc.) because atheism is not a religion. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@@Objective3000: There are two different points. The small text is related to my first point. The second point is that some people are arguing in relation to the idea "what do we do with state atheism?", namely @A D Monroe III, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Vanamonde93, RexxS, and Willondon:, and I'm not sure about @NinjaRobotPirate and Vyselink: (if any of these users is you, please correct me if I'm misreading your comment!), while for Guy, state atheism is not a meaningful concept, but rather an irrelevant one. I'm pretty sure omit parameter was intended to be all or nothing. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Religion is perhaps the wrong name. We have a few countries with a legally established state religion so for most countries 'not applicable' is the only thing that fits. Perhaps more common is the legal attitude toward religions/life stances. This can range from the Laïcité of France to the Pancasila of Indonesia (which is listed as a "National ideology") to an actual established religion. BTW the 'atheist' countries weren't/aren't so much atheist but a particular ideology (e.g., a variety of Communism for many) which happens to be atheistic. --Erp (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense re: Pancasila, etc. For your other point,
Article 37 of the Albanian Constitution of 1976 stipulated, "The state recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people.", even though this might apply to other countries. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed my original comment has garnered a couple of mentions, so I figured I'd make sure to clarify here. My thought was that, unless there is an official, legal state religion, then the parameter should be omitted. If there is an official state religion/lack there of (I.E. England is the Church of England, Iraq is Islam etc) then that should be mentioned, but the parameter should read "official" or "state" religion, not simply "religion". The difference between the two is obvious. Vyselink (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... but is it accurate to say you were saying that you were not sure about atheistic states? (Both mentions are from me.) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. What I was saying was that, in regards to atheistic states, if the official legal stance in regards to religion is atheist then that should be put in as "Official Religion: Atheist" etc. But now that I think about it, I can't think of any state that states legally that atheism is the religion. Certainly communist states are de facto atheist, but I can't recall (and I could be wrong, so if I am please correct me) that they are, in fact, de jure atheist. Vyselink (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My original post ended with "Unless the country has a constitutional/legal religion (or lack thereof) that is enshrined, then omitting the parameter all together seems like the best option".Vyselink (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought my quote for Erp constituted a de jure concept. I wouldn't use it for one that isn't de jure. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 002

Sigh... Now I have a couple of editors on the Israel talk page openly declaring that this RfC does not apply to their page and that they have no intention of complying with the result. Why is this such a hot-button issue? Although I have my opinions on how to handle this I would be fine with implementing whatever the consensus turned out to be. Why is it that so many people feel so strongly about the content of infoboxes? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those editors, and I can explain my position. The way this RfC was worded, it tries to determine the general case for a non-religious nation*. Israel does not have an official religion, but it also lacks full separation between state and religion, and the majority of the people define themselves as religious. Israel can't be called non-religious therefore whatever the outcome of this RfC regarding non-religious nations* is, it is not applicable.
*Nation and State are distinct concepts, which is another problem with definition of this RfC. The term used should have been "state" or "country", since this is what this template serves. “WarKosign” 19:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WarKosign, the discussion is not whether a country is religious, it is whether it has a de jure statement of faith, as in the case of England (the Church of England is the official church/religion). Israel does not have a de jure statement of faith, even though as a nation (and by the way I believe your point should be well taken as regards to "nation" and "state") it is obviously Jewish. I point out the fact that there are incredibly few (if any realistically) states that have a "full separation between state and religion". Even in the US, where the official policy is there can be no state established religion (1st Amendment), the majority (71%) of the people define themselves as Christian, as do the majority of the goverment. However, putting "Religion: Christian" in the US infobox would be disingenuous as, officially/legally, it is simply wrong. The same thing strikes me as occurring in Israel. While the vast majority of the nation is Jewish, the official religion of the state is non-existent, i.e. none, and therefore should not be in the infobox. Vyselink (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vyselink: If the RfC was about countries that have no declared state religion, or countries that declare they have no state religion, or some other variation thereof - I agree that it would've applied. Meanwhile it's worded in a vague form open to (mis)interpretation.
Specifically regarding law and separation - while it may not be perfect in the USA, it is far worse in Israel. I'm not talking about number of people who declare what their religion/faith is, I'm talking about religious practices enforced by state law:
It doesn't make sense to call a country with such practices a non-religious one, even though there is no official religion. “WarKosign” 20:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WarKosign: I have just read the discussion on Israel's talk page. After reading it and seeing all the evidence, I have to agree with you that it is complicated. Technically, it should be removed if/when this RFC ends up as it is looking like it will. But if WP was purely built on technicalities we wouldn't all be so invested in it. I'm wondering why there isn't a sub-section under "Politics" that specifically talks about this issue? The citations given in the infobox would seem to make a great start on such a section, and I'm sure the regular editors on that page could flesh it out even more. As for the issue at hand, I find myself thinking that a separate RFC might be the best option in this and in similar cases. If it can be categorically shown that a de jure lack of statement of religion is in fact more de facto than it lets on, as appears to be the case in Israel, keeping the "none official" in the parameter and then having a section explaining it in the article might be the best way to go about it. Vyselink (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion "none official" in the infobox doesn't help in any way, so I do support removing the religion from the infobox on Israel - but I want to wait and see what other people think. I have no idea why there is no such section, especially considering there is a dedicated article that could be linked to as main article. I intent to fix it - again, after hearing other opinions. “WarKosign” 21:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’m concerned about the nature of an encyclopedia publishing, for example, an info box in the article on South Africa during apartheid stating “Religion: Dutch Reform” despite the fact that the oppressed 90+% majority would likely have found this extremely offensive. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is descriptive versus prescriptive. If the 'Religion' info box gives the official state religion then it is giving the 'prescriptive' views; it may be offensive but the offense is caused by the state that prescribed an official religion (Wikipedia is just reporting the offense). We then have countries like Israel where there are a small number of denominations with state enforced legal power over individuals (e.g., to be wedded in Israel one has to abide by the rules of one of the recognized denominations; there is no civil marriage, though marriages that take place outside of Israel, civil or religious, are recognized). I'm inclined to think that Israel's "none official" with footnotes (separate section) is the appropriate answer to their peculiar situation. There are other countries where some denominations have legal power over certain areas of life (generally family related) like Israel but also have a parallel civil system (e.g., India), again others that delegate to some clerics the power to act as agents of the state in certain areas (e.g., US states in regards to marriage), and others that don't allow that (e.g., France). --Erp (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the answer in such cases is to move the religion info out of the infobox where you get one or two words and into the body where you can properly explain the complexity. This RfC only covers "religion = none" and "religion = atheist" (and close synonyms like "none (atheist)", "state atheism", and "none official") but moving the information into the body is a good idea whenever the situation is full of subtleties and complexities. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the wording of this specific RfC, I have to agree that it would not apply to Israel. Israel has a religion. I agree with WarKosign that Israel isn't a case of separation of religion and state gone wrong, but a state in which there is absolutely zero separation of religion and state. A fact that is clear and obvious to anyone even obliquely familiar with the country. I believe that it would serve readers better to have "Judaism (de facto)" or "Judaism (unofficial)" in the infobox than to omit it completely. Goalie1998 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If (I don't think this is what you meant) by "it would not apply to Israel" you mean that that a variation on "religion = none" would be allowed on that page, then you are completely wrong; this RfC applies to all countries that have any variation of "religion = none" or "religion = atheist" in the infobox. If by "it would not apply to Israel" you mean that that the entry should be changed to "religion = [name of religion, presumably Judaism]", then you are correct. This RfC does not apply to any page that names an actual religion in the religion section of the infobox. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your purpose with this RfC was to decide what to write about religion in Israel's infobox, it should have been worded accordingly. It is a matter of determining whether religion=none best describes Israel, and if this is the case - removing it from the infobox per the previous RfC. As I said, in its current state this RfC is pointless. “WarKosign” 05:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 003

Perhaps the question that you meant when you opened this RfC was "how to treat countries with a variation of religion=none in the infobox". The actual question in the RfC is about "non-religious nations", which makes this RfC irrelevant. Whatever the outcome is, in each particular case a local consensus would have to be created whether a specific country can be considered a nation or not, and whether or not it's non-religious. “WarKosign” 17:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the result would be any different if you changed "nation" to "country", go ahead and post an RfC, but unless you do that, don't imagine that you are going to get out of following the result of this RfC through wikilawyering. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the primary definition of "nation" is "a large area of land that is controlled by its own government" and the primary definition of "country" is "an area of land that is controlled by its own government". And, I might add, Israel is a member of the United Nations. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In most of the cases nation and country can be used interchangeably, unless the state lacks a single majority nation or the nation lacks a state. See the article for Nation, it begins with "Not to be confused with State".
What "non-religious" means when applied to a country is the main issue, and if it's not well-defined then this RfC is worthless. “WarKosign” 21:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it worthless. It will settle the content dispute on the one remaining page that has not accepted removal of the religion parameter, and it will be the basis for WP:ANI warning then blocking anyone (including me) who refuses to follow the consensus. That is worth something. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) (Hey, an 00:00 timestamp! I think that is a first for me. Do I get a prize?)[reply]
ANI doesn't deal with content disputes, and deciding whether a generally worded RfC applies to a specific case is a content dispute. The way to resolve a content dispute is to have a specific RfC about the specific issue. “WarKosign” 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If ‘what non-religious’ means when applied to a country is ‘not well-defined’, then this RfC is far from ‘meaningless’. Articles have text. Why include in a tiny, dot-point, parameter-driven summary any area that is not ‘well-defined’? I maintain that religion itself is not well-defined without including a book or nine on the subject. Why do we attempt to stick to one word summaries. The Catholic Church goes back almost two millennia, but is currently undergoing radical change in direction and priorities. Does that mean the 1.2 billion members and countries labeled “Roman Catholic” have changed their beliefs or policies? This arena is far too complex for a word or two in an infobox. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a good point for removing religion field from the infobox entirely, but it's not the issue at question. Currently the consensus seems to be to remove it only if the country is non-religious, but for a criteria to be useful it has to be well-defined, so the main issue is - what is the definition of a non-religious country ? A few options:
If the answer is "can't say, it has to be determined for every country separately" - this RfC is meaningless. “WarKosign” 05:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_country&oldid=667894536"