Talk:Jimmy Wales

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 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 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It's unbelievable, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It is unbelievable that it took four RfCs (and a bunch of blocks for editors not willing to accept the consensus) to finally get certain editors to stop putting "religion = atheist" in the infobox. In an amazing coincidence, the argument "Atheism is just another religion! You need to have faith to not believe in God!!" is an extremely popular argument among fundamentalist Christians, and is vigorously denied by multiple annoyed atheists.[1][2] We don't call people names created by their enemies that they deny. We don't call abortion opponents "anti-choice". We don't call those who oppose them "anti-life". And we don't call atheism a religion.

The addition of "religion = None (atheist)" was 10 March 2017 by Captain Cornwall. Please don't do that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, we all know that Wikipedia is the only true faith. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness not everyone knows about these RfCs, they're not common knowledge and not widely available. If an infobox has a parameter and we don't want a particular value to be used for that parameter then it should be noted in the notes and guidelines for that infobox. This has obviously been a large enough problem to have all these RfCs so lets get the notes in the infobox pages so people at least have a chance of knowing not to do this. Canterbury Tail talk 11:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person already has the following instruction at the top...

...and the "religion=" entry has already been removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

But not child infoboxes like Template:Infobox officeholder which actually has a lot of description on how to use the Religion parameter. All I'm saying is don't have a go at users for using a parameter the templates support. And as a result that parameter is being used on many world leader's articles (Tony Blair, John Major for example.) Canterbury Tail talk 18:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Married in 2000 or not?

The Infobox about Mr. Wales states he has been married to Christina Rohan until 1998.

In the section Career of the article, there is a picture showing the workers from Bomis in the year 2000. The description about the picture says, Wales is shown with this then-wife. How could Christine Rohan his wife in 2000, if he was married to her until 1998? Da Vinci Nanjing (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

New worth

10 million?[3] QuackGuru (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That source doesn't seem wholly reliable. However, in an interview with the guardian, Wales stated:

Q:In a New York Times profile of you last year, there was a suggestion that it might be nice for you to do something that you actually get paid for.

A: Well, that was the weirdest piece I've ever read. It was false on multiple points.

References

In sum, he states that there were inaccuracies about the NYT piece; and he doesn't confirm or deny if his net worth is 1 million USD. It is worth taking a look at though - I can't find any good sources one way or the other. --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

He does not confirm his net worth because he is probably worth a lot more. QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy 51th Birthday, Jimmy Wales

You're now 51 years old now. --Eloc08 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

"Wikipedia, the online non-profit encyclopedia" Is it really necessary to state that in the lede? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Edgeweyes (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This thing is not compiled for wikipedia contributors. It is compiled for intelligent and inquisitive folks many of whom (think they) have better things to do than actually write stuff here. Some of them hadn't heard of wikipedia till google landed them on one of its pages. And for the anglophones among us there is the particular challenge that many readers of English-language wikipedia don't have English as a mother-tongue and don't share your (or my) cultural assumptions. Like "everyone knows what Wikipedia is". You need to try and get enough in the lede to make sure (as painlessly as possible) that those guys "hit the rest of the article running". Success Charles01 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)