Jump to content

Talk:Daniel Radcliffe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 204.10.128.164 (talk) at 04:46, 6 September 2015 (→‎BoJack Horseman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleDaniel Radcliffe has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 17, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 16, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
April 8, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
June 5, 2011Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
November 12, 2011Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:


It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot".
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.
More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".
I have changed "Religion: Atheist" to "Religion: None:" on hundreds of Wikipedia infoboxes, and have received multiple "thank you" notifications for doing so. In only a tiny minority of the edits has anyone objected to or reverted the edit, and in every case so far the consensus after discussion was for "Religion = None". I am confident that if anyone post an WP:RFC on the subject the result will be the same.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.
In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

"Religion = None" is the only choice that represents the data accurately and without bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally support listing the religion of actors in their infoboxes, period. This one seems pretty needless. It should just be taken out. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to taking it out entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed it altogether. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What If Role

Please please please add Daniel Radcliffe's role in the 2014 film What If in this article! He did a phenomenal job, and the accompanying discussion of feminism really catapulted him from the role of Harry Potter to a full-fledged actor in the eyes of many people (largely those who spend time on Tumblr or Buzzfeed, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.42.76 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, under movie's other name: The F Word (2013 film). Kirin13 (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there so much focus on his views on circumcision and his penis?

This is really not relevant to his life story, his fame, his career, or even things which he speaks out about. The source is a gay lifestyle magazine interview; this is not something he brings up on his own. It just seems like a peculiar fixation of the article to discuss his circumcision status. 2601:4:1003:A895:F193:89D7:40BE:F85A (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not notably relevant. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singer?

Should Daniel Radcliffe be classified as a singer. He's done musical theatre which you show your singing abilities. I don't know thought? (Señor Schultz (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

NOTE: This editor is currently under investigation as a sock-puppet of an editor blocked for edit-warring over this type of question. Best ignored. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BoJack Horseman

he had did a voice over (of himself) in the netflix animated show BoJack Horseman, season 2 episode 8. It should be added to his filmography ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.224.19.14 (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where's your source?--5 albert square (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also a Rapper

Also a Rapper. Not only because of his appearance with Jimmy Fallon. But he's been writing a rap album since 2014.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Radcliffe&oldid=679686965"