Talk:Ophelia Benson

Philosopher

Earlier today I added the term "Philosopher" to describe Benson but it was reverted by another editor because I did not include a source. The article does list 3 books she has written which are in the philosophy section of Amazon, her co-author is listed as a philosopher without a citation, and she was an editor for a The Philosophers' Magazine. It this really a controversial label for her? Allecher (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you insist on restore the "philosopher" bit, then go ahead. I won't revert, since you have a point that Benson could be considered a philosopher. In my view, however, nothing that she has done unambiguously marks her out as one. Plenty of people write about subjects related to philosophy without either considering themselves philosophers or being regarded that way by others. Ideally, Benson's being a philosopher would require a source, but I don't consider one so urgent that I'd see a need to revert you if you were to again add the philosopher claim without a source. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I know it's bad form to tweak your own page, but I'm not sure if it's bad form to say something here - so I'll risk it in case this comes up again. I'm not a philosopher. I've read some philosophy, and I try to argue properly, but I'm not a philosopher. I always correct people if they call me one (because I don't want titles I'm not - er - entitled to). Ophelia Benson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.233.133 (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that editing an article about yourself is discouraged on Wikipedia. Commenting on the talk page of an article about yourself is perfectly acceptable, however. Thank you for helping to clarify matters. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ophelia. Allecher (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Edits

I do not believe that your opinion of what her opinion is, is NPOV, KrystalMan. It was previously undone by TechBear and now by me. Cap020570 (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think my edits improve the article. KrystalMan (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to restore my edits. KrystalMan (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't. I don't believe that they do, it's your opinion of her work. Cap020570 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

KrystalMan, you may want to familiarize yourself with these Wikipedia policies: edit warring, neutral point of view, consensus and disruptive editing. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think my edits improve the article, and I am sorry that other editors do not agree with them. I won't restore my edits if no one agrees with me, however. KrystalMan (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion?

Concerning this edit, does "Religion: None (atheist)" imply that atheism is a religion? I Think it does. Does it tell the reader something that "Religion: None" does not? I think it doesn't.

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

While you are here at the Wikipedia, you may want to look up parenthetical phrase. The addition of "(atheist)" after "Religion: None" is correct. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 00:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Religion: None (atheist)" provides more information than "Religion: None", as the latter would include people who are unsure what they believe in, or have simply never thought about it. Ophelia's atheism is relevant to her arguments and part of what she's known for, so I think the distinction is important. In the past, many infoboxes (eg José Mujica) have simply said "Religion: Atheist" which I think we'd all agree is incorrect. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"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.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"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

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" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

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".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

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.

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.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 07:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying ... "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion.

No it doesn't. It implies that atheism is not a religion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. It can be read either way. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected my comments above to correct the error that Adrian J. Hunter pointed out. It now says " 'Religion = None (atheist)' is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but 'Religion = None' is unambiguous." As far as I can tell the rest of my argument is still sound; it still implies something that is not true, it is still highly objectionable to many atheists, it still goes against consensus, and it is still unsourced. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)