I searched through Sanders' autobiography The Autobiography of the Original Celebrity Chef, the biography Colonel Sanders and the American Dream, and the Encyclopedia of Louisville (which has an extensive entry on him), and there is no mention of "Disciples of Christ" as Sanders' religion, nor did any of them seem to mention what his religion was in his adult life. Of course, if anyone can find a reference that backs up what his religion was, by all means add it back to the infobox. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though Stevietheman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a personal attack on me by calling me a "trollish clown" after telling me about policies/guidelines that don't exist, for the sake of completeness in the article, I am linking two sources about Colonel Sanders' religion for consideration as to their reliability:

The Colleges and Universities of the Christian Church (Texas Christian University)

Colonel Sanders

Thanks. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: Stick to the topic at hand. If you have an issue with me, there are other avenues for that. As for the references, thank you for providing those. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another idea: discuss the sources I provided if you wish to add something. And since you have forbidden me from commenting about your behavior on your talk page, I will discuss it elsewhere if needed. That includes admin boards. Now, do you have an opinion about the sources I linked? If not, please move on. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of considering them. I will respond further at my convenience at a later time. As for reporting me to an admin board about the "personal attack" I removed hours ago, please do. In fact, I request that you do so. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you ask for. You might get it. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed, mighty edit warrior. LOL. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at those sources. I suggest that it would be best to keep looking for better ones. The TCU source seems to be the church itself, so it's not really an objective source about such information. It would be better to find a third-party source, and that's probably feasible without much effort. We should look for a better source, at least in the longer term. The NNDB source does not seem reliable, based on comments found at Talk:NNDB. I second the suggestion to try focus on the content rather than editor behavior. See WP:CONDUCT and WP:NPA – they both say "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." —BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. I have sent an e-mail to the church asking them about a reference (book or news article) I can use for backup here. I will report back here once I have received a response. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sander's religion, whatever it was, has nothing to do with selling chicken, which is why he has an article. It doesn't belong in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be referenced, it's part of the personal story of a very notable person. Even if we decide it doesn't belong in the infobox (via WP:UNDUE), it can go into the article proper. So, we can proceed on finding a reference, as far as I can see. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The religious beliefs of every notable person are not automatically relevant to his/her notability. That's why the phrase ""...and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published source" is in WP:BLPCAT (and the basic principles of that policy apply regardless of the fact that Sanders is dead). Some cases are easy to determine. For example, the relevance of religious beliefs of Pope Francis and Billy Graham to their notability is not likely to be questioned. Its relevance to Sanders is far from obvious, so if someone wants to challenge including the category because it is irrelevant to selling chicken, the relevance must be reliably sourced or agreed on here by consensus. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about categorization here. It is clearly fair game to include his religion in a discussion of his personal life, given it is well-referenced, although certainly we wouldn't have to give much weight to it. In his autobiography, even though I couldn't discern his church, there were passages where he expressed pride in helping to refurbish a church. I got that from a quick search, so there's probably more to go on. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of his religion and whether it can be sourced in the article also pertains to categorization. Categorization is not independent of article content. If a denomination can be included anywhere in the article based on a reliable source, and if someone wants to add a category, then issues of categorization apply. Your point about him taking pride in refurbishing a church is one bit of information about the relevance of his religion to his notability; it may not be sufficient if someone wishes to challenge the relevance. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it "clearly fair game to include his religion"? I simply cannot comprehend that statement. He has an article because he sold a lot of chicken. Many people have refurbished churches. Nobody has sold chicken like Colonel Sanders. Religion is irrelevant. Please explain "clearly fair game". HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given a strong reference, it is considered a component of a person's personal life. Discussing the personal life of a highly notable person is part of biographies. I don't know what else to say here. To me, it's pretty obvious. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A category being added is secondary to the discussion. It follows from inclusion of his religion in the article content. Also, I think a strong reference by itself will withstand a challenge (although buttressing it with more than that doesn't hurt). If you're talking about his personal life, and briefly mention his participation in the church, and the reference is strong for it, I don't think it would be challenged successfully. We wouldn't be saying he is known for his religion, so there's really nothing to challenge in any serious way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding such a reference. Other than his biography and vague mentions in a reliable source of a neighbor who attended the same church Sanders and his wife did in Shelbyville, I don't find anything that specifically mentions a specific church or denomination. Sanders' wife's obituary is specific, but I'm not finding the same specificity for Sanders himself and referencing one source along with the other to reach a conclusion would be synthesis and not allowed. Possibly, he didn't want to be specific and valued his privacy in that area of his life -- for himself as well as the church he attended. Regardless, there's nothing online to be found regarding his church affiliation. And, absent such a reliable reference to verify, a mention in the article or assigning a category would not be appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Without a strong reference, this matter is moot. Note that I was the one who removed his religion from the infobox due to a lack of references. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]