Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:1973 introductions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A one-of-a-kind variation of Category:1973 establishments. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vague. David Kernow 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Establishments" is vague but acceptable; this isn't. Paul 06:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a hugely interesting page, but stuff like this can be very helpful for research purposes. Maybe some sort of rename is in order, though. IronDuke 15:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paul Osomec 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Honbicot 07:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People killed by order of Muhammad[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This twisted "category" violates (1) WP:POINT; (2) WP:NOT; (3) Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman and (4) Wikipedia:Civility. Let NPOV editors associated with Category:Islam come up with a way to categorize these individuals and events and what really happened -- but Muhammad should NOT be "put on trial" here, since this is a very crass and controversial way of doing it. It is flaming and will lead to Wikipedia:Edit war and a tit-for-tat environment will emerge as has already happened with the creation of Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon (now rightfully up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon.) Muhammad is to Islam what Jesus is to Christianity, and Moses is to Judaism. If one digs into history and the texts of those religions one will find people killed for this or that reason by order of this or that person. Perhaps an article, such as Muhammad and controversy or Islam in war and peace could be a better, more diplomatic way, of encompassing the scope of what this category purports to do. IZAK 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one may even have verifiable sources, but what is the point? What benefit is added to the encyclopedia by this? The harm, is obvious; ESPECIALLY to buildings representing the finest German architecture! -- Avi 23:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big time... I voted delete on this one previously... unecessarily polemical . Netscott 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: This category is about as valid as this one (rather, not). Netscott 04:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category has obviously been created to demonize Muhammad and thereby attack his adherents. Raphael1 00:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- this was just created as a result of renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, where there was no consensus to delete. However, IZAK (talk · contribs) is correct that a WP:List article with copious references would be a better approach. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --William Allen Simpson 03:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't have a problem with an article that makes a beloved religious leader look bad, but this list seems senseless. If there's a good article to be made out of it, something to do with a specific war or a bit of political intrigue, then these names could appear there. But I really loathe these invidious lists. It's disruptive, causes bad feeling, and serves little useful purpose. IronDuke 04:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category survived the cfd vote just five days ago. The result was keep and rename from "People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad" to "People killed by order of Muhammad". This nomination, done several days after the latest nomination has been closed, is entirely frivolous and perhaps a violation of WP:POINT inspired by an afd on a similar category on Ariel Sharon, the creation of which was itself a WP:POINT violation done to retaliate for this category. This category is entirely factual because all these people were indeed killed by order of Muhammad; furthermore, most of them are only notable because of they were killed by order of Muhammad. Stating historical facts is not demonization. Then, the argumentation comparing Muhammad to Moses and Jesus is completely spurious: first, Muhammad occupies a much bigger place in Islam than Moses does in Judaism, but lesser than Jesus does in Christianity; secondly, these parallels are irrelevant to the issue whether this category should or should not exist. All we must care about is neutrality and accuracy, not diplomacy as IZAK suggests, and this category meets both requirements. Pecher Talk 10:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. gidonb 12:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly justifiable but having a wholly negative effect on Wikipedia. --Ian Pitchford 12:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can someone explain what is wrong with historical truth ? Zeq 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We've been through all this before. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad-faith nomination. IZAK is the one who's violating the rules of civility. This category is in no way offensive; this information is basically straight out of the Islamic holy books and verified by contemporary sources, as I understand it. --M@rēino 14:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mareino: Ah, so then I cannot wait till Wikipedia starts listing and categorizing all the people killed by order of King David and many of the Kings of ancient Israel etc certified by the Hebrew Bible, or how about we start making categories for all the people executed by the permission of the Supreme Court of the United States and recorded in its own files. Is that normalcy, or what? Things could get really crazy. IZAK 01:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you want to create categories collecting all of the notable people killed at the order of other monarchs, go ahead (although I can't think offhand of any Kings of Israel who ordered more than one or two notable people killed, so I doubt any of those categories would be sufficiently populated to deserve creation). The US Supreme Court has never' ordered anyone killed, though. The United States has, and the Supreme Court has reviewed those orders. The difference between the two is vital to the rule of law. According to the Holy Books, it was Muhammad who had legal authority on Earth to order deaths, correct? --M@rēino 21:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV titleHomey 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel that this category is a violation of WP:POINT. Not knowing enough about the history of Islam and/or Muhammad, I will defer to Pecher when he says that "most of them are only notable because of they were killed by order of Muhammad" -- and this is a good point (though I would note Luna Santin's response at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad). However, the same could be said about Robert Ambrister and Alexander Arbuthnot, both killed by order of Andrew Jackson. The decision to make such a list about Mr. Jackson would attempt to direct the reader's attention specifically toward the fact that he ordered the deaths of certain men. This, then, would try to prove a point through titling and classification of the facts -- the very thing that WP:POINT tries to forestall. I agree with IZAK when he urges "Let NPOV editors associated with Category:Islam come up with a way to categorize these individuals and events and what really happened", and I also echo IronDuke's comment. Scartol 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I can't agree with IZAK's division of editors into "NPOV editors" and (apparently) "POV editors". This sounds like an assumption that some (unspecified) editors act in bad faith. Pecher Talk 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have no strong opinion on the existence of this category, but the last CFD was 5 days ago. I was very tempted to speedy keep this on that basis. And would people please actually read and understand Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before throwing WP:POINT around. the wub "?!" 17:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete polemical and in sundry other ways unhelpful to the project or its image. Just zis Guy you know? 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete, presuming that Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon is deleted as well (Currently it looks like it will) -- Heptor talk 18:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not at all aboutClimbing Reichstag at all. Either we have a categories on people killed by other peoples orders or we don't. Besides, violating an "official idiocy" hardly constitutes a serious offence. -- Heptor talk 18:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heptor: The point about "The Reichstag" is meant as a wake-up call to illustrate how such information exploited for negative purposes can roll out of control if not checked. IZAK 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BhaiSaab talk 19:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Muhammad is arguably the most influential person in history. Even minor events of his life are inherently notable and are pondered to this day, while the events referenced by this category are hardly minor. I, for one, found the category instantly informative and handy for navigation. The objections do not and cannot deny encyclopedicity, notability or accuracy, but explicitly constitute a demand that the treatment of real-world history and the real figures who made it be subject to a religious litmus test, accompanied by the threat to disrupt Wikipedia by repeated AfD's and various point violations until Wikipedia accedes to this censorship. History does not belong to any sect or faction.Timothy Usher 22:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Timothy: To say that "Muhammad is arguably the most influential person in history" is clearly only ONE POV and it's just not true. Without the development of Islam in its own right as a world religion, Muhammad would be a total unknown in history and his deeds would not only not be recorded they would be unkown. To create "hit lists" connected to key personages associated with their religion/s is historically insignificant and academically useless, like counting the number of cars owned by the rich. Using body counts as "criteria" does not add to anyone's knowledge or appreciation of a major religion. Religion and history are just not taught or understood that way. You could create lists of people (lots of Jews and Muslims) killed by the Crusaders in the name of Christianity, or of Christians killed by the Muslim Turks and each Sultan or which pagan Philistines were killed by the Children of Israel and vice versa. However, that has never been, and still is not, the way to study and get to know what those events were all about. It's like trying to understand a sport by reading the scores, it is poor scholarship and this category serves no purpose beyond "implicating Muhammad" and then what would that accomplish? IZAK 01:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • To note that Muhammad was not just a religious teacher but also a military leader, a head of state and the founder of a substantial empire, performing deeds that throughout history have often accompanied such activities, very much adds to one’s knowledge and appreciation of a major religion. How does it "implicate Muhammad"? It’s a neutral assertion: as with Ariel Sharon, whether you believe Muhammad acted justly is not in any way prejudged. Your statement is itself highly prejudicial, in that it assumes that Muhammad's decisions cannot be justified, when in fact such justifications exist and are well-known - as with Ariel Sharon, why not leave it to reader to decide what, if any, lesson to draw from them? You are quite welcome to create similar categories for Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Baha'ullah, etc. I don't know offhand of anyone they ordered to be killed, but if you can think of someone, I can’t see what the problem would be.Timothy Usher 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Timothy: I must say that the major objective that we should all subscribe to religiously, no matter how hard it may be at times, is to be normal and not to veer off into madness! Those should be the underlying principles of everyone in life, Wikipedians included, and I venture to say that it is NOT normal to create categories like this because they will and must descend into insanity as similar categories will arise if we let this trend go on! Now, you are skewering Muhammad, no doubt about it, by focusing on a tangent of the total picture relating to Islam. Moses, King David, the Crusaders, and the Sultans were also both religious/spiritual figures as well as national/military leaders -- but the "sum of their parts" is more than their enemies that they killed, much like the House of Saud is today in Saudi Arabia -- and why would anyone want to list each and every last name of those executed by them. Indeed, no-one would dream it rational to create a category called Category:Failures -- because one man's failure may well be another's victory -- who's to say? and it's inevitablly going to be POV. Has anyone thought of creating a category or list of all those that the Saudis have beheaded by the sword? Or how about Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom who is both the spiritual head of the Church of England and is the commander-in- chief of the British Armed Forces, so should we now draw up lists and categories of people killed by Britain's military or police or MI5? (after all, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who think they can prove that the Queen is behind all sorts of nefarious deeds). So, as I said, let's all try to edit in a normal fashion! IZAK 07:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV category + what I said before when it was listed. Wikipidian 00:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom aswell as being excessive - any 'information' (yet to be verified) like this ought to go in Muhammad's article or the articles of the subjects of the category. Joffeloff 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete as per every sane contribution to this discussion.--Smerus 22:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on same condition as Heptor. I am increasingly of the opinion that there shouldn't be any, or hardly any, categories in the first place, but I am sure there is a different page for that.  :) 6SJ7 23:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is factual, what's the problem. An encyclopedia cannot be afraid of inconvenient facts. Vaquero100 04:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are many factual criteria that don't deserve a category. --JeffW 08:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an exercise in knowledge representation to transform every factual statement into a category assignement. But this is not a sane use of categories for an encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. --- Faisal
  • Delete per nom. Dauster 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If NPOV means anything it means no double standards. This list is fine as long as similar lists are maintained for other figures (politicians, Popes etc). Muhammad should be held to exactly the same standards as other religious leaders, just as religious leaders should be held to the same standards as anyone else. -Carry18 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pecher's comments. -- Karl Meier 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Calsicol 00:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand how this is POV. I don't know of a single Muslim who denies that certain people were killed by the order of Muhammad, so what's the problem? - Merzbow 01:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What's the problem? It is unnecessarily provocative. What if there was a category entitled "Peoples exterminated on the orders of Yahweh"? I don't know of any Jew that denies that either, and it is well documented in the Torah. Do you see the problem now? Really Spooky 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I for one don't. This is an encyclopedia intended to report historical fact, not an exercise in not hurting anyone's feelings. Your proposed cat title is POV because it presupposes that the Bible is really dictated by God, something not everyone would agree with. But I for one would see no problem with a category "People targeted for extermination in the Bible" - except that such a category would contain only one tribe, Amalek, and even that command, in Jewish law, was mitigated and qualified. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, Wikipedia is not an exercise in not hurting anyone feelings, but it is not an exercise in needlessly insulting them either. I note the unfortunate comments of some ‘keepers’ on this page:
“All we must care about is neutrality and accuracy, not diplomacy” – Pecher
“[S]hould we care about the numbers [of people offended]?” – tickle me
The problem with the category is not that it is factually inaccurate (Can that even be said of a category? Factual inaccuracy occurs when pages are wrongly included), but rather that it is designed to selectively present facts in a manner that, if not deliberately inflammatory, is certainly widely perceived to be so judging from the comments on this page. I note the following from WP:NPOV (whilst directed primarily at articles, I see no reason why it should not apply to categories as well):
Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization…
By the way, I would not have any problem with the category “People targeted for extermination in the Bible” either. I note you have conveniently rephrased it with reference to a source of historical document rather than a people, so it does not have the inflammatory impact of listing peoples targeted for extermination by the Jews alone (indeed, such a category could include the Jews themselves). However, since you have side-stepped the point I was making, I will rephrase my question: What if there was a category entitled “Genocides ordered by Yahweh (according to the Torah)”? This would include not only the Amalekites, but also the (biblical) Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. Really Spooky 13:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot see how your comments point to a problem with this category. Categories "selectively present facts" by definition by pointing out to one specific aspect of a person or phenomenon in question. Pecher Talk 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:A-level English Literature Set Poems[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limited geographical scope -- ProveIt (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And many other bad attributes too. Osomec 17:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Oldies Radio Stations[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete/merge (by Xaosflux). ×Meegs 00:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Oldies radio stations. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Clothiers[edit]

Merge into Category:Clothing retailers. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 11:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom and info on category's page. David Kernow 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cricket dismissals[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Category contains only four articles that also exist in the parent/ancestor category:Cricket terminology. There is no point in having a separate child category, especially given that the parent is well-developed and in regular use by the project. --GeorgeWilliams 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment With 121 articles category:Cricket terminology is large enough to warrant subcats. However, I don't know Cricket well enough to be able to say whether there are any other logical subcats. If not, the delete, if so then keep and create those other subcats. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a member of the cricket project I can offer a bit of background. The terminology category is very large but its purpose needs to be borne in mind: it is a like a "glossary" such as you would find at the end of a book and so it will I'm afraid become as large as the number of terms that need to be defined. The dismissals category serves no useful purpose and is a partial duplicate of its own parent so there is no point in having it, especially as no one is using it. The four articles are safely housed in the terminology category so nothing will be lost. --Jack 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot see the point. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant cat as Category:Cricket terminology already contains the terms mentioned here & as Caerwine says is large enough to warrant subcats. --Srikeit (Talk | Review me!) 09:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Richmonders (Virginia) to Category:People from Richmond, Virginia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically for the same reason as the Syracusians and Denverites categories were renamed. User:Arual| 19:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Consistency is valuable, and doesn't create discrepancies which can lead to confusion and/or unintended amusement. Badbilltucker 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American theological writers to Category:American theologians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of the conventional category.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities and towns in Jammu & Kashmir to Category:Cities and towns in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged - TexasAndroid 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate categories, main category is "Jammu and Kashmir" with an and, not a &. NawlinWiki 18:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

New Right (Europe) and New Right (United States)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 11:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Right (Europe) and Category:New Right (United States)

Somebody changed the introduction of that article, so I'll quote Minkenberg here:"There are new groups of the radical right which try to influence public debate and the minds of people rather than voting behaviour. These groups—think tanks, intellectual circles, political entrepreneurs—are summarized as the New Right in the literature. In the United States, they include organizations led or founded by Paul Weyrich, such as the Free Congress Foundations and the Institute for Cultural Conservatives. In Europe the most prominent groups are the French Nouvelle Droite groups Club de l'Horloge and especially GRECE, led by philosopher Alain de Benoist, the German Neue Rechte, inspired by the the French counterpart but als by the Weimar Conservative Revolution, and the Italian Nouva Destra." Intangible 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments & Questions[edit]
This is a misinterpretation of the Minkenberg reference. Paul Weyrich and the Free Congress Foundation are that segment of the New Right Coalition in the United States that most resembles the European New Right. However the Cultural Conservatism and Paleoconservatism of Weyrich and FCF is only a tiny sliver of the New Right coalition in the United States, which also includes neoconservatrives, libertarians, the Christian Right, business nationalists, corporate internationalists, etc., which are not similar to the cultural ideology and politics of the European New Right. Furthermore, most scholarly references explicitly state that the New Right in Europe and the New Right in the United States should not be directly compared and are substantially different. For example:
  • "However, the label 'New Right' is potentially misleading. For the French nouvelle droit has little in common with the political New Right that emerged in the English-speaking world at around the same time."
Jonathan Marcus, The National Front and French Politics, New York: New York University Press, 1995, p.23.
[User:Intangible|Intangible]] is currently involved in several edit wars on several pages concering the topic of European far right movements--including one page that has been protected pending a discussion. Intangible has also refused mediation on one page. This is a continuation of an edit war. Both [[New Right (Europe)]] and [[New Right (United States)]] are accurate, backed by scholarship, and deserves to remain.--Cberlet 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another Quote:
  • "By rejecting Christianity as an alien ideology that was forced upon the Indo-European peoples two millennia ago, French New Rightists distinguished themselves from the so-called New Right that emerged in the United States during the 1970s. Ideologically, [the European new Right group] GRECE had little in common with the American New Right, which [the European new Right ideologue] de Benoist dismissed as a puritanical, moralistic crusade that clung pathetically to Christianity as the be-all and end-all of Western civilization."
Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens, Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1997, p. 211.
--Cberlet 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these publications are refereed. Intangible 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The American New Right here refers to the "New Christian Right" Minkenberg refers to. Intangible 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question am I reading the proposal correctly that you want all the articles in these 2 categories to go into a single New Right category? If so, oppose deletion on the grounds of European New Right and U.S. New Right are two totally different things with hardly anything in commonn. Lumping together in the same category would be inaccurate and unencyclopedic. KleenupKrew 20:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Minkenberg in the refereed journal Government and Opposition writes: "There are new groups of the radical right which try to influence public debate and the minds of people rather than voting behaviour. These groups—think tanks, intellectual circles, political entrepreneurs—are summarized as the New Right in the literature. In the United States, they include organizations led or founded by Paul Weyrich, such as the Free Congress Foundations and the Institute for Cultural Conservatives. In Europe the most prominent groups are the French Nouvelle Droite groups Club de l'Horloge and especially GRECE, led by philosopher Alain de Benoist, the German Neue Rechte, inspired by the the French counterpart but als by the Weimar Conservative Revolution, and the Italian Nouva Destra."
This is the basis on which I created the Category:New Right. That the "New Right" also has been a heterogeneous label for including other movements, does not mean the categorization under Category:New Right as I have planned is not correct, or is in need of a split in a US and Europe categorization. The original category and the articles it included was just fine until someone split them. Intangible 20:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Intangible appears to be confusing the French Nouvelle Droite, the European New Right (sometimes also called the "Nouvelle Droite," The New Right in the United States, and the genric usage of the term "New Right" to describe all these movements (problematic at best). There is already a page on the broader use of the term at New Right that serves as a disambiguation page.--Cberlet 23:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to de Benoist (intellectual founder of the European New Right):
  • "Based on everything I know about it, the so-called New Right in America is completely different from ours. I don't see even a single point with which I could agree with this so-called New Right. Unfortunately, the name we now have gives rise to many misunderstandings."[1]
Many misunderstandings, especially when legitimate scholars such as Minkenberg use careless language. Wikipedia should not increase the improper use of a term. Minkenberg elsewhere refers to the "New Readical Right," which is a proper common broad term for all post-WWII right-wing movements.--Cberlet 15:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minkenberg in that same article referse to the "New Christian Right" and the "radicial right," he nowhere refers to the "New Radicial Right." Somehow you want to use a heterogenous classification of New Right, which is nonsense, because categories should be a binary partition. Mine was. Intangible 13:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote[edit]
  • Keep the separate categories.--Cberlet 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's all nice that you split the the comments and questions from the actual vote, but so nobody can see directly what your argument is for Keep. Intangible 13:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was not my intent, I am sorry if you are confused, please note I have added what I assume is your vote below. This is not an uncommon procedure to make votes clearer. The entire debate is above, just scroll up.--Cberlet 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no need for two categories per continent. These categories are not about the New Christian Right in the United States. Intangible 15:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the separate categories. They're two entirely different things. KleenupKrew 20:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Roman Catholic Categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and repopulate. Conscious 11:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a wholesale blanking of Roman Catholic categories by Vaquero100. Seems to be a part of an attempted rename, but I'm not sure if this was agreed upon or not. This should probably be investigated by someone who understands the issue. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably part of a POV debate. Note that the category originally did not have "Roman." I edit these articles, and Vaquero's changes have been an annoyance causing some double-redirects. However I think he views the original move adding "Roman" as POV by Fishhead64. My own observation: Vaquero may be acting prematurely, but his moves (removing "Roman") have not generated criticism except in relation to Anglican-Catholic articles, where "Roman" is arguably needed. Gimmetrow 21:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides the Catholic versus Roman Catholic issue, there is also the Catholic versus catholic issue. Unless the categories are renamed from Catholic X to X of the Catholic Church I would be opposed to removing the Roman in the category names. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the above comments. Keep "Roman" in the category titles for specificity. -LA @ 23:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been an ongoing dispute over the naming of the article and mentions of the church elsewhere at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Every time a consensus is reached to retain "Roman", the question is re-opened and the argument begun all over again. The user doing the category blanking has been the most strident voice against the previous consensus in the latest round. He represents that he believes a consensus against "Roman" has been reached, but personally I don't get that from the discussion. Perhaps I'm just not reading carefully enough. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does not appear to be category related. Sounds more like a case of WP:POINT and someone closer to the happenings needs to slap a few warning tags on the users talk page and then undo any damage. Vegaswikian 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is category related in as much as these four blanked categories showed up this morning when the uncategorized categories list got regenerated. Usually I just db-catempty those, but finding four roman catholic blanked categories in a row seemed suspicious, and I decided to post something here. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The categories relating to Catholic topics have been a disaster since I have been on WP (last 4 months or so). I have been working to give some order to them. "Roman Catholic Clothing" you have to admit is a pretty absurd category. It is divided betweem too much more meaningful categories "Vestments" and "religious life (habits)." It was clear that this category was created to mimick "Protestant clothing" which itself is very odd as a category.
Likewise "Worship" is a word used more in Protestant Churches. Catholics tend to use the term "Lirturgy." Worse, the category "Worship" mixed two very different kinds of topics, namely spirituality articles and liturgy articles. It was redundant and not at all useful.
Again, "Religious Objects" is a silly term for a Catholic category. This was a mixture of liturgical topics and "sacramentals." This mis-matching and mixing of very discreet matters in maddening.
Lastly, I know that there is a cabal of Anglicans and some others to make every mention of Catholic be preceded by "Roman." This is clearly in opposition to WP naming policy which clearly states that an article (or category) should have the title most English speakers would use. When most English speakers say "Catholic" they mean the Church headquartered in Rome. Likewise, WP naming policy states that the title of an article about an organization should carry the name that the organization uses for itself. The Catholic Church clearly uses "Catholic Church" as its name. WP policy furthermore states that one must not use "moral" arguments to support or opposed an article name. While many Anglicans and others do not like the name of the Catholic Church and have sought for centuries to eliminate this name, their arguments are always "moral" arguments to the effect that the Catholic Church "should" be named the "Roman Catholic Church." Unfortunately for those of that mind, this has not occurred in common speach or in the Catholic Church's name for itself. To force "Roman" on every title and category is to violate WP policy. I realizing that this fact may be frustrating for Anglicans and others. However, their frustration cannot possibly be as personal or be matched by those whose institutional name is forced to be changed because of their POV. WP recognises the fundamental right of people and institutions to name themselves, as it should.
In the case of "Catholic Eucharistic theology," yes, I reversed it. I did so because of a certain dishonesty with which the change from CET to RCET was done. Precisely when a vigorous discussion of the same issue was taking place on the RCC page, Fishhead64 and the Anglican cabal quietly effected this change. Neither I nor any of the others debating Fishhead64 were looking for or were aware of his activity on the side. In my view a great many stakeholders in such a central topic to Catholics as the Eucharist were not included in the conversation and were bamboozled. --Vaquero100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree as per above, these categories listed above were and are no longer of any use. --Vaquero100 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposal to move Catholic X to X of the Catholic Church as stated above is fine by me. However, the forced "Roman." is really out of the question from a WP perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-29 02:11:59
  • Comment William Allen Simpson's comment in his point no. 5 "We could just rename them all "Papist" instead of "Roman Catholic", as the denomination in which I was raised would call them." illustrates why the Catholic Church does not call itself the Roman CC officially. The English slanders emphasizing Rome, such as "Papism," "Romish," "Papist," "Romanist," etcetera, are the origins of the term "Roman" Catholicism. These origins are precisely why the Catholic Church does not use the term, "Roman" in referring to itself in official documents. (The one exception is in the case of the Anglican Roman Catholic dialogue where the Catholic Church used "Roman" as an olive branch). This phrasing is used in documents of the committee which are not documents of the Catholic Church, but of the committee. In no papal encyclical, Conciliar documents nor publication of the Holy See is "Roman" attached to the name of the Catholic Church.
To clarify, I have no problem with my Father, but have received abuse at the hands of Anglicans for being "Romish." Mr. Simpson, please keep your comments to topics within your perview.
Finally, the terms of this and all discussions of names given to articles and categories should be limited to the WP Naming Conventions not how people feel about a particular institutional name, nor nor "moral" claims in favor or against it, nor the psychoanalysis of the editors. That is WP policy. --Vaquero100 14:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey 100, you need to learn what the symbols at the end of the comment meant. --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also Wikipedia policy that you don't empty categories you intend to have deleted or renamed, which you blatantly violated. Doing so has certainly hurt your cause. Having taken a look at this in rather more detail than I had originally intended, let me give an actual opinion rather just a comment,
Let me repeat once again, I am not at all pleased with Vaquero100's action in blanking categories. Furthermore, let me say if in the near future someone seeks either mediation or arbitration concerning his behavior, I would appreciate being informed so that I can provide my two cents. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are 5 Patriarchates of the Catholic Church: Alexandria and all Africa, Antioch and all the East, Constantinople, Rome, and Russia. That should mean that there could be The Alexandrian Catholic Church, The Antiochan Catholic Church, The Constantinoplan Catholic Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and The Russian Catholic Church. (I hope that I got Antioch and Constantinople right.) They should be so named to denote the location of the Patriarchates' home bases. There may be others, these are the only ones that I know. -LA @ 20:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon? You seem to be talking about the Pentarchy, but this was a relic of the time before the East-West Schism. Although the Orthodox Church still thinks of itself as the Catholic Church, here we are plainly talking about the church (or family of churches) with the Pope of Rome as its earthly head. There are indeed Eastern-rite patriarchates in communion with Rome for Alexandria and Antioch. But Jerusalem (the one you forgot) is a Latin-rite patriarchate, and Constantinople (a leftover of the 4th Crusade) has been abolished. There was at one time a Russian Catholic Church (still extant?), but it was always very small and was never a patriarchate. There are other patriarchates in the West too, such as Venice. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople still exists. And thanks for pointing out Jerusalem. It was not that I forgot, it was that I didn't have a link to it on my bookmarks with the other four patriarchates. I knew that I was missing one. -LA @ 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am well aware of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, in this context "Catholic" refers to the churches in communion with the Pope of Rome. Constantinople is definitely not one of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I knew I should have kept out of this CfR. However, I was trying to point out that there is more than one location which can claim to be the center of a "Catholic" faith. By using the location of the center of each "Catholic" faith to disambiguate them would be a good idea. That is why I oppose this CfR. -LA, a recovering RC :) @ 21:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is quite correct, and is the heart of the naming controversy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, there are Eastern Churches called "Catholic" such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. They are in communion with Rome, and are part of the Catholic Church but are not "Roman Catholic". A discussion of the problem with the name RCC is on the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Information Page. From the perspective of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Vatican, "Roman Catholic Church" is a misnomer and should not be applied to the Catholic Church as a whole. --Vaquero100 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We may as well get into the heart of the issue here. So here goes:


In the interest of keeping notes short on this page. I have listed a fairly complete enumeration of the arguments for "Catholic Church" over "Roman" CC here: CC v. RCC --Vaquero100 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Many of Vaquero's points about Wikipedia policy are true (though he seems to be drawing partly on the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page, which is actually only a guideline - only Wikipedia:Naming conventions is policy). I think there are two policy-based counter-arguments. One is based on the Neutral Point of View policy (which, as one of Wikipedia's three core content-guiding policies would take precedence if this argument was felt to hold): if the Church, in calling itself the "Catholic Church", is making a claim to be the universal ("catholic") church of Christ, then employing the term in Wikipedia might be seen as an inappropriate affirmation of that claim. The other is partly based an ambiguity (WP:NC - "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity") combined with a dose of NPOV: where a title is disputed (which the most recent Church of England Statement on the issue - [2], note 4 - seems to suggest this one is), even where one 'claimant' is substantially larger or more significant than the other, we do not usually grant the title to either claimant; instead, we use a different, unambiguous term for each claimant, and disambiguate the page itself - see Macedonia, Budweiser and Congo, for example. Are either of these arguments valid? I don't know.
So, is 'Roman Catholic' such an unambiguous term? It's true that the roots of the term "Roman Catholic" lie in the Anglican reformation, and the use of the term 'Romish' - that is one of the ancestors of the term. The other ancestor is, of course, the Church's preferred term 'Catholic'. The Oxford English Dictionary, which is generally one of Wikipedia's preferred sources on word meanings, says this:
The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed.
Combined with the Church's willingness to use the term itself in ecumenical dialogue (in its interactions with the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Churches, the Methodist Church, the Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church and the World Council of Churches, as well as in such documents as jointly-published notes on bible translations), can it really be regarded as an unacceptable term, if a less ambiguous or controversial term is felt to be needed?
I don't really wish to weigh in on either side of this - I actually voted in the most recent poll to move the page to Catholic Church, on the grounds of common usage; but as that poll in the end came down 17:7 in favour of Roman Catholic Church I thought that the salient arguments from that debate should be raised here. TSP 00:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you TSP for your summary. As stated on other occasions the OED was corrected in 1913 by the Catholic Encyclopedia which reported printed examples of "Roman Catholic" as early as 1580 in contexts of vitriol against Catholicism:

Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested…Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called "A Deliberat Answere", printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms "Romish Catholike" or "Popish Catholike", also writes of those "who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes of Popish devises" (p. 86). Catholic Encyclopedia article: Roman Catholic

It is clear that "Roman Catholic" does not come from some mutual peaceful agreement.

Also, as said on the CC v. RCC page, diplomatic documents of ecumenical discourse are polite in nature and do not carry doctrinal authority as do Encyclicals and other classifications of Vatican documents. These are the lowest ranking of Vatican documents, not intended as doctrinal sources.

Lastly, this is not a question of RCC being ambiguous. It is incorrect. And, it is problematic. --Vaquero100 02:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment TSP, in the interest of space on this page, I have added the WP Policy response to the question of NPOV issues in naming. It has been added to the bottom of the article at CC v. RCC. Thanks again for your comments. --Vaquero100 03:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editors may wish to also check out Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name for a somewhat less one-sided exposition of the various arguments. The central point I have maintained is that "Catholic" is an ambiguous term, since it can mean two separate, distinct things: The institution under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, or the universal church as described in the Nicene Creed (see One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church). I have maintained that article titles should be unambiguous in this regard. Vaquero100 has maintained that "Roman Catholic" is inaccurate and pejorative, both of which claims are challenged by the commonplace use of the term in civil, non-pejorative senses - including by the Vatican itself (see, for example, Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission. Categories such as "Catholic liturgy" and "Catholic Eucharistic theology" are clearly ambiguous. I could conceivably begin adding these cats to articles related to Anglican, Old Catholic, and other national Catholic denominations, since they clearly apply in the current ambiguous state. Fishhead64 23:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate all blanked categories, per my comments above. Fishhead64 23:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Naming conventions state, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". To assess what readers would recognize "Catholic" to mean, we can evaluate the ways it is normally used. Applying 'catholic -"roman catholic" -"orthodox catholic" -"old catholic" -"anglican catholic" -wikipedia' as the search term in Yahoo will return uses of the word "Catholic" without common qualifiers. When reviewing these unqualified uses of "Catholic", you would have to drill down into the list past the 970th place to find the first use of "Catholic" to refer to anything other than "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome." Even there the entry refers to a group calling itself "United Catholic," which is not an unqualified use of the word "Catholic". This certainly appears to be a minimum of ambiguity! In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conflict, (Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.) the articles referring to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" should be named "Catholic Church", as it would be a purely objective description of what the Catholic Church call themselves. As for using the ARCIC to be the justification for including "Roman" in all references to the Catholic Church, I would ask: Would you insist on referring to members of NAACP as "colored"? SynKobiety 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the changes made by Vaquero100 SynKobiety 02:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, on that basis, the members of the church call themselves the Roman Catholic Faithful --William Allen Simpson 05:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is what the members of The Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., call themselves. Members of the church most often call themselves "Catholics." SynKobiety 15:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. As do members of other Catholic churches. While I'm a big fan of letting people self-define, I don't support self-definitions that are used to exclude others from self-defining. In other words, if I announce that only people of Northern-European extraction may be covered by the term human, I lose the privilege of having my self-definition taken seriously. Likewise, if Roman Catholics claim the term Catholic only for themselves (ironic, given the definition of the word) -- as appears to be the intent of Vaquero100 -- then Eastern Catholics get to ignore them and revert any changes made with that end in mind. --The Editrix 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • In all fairness to Vaquero, that's not what he's advocating. Eastern Catholics are part of the communion that acknowledges the authority of the Pope of Rome, and are included under his definition of "Catholic Church". It actually speaks to why he objects to "Roman Catholic" to refer to the entire communion.
          • The opposite position is that "Roman Catholic" is actually taken by most people to refer to the communion as a whole, "Roman" designating the seat of the Papacy and not so much the rite; and that furthermore to solely name this communion as "Catholic" -- which is what we would in effect be doing if the article and related subjects were named "Catholic Church" -- takes their POV against the other communions that also claim this name and/or description for themselves.
          • There is, incidentally, nothing at all ironic about a claim of exclusivity from a church claiming to be Catholic. The term was invented specifically to exclude groups viewed as heretical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • TCC is correct in regard to the Eastern Catholic part in this whole "Roman" naming debate. Note that the proposed category tree structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism has mixed use of RCC and CC, from which it should be clear that there is no crusade for CC being the only term used. Gimmetrow 00:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Don't forget NO FURTHER EDITS TO BE MADE TO THIS PAGE!!!

Category:Andre Band albums to Category:Andre albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Albums by artist -- ProveIt (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Nonsense from Noodles3000[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, all empty, the latter a re-creation. And I mentioned the problems on the Talk, but as these were the only contributions, my guess is a juvenile. --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial ambassador to squirrels -- ProveIt (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -Lady Aleena @ 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and provide some friendly official ambassadorial advice to his Noodles3000ship. David Kernow 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pages been edited by WikiProject Blackadder to Category:WikiProject Blackadder[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Out of process deletion --kingboyk 12:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm acting on this boldly and closing the debate but I don't know what template to use to close the debate. This category isn't related to enyclopedic content but Wikipedia Project organisation and it's clearly badly named and organised, so I consider sorting it out to be a matter of good housekeeping. (It should actually be Category:WikiProject Blackadder articles). Let it be noted this the third WikiProject's categorisation I've fixed today (rolls eyes). :) --kingboyk 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Main category for project -- ProveIt (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:WPAM to Category:WikiProject Armenia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 09:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Category:WPAM is used for article talk pages, and is populated by a template. Category:WikiProject Armenia contains the WikiProject page itself and WPAM. I suggest merging the less obvious name into the more standard one. If this goes through, there are a few others in Category:WikiProjects which I might nominate.

  • Merge per nom. The talk pages should be in the main Wikiproject category; there is no need for an ambiguously-named subcategory. --Musicpvm 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People killed by order of Ariel Sharon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Categories of the type people killed by some-politician-you-don't-like have little use besides demonizing and attacking someone. Weregerbil 12:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Some of the people who are in favor of deleting this category voted to create Category:People killed by order of Muhammad; you be the judge of their actions. --Inahet 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I changed my vote to delete as long as Category:People killed by order of Muhammad is deleted.
    • Inahet: To bring you up to speed: Category:People killed by order of Muhammad is also up for a deletion vote now, see above! You must not have seen my note above: See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Category:People killed by order of Muhammad on this page, and the reasons that I have nominated Category:People killed by order of Muhammad for deletion. Let's stop the "cycle of violence" (on Wikipedia, at least...) Thank you. IZAK 05:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, thank you for being impartial, unlike some other people, including one who is not only an admin but is on the arbitration committee! --Inahet 05:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amazing! By what strange and fantastic feat of logic did those editors who voted to keep the Category:People killed by order of Muhammad come to the conclusion that this category should be deleted. About time everybody faced up to the fact that this encyclopedia is very unfortunately systemically biased against Muslims...Strong Keep in retalition for previous unbalanced editing. Wikipidian 00:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipidian: You are obviously confused. You seem to be referring to an OLD vote of some days ago, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad where some people indeed voted to keep. I did not partake in that vote. Now however, there is a NEW vote, initiated by me, see #Category:People killed by order of Muhammad on this page where most people are now voting to delete it. No scholars and academics worth their beans think that there is any value trying to undertstand the leadership of anyone purely based on how many people they killed, and in any case some people may regard those killed as deserving death, others would call them as victims of murders, and to others they may be (holy) martyrs and saints. So it's best NOT to judge personalities, especially if they are the founders and symbols of major religions, by such acts ALONE. All leaders invarioubly commit these acts one way or another but they will never yield any understanding of those events and personalities, and it is not Wikipedia's job to "judge" them. Wikipedia should not be turned into a Crime Scene Investigation only. Just look at List of wars and disasters by death toll and what does it tell you? pretty much "nothing" more than lots (way lot) of people got killed in them, but you will not know the whys and whats of those wars by looking at the number of casualties ALONE. At any rate, your accusation that "this encyclopedia is very unfortunately systemically biased against Muslims" is simply wrong... just take a look at all the hard work that has gone on in Category:Islam and never vote "in retalition for previous unbalanced editing" because that is not fair to you or to others. IZAK 01:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If the creation of this category is as Inahet suggests some sort of retaliation for the Muhammed article, boy, that is pathetic. Let's try to move from a "two wrongs make a right" childish attitude to a "two wrongs make two wrongs" attitude. Some way to build an encyclopedia, huh? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Ian Pitchford 12:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - as long as the allegations can be proven. Zeq 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:People killed by the Israeli government and repopulate as appropriate. Ariel Sharon as a person has no authority to kill people; he only has that authority as an agent of a national government. Note the difference between this and the Muhammed category; Muhammed formed a self-styled government. --M@rēino 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete needless personalisation and demonisation. Just zis Guy you know? 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete, presuming that Category:People killed by order of Muhammad is deleted as well (Currently it looks like it will). -- Heptor talk 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - though the creation of this category was a transparent point violation, I see nothing inherently wrong with it. Sharon is eminently notable, as were many of the people he ordered assasinated. If we can only ensure that Sharon did in fact order their deaths, all should be fine. What's there now looks great. Indeed, I doubt that Mr.Sharon himself would take issue with this.Timothy Usher 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the comparison to Muhammad is completely out of line since Muhammad is an historical figure whereas Sharon is a current political figure. Still, I think both categories ought to go, they're unnecessary in addition to being POVed. Joffeloff 22:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most of the above, although I have to smirk a bit at the thought that this is "demonization." I clicked on all four articles and it appears that all four of these men "needed killin'" (which according to an old lawyer's joke, is a defense to the charge of murder in the state of Texas.) 6SJ7 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it is factual, what's the problem? An encyclopedia can't be afraid of inconvenient facts.Vaquero100 04:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the problem, it's not factual. Ariel Sharon never ordered anyone killed; Israel ordered them killed with Ariel Sharon serving as the legal agent of that order. --M@rēino 21:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Raphael1. --- Faisal
  • Delete Gilgamesh he 11:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK and others. It is notable that many people are saying "if it's true, what's the problem"? Something can be true and POV. It's just a matter of how you choose to state things and how you select what is stated. Now Wikipedia can't state everything that is true, so it has chosen to state a certain subset of those things that are true, in particular those that can be said in NPOV, that are verifiable, etc. The contents of this category are not clearly true (per Mareino), are POV (per Weregerbil, IZAK) and not necessarily verifiable (per others). There are some important distinctions to be made (in terms of these features of truthfulness and encyclopaedic worth) between Islamic prophet Mohammed and a modern Prime Minister, but I have not yet deliberated on or judged that one. jnothman talk 12:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And I have voted the same way on Category:People killed by order of Muhammad. Dauster 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depopulate and Delete. I can understand the offense taken by some editors who misunderstand what Category:People killed by order of Muhammad is for, but not only is this not even remotely analogous to that category, the pointless creation of this category in response or "retribution", is neither constructive nor appropriate. That said, judged exclusively on its own merits, this category is worthless since none of the people were killed by sole order (or "on behalf of") Sharon—no matter how much of a monster he may be viewed as by many, the fact remains that, outside his role as PM, he did not order anyone killed, and in his role as PM, he didn't have sole authority to order any assassinations. If his mobsterism outside the rôle of PM can be demonstrated to have included murdering someone, then perhaps this category could be justified (such as perhaps Category:People killed by order of Al Capone would be), but [as it stands right now at least] no such activities are proven, and the current contents of the category are exclusively political inclusions. Make it go away. Tomertalk 14:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. -- Olve 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per IZAK, preferably speedy delete, and consider sanctioning (or at least warning) the editors for disruption. 172 | Talk 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Shuki 21:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 71.235.60.152 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trouble stirring and not a defining characteristic of the people categorised. Calsicol 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Deusnoctum 02:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Designed to enflame opinions. I dispise his actions in Lebanon and Palestine, but, what does this cat serve ?--Irishpunktom\talk 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is in my opinion a useless catagory.--Isotope23 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Filmi[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has been present for two years and contains a whopping one article: the main article about Filmi. Delete unless someone can actually put articles about filmi musicians, filmi songs, or movies with filmi in it. JIP | Talk 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have started putting articles in the category, my sole criterion for its deletion no longer applies. I withdraw my nomination. JIP | Talk 16:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Memorable photographs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Photographs. Conscious 11:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on Category talk:Memorable photographs, there are no objective, verifiable, criteria for determining what makes a photograph memorable. I think Category:Pulitzer Prize winning photographs would be a good partial substitute. —D-Rock 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 15:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Notable photographs or Category:Individual photographs. The criteria should just be that the actual photograph (not its general subject) has an article on Wikipedia.--Pharos 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Pharos, but I don't think an adjective is necessary; if it has an article on Wikipedia, it as already somewhat notable. Rename to Category:Photographs and keep only articles that are about actual photographs and also remove all images from the category. --Musicpvm 02:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am concerned that if we just call it "Photographs" someone might get the bright idea to start tagging this on 10,000 photos. I definitely agree with you, though, that the category should be only for articles, not images.--Pharos 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Photographs and remove all images. Use for articles only. Osomec 17:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of Category:Phtotographs for only phototgraphs which have articles. Hooray disscussion—rename. —D-Rock 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename Per User:Pharos that is originally what it was set up for. I threw in a couple of extra ones, like the Challenger explosion, the Buddhist on fire, etc. but the list seems to have exploded in the last week or so. I believe Wikipedia needs some list like this, but would not be opposed to renaming it. Palm_Dogg 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- tasc wordsdeeds 13:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Photographs, just be sure to write a description there that says something like "This category contains articles on photographs." Recury 14:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Memorable photographs" or "Photographs" seem POV or too general to me, respectively. I'd say either create categories for particular photographic awards (such as Category:Pulitzer Prize-winning photographs suggested by D-Rock) under a parent category such as Category:Prize-winning photographs, or move the present category to Category:Articles on photographs (and prune accordingly). Regards, David Kernow 09:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Notable Photographs --Mason 21:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Isthmuses to Category:Isthmi[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll understand if you don't want to indulge me on this one, but it is a Latin word (originally Greek) and I think it deserves a Latin plural. Plus isthmi is a cool word. —Keenan Pepper 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Yes, the word has a Latin etymology, but this is the English Wikipedia and changing the name would accomplish nothing except terribly confusing our readers.--Pharos 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pharos. We write "museums" and not "musea" as well. JIP | Talk 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - shouldn't that be "Isthmii" ? (Sorry).HappyVR 13:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. JIP | Talk 14:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isthmii would be the plural of isthmius, not isthmus. But oppose as this form is far less familiar than the indices and fora being drummed out of WP as alumni whistles nervously to itself. -choster 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pshh, you all are no fun. —Keenan Pepper 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous comments. Chicheley 15:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JIP above -- MrDolomite 20:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I suppose you want to work on category:viruses next? 132.205.45.148 01:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, although I'd definitely like to see Category:Viruses moved to Category:Virori. And for what it's worth, people who write "indexes", "forums", "curriculums", "referendums" and even sometimes those who write "museums" appear quite illiterate...but "isthmuses" not so much...really tho--who discusses isthmi in the plural anyways? (btw, who wants to join me in a campaign to make "kleenices" the correct plural? ) Alumnum of talking good English, Tomertalk 14:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Business people to Businesspeople[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Businesspeople is used both in the main cat and in all of the national subcats except:

Delete the space between "business" and "people" in all six. (If it weren't for the fact that a Google turned up twenty times more hits for "businesspeople" over "businesspersons" I'd be asking for a rename of all the businesspeople categories as well, but usage trumps logic unfortunately.) Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom for consistency. --Musicpvm 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rubbish - Businesspeople is not a word - it's two words. Google search "businesspeople" 7 million, "business people" 32 million. Total rubbish.HappyVR 13:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and add a space to all the others. Googling for "businesspeople" brings up the question, "Did you mean business people?". Also the word "businessperson" is an abomination and a breach of NPOV as it is only used by people of one political persuasion. Chicheley 15:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others. -Lady Aleena @ 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Businessman and Businesswoman are acceptable compound words, but the likes of Categpry:British businessmen and businesswomen would not survive, leaving businesspeople as the plural form of businessperson and our best option.. -choster 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "businesspeople" IS a word. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/businesspeople --Musicpvm 02:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's two words to me, and google suggests that is the norm even in the U.S. Osomec 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a wholesale renaming of the other categories is to be done to get rid of "businesspeople", I strongly recommend a second CFD so as to be able to decide between "business people" and "businesspersons". As a group they are businesspeople but individially each is a businessperson, and so ideally the categories should use "businesspersons". Caerwine Caerwhine 08:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one is a "businessperson" in the version of English I speak. Calsicol 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NFL summer camp sites to Category:National Football League summer camp sites[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations are discouraged on category titles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename -Lady Aleena @ 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename agree with nom -- MrDolomite 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename and maybe do the same for NASA while we're at it Paul 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Members of the Privy Council to Category:Members of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the Privy Council describes, there are Privy councils in a number of countries - this category name is ambigious.--Peta 01:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Seven Sport[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category includes events and people associated with the Australian Seven Sport. The category is problematic as is sets a precedent for every tv station in the world to categorise the broadcast of sporting events (which are also subject to change - so would articles also be categoriesed by historic broadcast rights?) - which is hardly encyclopedic information. All items in the category are already in the article. The Category:NBC Sports works ok for this kind of thing, but has been largely kept in the category namespace.--Peta 01:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment All the sports events should be removed from the American sports channel categories too. Chicheley 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I've now removed the international events from the U.S categories (mainly the Olympics, the World Cup and Grand Prix). Chicheley 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Osomec 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cults[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nearly a consensus to keep. Conscious 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming an organization as a cult is highly subjective and I propose changing the name to Category:Alleged Cults. I don't see a great deal of instructions on the formal process to do this...I plan make these changes and refer people to this page and the Category Talk page which contains related discussion. If this type of refactoring requires admin approval or clear consensus, a message would be a appreciated. Antonrojo 01:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current wikipedia definition of cult which shows that Cult like Deviance is applied very differently depending on one's perspective on the world:
"In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture. Other non-religious groups may also display cult-like characteristics.
In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons." Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Adding "alleged" to the name could be construed to weaken the criteria. Many organisations are "alleged" to be a cult that probably do not have enough support to make it into Category:Cults. The similar Category:Cult leaders is currently up for deletion. (This also seems similar to the proposal to add "accused" to Category:Anti-Semitic people.) Gimmetrow 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this concern. See the numbered points at this discussion for my take on how to avoid making this a 'kitchen sink' category [3]. Also, I'm proposing adding clear guidelines at the top of the category page about which criteria to use in deciding whether to apply the category. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category. Oppose the proposed renaming. The category is subjective and POV. The proposed renaming is equally subjective and POV, and would probably lower the bar for inclusion making it even worse than the current name. Subjective, POV categories such as this one should just be deleted. KleenupKrew 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. But not on the grounds above. The word "cult" has a very specific meaning in the field of religion, and is in no way subjective. However, the problem with the phrase "Alleged Cults" is that it still uses a nonstandard definition of the word "cult." This is a difficult issue, and I acknowledge the best of intentions on the parts of all involved. But I personally think the word "cult" should not be used in this nonstandard way. I would personally prefer something along the lines of "Religious Personality Cults" (which uses the word correctly) or "Controversial Religious Organizations", with the specific qualifying nature of the "controversy" being spelled out in the text at the top of the page. Badbilltucker 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is definately a theological sense of the term which is covered at Cult (religious practice) and such a category could be added (maybe 'heresies' as well) with the same caveat that one man's cult is another man's religion so the label should require careful justificatation to make clear that it means 'a major religion defined this as a religious cult' and not 'wikipedia thinks this is a religious cult'. While a few members of the cult category might fit these criteria, I'm pretty sure that the category was intended to be applied to organizations that meet the less-well-defined Cult definition. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that there was no notice about this CfD on the category page until right now. —Centrx→talk • 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding that. I'm new to the CfD process. Antonrojo 11:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose cults won't cease to exist just because they are "alleged". --Tilman 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category for reasons well-stated above by KleenupKrew. Using "what links here" from cults should suffice for indexing. Oppose to renaming to "alleged", which just makes it fuzzier; alleged by whom? If not deleted, please use very sparingly per WP:CG; I'd suggest depopulating the category and retaining only groups of Jonestown-esque notoriety. Jim Butler(talk) 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and reconfigure to Category:Cult topics, and remove articles about individual groups alleged to be cults. We have a number of articles about general cult concepts and the the anti-cult movement that deserve to be categorized together.--Pharos 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pharos, that's an interesting suggestion and deals effectively with the wide range of items in the category. The issue of whether a specific organization is dealt with only partially with this category name. For example, do the Unification Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints belong? The first is included in the cult category and the second isn't despite both having a major following and whether one is less 'mainstream' than the other is a judgment call. So unless the definition of 'cult related' were expanded to include 'accused cults' (where the accusers have some factual basis for the claim) I'm not sure how the issue of defining 'what is a cult' would be handled. Antonrojo 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good way for Wikipedia to define "cults" categorically without violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR. There do not exist technical, generally-agreed-upon criteria for what a cult is. So "cult" shouldn't be a category at all. Agree with Pharos' comments that if the cat is changed to "cult topics", articles about individual groups should be removed. And we can still note, in articles about those groups, what others have said about them. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see an easy answer for this one. Perhaps we can keep the category but move all the articles about specific cults to a list that explains by whom and why they are called cults it might be List of organizations that have been called cults. This way everything could available, well cited and verifiable. -- Samuel Wantman 09:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a List of groups referred to as cults, which survived AfD a couple weeks ago. Gimmetrow 12:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. There are no such criteria on category:cults. Maybe you're thinking of a different page? (Gotta love the logic that a group's denial being a cult can be taken as evidence for being one. "If she floats, she's a witch!") -Jim Butler(talk) 08:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose, for subjectivity and POV, per KleenupKrew, above.--The Editrix 02:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep to oppose the POV-pushers. Each and every time we hear the same old argument that because not all cases are black and white, it would be "POV" and "original research" to ever say anything about any case. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific criteria would you suggest for using this category? Note WP:CG: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". -Jim Butler(talk) 08:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antaeus, no one is saying that it would be “POV” and “original research” to ever say anything about any case. That is a gross misrepresentation – at least of the arguments being discussed on this page. There is plenty of opportunity on the article pages to introduce edits, with references, explaining that a particular organisation has been considered by others to be a cult, who those others are and why they hold that view. I don’t see anyone here suggesting that should not be allowed.
The recurring theme is whether it is appropriate to use this particular label as a category given that it is controversial and has multiple meanings. As you are no doubt aware, for these reasons the term is considered a word to avoid on Wikipedia (with the caveat described above, see WP:WTA). So I’m afraid the issue is not so simplistic as fighting off the incorrigible “POV-pushers”. Indeed, rather than stopping the POV pushers, categories like this simply turn the category pages into a POV-pushing battlefield. Really Spooky 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename. In its common usage, "Cult" just means "Bad Religion". Hard to imagine how any existing religion could be unilaterally proclaimed to be a cult under NPOV. --Alecmconroy 06:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per Alecmconroy above. Interestingly, it appears that this is essentially the meaning subscribed to by those who most forcefully argue for keeping the category (insisting e.g. that "cult" is a appropriate category because there are religious groups out there that do bad things). As such, whether they realise it or not, what they are essentially arguing for is the possibility to label the bad religions. Really Spooky 11:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep but with strict classification criteria This is similar to say Category:Rapists which says
"This category is for individuals who have been criminally convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt among historians as to whether they committed the crime."
The criteria for Category:Cults should state something similar such as (note this is a very rough and initial example off te top of my head)
"This category is for groups or organizations of which there is a widespread acceptance of their cult status (Jonestown or Heaven's Gate for example) or have been labelled as a cult by notable experts (Rick Ross, Steve Hassan for example)."
The definiton of a cult is not POV, it is a very specialized list of traits that said group will have. If it has negative associations to some than that has little relevance on the facts. I believe this is the best solution - Glen 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glen, I can appreciate your point that there is a small ‘hard core’ of groups that most would agree fit the ‘lowest common denominator’ concept of a cult, such as the Peoples Temple or Heaven’s Gate. However, there are several fundamental flaws in your recommended approach:
1) The analogy with Category:Rapists is unhelpful, because there is little controversy over the definition of rape, and therefore the decision whether to include someone in that category is at heart a question of fact, not opinion. The same does not hold true for the word [cult]. There is no generally accepted definition and therefore one’s use of the label is inevitably linked to his or her POV.
2) How does one go about determining whether there is ‘widespread acceptance of a group’s cult status’? Who is going to determine this?
3) Deference to the opinions of ‘notable experts’ only exacerbates matters, since the issue is equally controversial among scholars. Which experts will be relied upon as the ‘objective arbiter’? Many would argue that Rick Ross and Steve Hassan are not experts at all, but anti-cult activists, and for every Rick Ross and Steve Hassan arguing that a group is a ‘cult’ there is an Eileen Barker and Gordon Melton who will say otherwise.
4) Finally, and most importantly, most people are not familiar with the way the term is used in sociology. In its popular use, the word ‘cult’ does not simply have negative connotations, it is in fact widely perceived as a pejorative, which makes it singularly inappropriate as a category heading irrespective of other considerations. Most would be offended if you suggested their religion was a ‘cult’, and not merely think you had got your facts wrong. Should Wikipedia have a category called bastards, even if you could compile a list of people that most would agree fit the description? Really Spooky 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. "Alleged" doesn't add anything to it and only weakens the category. -- LGagnon 16:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Didn't we just delete a category with a similar name to "Category:Aleeged cults"? -Will Beback 17:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and reconfigure to Category:Cult topics, as per suggestion by Pharos, and add Category:Controversial religious groups, as per suggestion by Badbilltucker. "Controversial religious groups" is less subjective, and we already have List of groups referred to as cults. --Monger 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I concur with this solution except that I think it should be "Category:Cult" instead of "Category:Cult topics". Every category implies "topics" so I think it is a bad habit to add the word to a category. Doing so will give the impression that some categories are topic categories and others are not. I also think that Monger's solution here is a model for how to handle categories that have NPOV problems. I want to relate a recent controversy about the Matthew Shepard article. For months there was a disagreement about whether the article should be in Category:Hate crimes. This was because, while his murder was often talked about as a hate crime, the perpetrators were not convicted of a hate crime. The controversy only ended when I split the category and created Category:Hate crime for articles about the topic and Category:Hate crimes for articles which there was a hate crime conviction. Matthew Shepard is in the former, but not the latter. I bring this up because splitting the category put an end to the dispute. Making the distinction between categories for articles related to a topic and having another NPOV worded category for people related to the topic is a way to end most of these disagreements about categorization. It also means that if needed we can have several different categories of people related to a topic. Each category can have its own criteria for membership. -- Samuel Wantman 01:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I wouldn't have a particular problem with Category:Cult instead of Category:Cult topics, as long as the scope is clear on the category page. The question has also been raised of what should be done with the orphaned articles– in my opinion they should all be put in the parent category Category:New religious movements.--Pharos 04:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off topic Since you brought up Category:Hate crimes I see several problems with that category, namely that it should either be renamed to Category:People convicted of hate crimes or the articles within should be renamed to make it clear that they aren't about the people but about the crimes. I'll comment on the talk page since this isn't the place for that discussion. --JeffW 18:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment and possible Rename. Renaming with categories such as "Category:Cult" or "Category:Cult topics" does not resolve the difficulty, since the core problem is with the word 'cult' itself: it lacks a generally accepted definition and is perceived by many to be a pejorative in its common usage, which (I know I am beginning to sound like a broken record here) is why it is a word to avoid on Wikipedia. I would however support "Category:Controversial religious groups" as an acceptable if imperfect compromise, since whilst is has a somewhat negative connotation it is not in itself an 'offensive' term, and does not have the same definition problems -- whether or not a group is controversial is a more objective exercise of determining whether a controversy exists and does not involve taking sides on the controversy. Really Spooky 18:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The proposal to rename to "Category:Cult" or "Category:Cult topics" also involves reconfiguring the category to remove individual groups alleged to be cults, and leaving only general cult topics. See the discussion above.--Pharos 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_28&oldid=1136104382"