Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15[edit]

Category:Romanians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Bduke 09:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Romanians to Category:Romanian people
Nominator's rationale: Merge to correctly named category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; seems to be accidental creation of a duplicate category. BencherliteTalk 19:07, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Stone[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Bduke 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Stone to Category:People from Stone, Staffordshire
Nominator's rationale: Merge to consistent nomenclature. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:37, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Settlements established before 1500[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all, as empty now, but discussion can continue elsewhere. Bduke 10:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cut off dates for the by-year categorization of Category:Settlements by year of establishment were discussed at Category_talk:Settlements_by_year_of_establishment#Cut-off_dates. It was agreed with the creator of the above cats that 1500 would be the cut off date for by-year categorization to avoid having many cats with only one or two articles. The above cats are now empty and need to be deleted. Greenshed 22:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shame these have already been emptied... It would make sense to go to decade or century prior to the threshold for individual years. It definitely looks like Category:Settlements established in the 1310s would have more than one article, for instance. This is pretty much as it sdays atg the category talk discussion you mentioned. HOWEVER, that discussion also includes the following: Where reliable dates exist, articles should be categorised by year for 1500 and later, by decade for 1300 to 1499 and by century for before 1300. Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category. Your words, in fact, Greenshed. That last sentence is the clincher - the categories listed above are in accordance with the discussion listed. To my mind, given the size of these, it would make more sense to go with the by-decade categories for now, though, and break out by-year ones if required later. Grutness...wha? 01:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I understand the point you're making. The categories above have been empitied by (where appropriate) moving the articles they contained into the parent decade cat. If we find that decade cats in the 14th and 15th centuries warrent a break out into years, then we can do that in the future. Greenshed 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that your argument during the debate on a cutoff point - an argument that was never challenged - was the by year categories were perfectly acceptable prior to 1500 as long as the actual date was known. As you yourself said: Prior to 1500, where greater dating accuracy exists, articles should also be placed in the appropriate Establishments by year category. Given that that point was never opposed during the debate, you cannot claim that having by year categories prior to 1500 goes against the decision of that debate. However, as you have implied here - and I agree with this - having by decade categories is more sensible in these cases. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take 1313 as an example. Whilst I am arguing that Category:Settlements established in 1313 should be deleted, I am most certainly not arguing that Category:1313 establishments should be deleted. In the first case, I see no prospect of the category ever containing more than one or two articles. However, the more general 1313 establishments category has plenty of scope for growth as it can such things as churches/abbeys, religious societies, political unions, places (such as Xalapa), etc, etc. So the by-year categories I referred to as being perfectly acceptable prior to 1500 were the more general ones such as Category:1313 establishments (part of the Category:Establishments by year). In the case of Xalapa, this goes in the 1313 establishments and Settlements established in the 1310s categories. Greenshed 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - apologies. My mind had somehow smerged "Settlements established..." and "Establishments..." Merge into decades/centuries it is, then. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was 1500 chosen as a cutoff? We're supposed to avoid arbitrary inclusion criteria in our categories. Wryspy 03:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1500 in not an arbitary choice and its not an inclusion criteria. Prior to 1500, the number of settlements established per year that history has recorded falls to such a low level that we end up with cats containing only one or two articles on average and lots of gaps with years with no establishments. It might be something to do with the fact that "in 1492 Colombus sailed the ocean blue". Greenshed 12:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why isn't it 1492? Choosing a round number is arbitrary. Wryspy 05:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all settlements in the world were established by europeans in the Americas. In deciding when to switch from categorizing by year to categorizing by decade (as the minimum time period) we need to consider the number of settlements established per year that history has recorded. If the Category:Settlements established in the 1490s gets to the point where we could reasonbly break it out into ten categories (Category:Settlements established in 1490 to Category:Settlements established in 1499) then we can do this in future. Greenshed 08:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rationally selected round numbers are not "arbitrary". Craig.Scott 00:38, 19 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pakistan Youth Organisation(PYO) stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, malformed/misintended. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pakistan Youth Organisation(PYO) stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misformed; no contents; not discussed at WP:WPSS; not even really a category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's an attempt at an article in category space, but there's nothing worth salvaging. BencherliteTalk 23:48, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Flamboyant sports supporters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Bduke 10:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flamboyant sports supporters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Too subjective, and vague to boot (is it for people who are flamboyant, or people who support sports which are flamboyant??). Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:57, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:French company stubs:film studios[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, malformed/misintentioned. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French company stubs:film studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Another weirdly named and obviously misplaced item. Delete. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A misplaced article (of sorts). Oliver Han 01:05, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Dark epic fantasy/Science fiction novel[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. In the absence of any main article that might describe the category's scope, the two entries to be recatted under Category:Novels by Paul Edwin Zimmer. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dark epic fantasy/Science fiction novel to Category:Dark Border series
Nominator's rationale: Rename for accuracy & per naming conventions. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are you talking about? The category is not clearly named in any form. There is no Dark Border article to help the rest of us understand what the proposed rename even means. Wryspy 03:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm talking about the series of books which is described in all the articles linked to this category. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are only two articles, both in the same book series, the category name is quite bad, and the list article contained on it in place of a description was just wrong. 132.205.44.5 22:41, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sector General articles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sector General articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Sector General, to match Sector General. -- Prove It (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Skyteam Alliance[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Bduke 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skyteam Alliance to Category:SkyTeam
Nominator's rationale: Renaming proposed for consistency in the Category:Airline alliances that lists airline alliances by name except for Category:Skyteam Alliance that has the word alliance appended after the name. (The name Category:Star Alliance is correct since the name includes the word Alliance.) Also there is a typo; there shall be a capital T in SkyTeam. Correctemundo 21:17, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Human rights activists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problem. --TRFA 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see the POV problem (because the nom doesn't state any), plus it's the parent category of 17 regional sub-cats. Wl219 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "Human rights activists". --TRFA 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Defining human rights could cause trouble, depending what definition was used... 132.205.44.5 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might think that, but I don't see an WP:NPOV tag on the human rights article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the nominator means that "human rights" became emptied political cliche. Pavel Vozenilek 21:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Ben. You haven't come close to alleging what exactly the POV problem is. Human rights? Activists? I'm not doing the legwork for you. Wl219 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any POV problems are minor, and are outweighed by the usefulness of the category. Golfcam 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So only pro-terrorist/feminazi/pro-black organizations are 'human right' organization. --TRFA 11:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking what you say at face value, it sounds like your beef is with the articles being included in the category (or not being included) and not the category itself. Right? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the nominator's comments, I'm recommending speedy keep and close as a bad faith nom. Wl219 10:16, 18 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Estonian ministers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 15:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Estonian ministers to Category:Government ministers of Estonia
Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention and to avoid confusion with ministers of religion. Greg Grahame 20:11, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:And Now For Something Completely Different[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Bduke 11:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:And Now For Something Completely Different (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - a category for the film to hold articles for the sketches that were in it is overcategorization. A complete list of the sketches appears in the film article. Otto4711 19:18, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People who attended Troy High School (Michigan)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming Category:People who attended Troy High School (Michigan) to Category:Troy High School (Michigan) alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per convention of Category:People by high school in the United States. Or delete as non-defining along with probably most of the rest of the parent category. Otto4711 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a regular public high school; it's a non-defining characteristic and sets a bad precedent. I definitely think there are many others in the parent cat that should be deleted as well. A few of these schools may deserve an alumni category though such as the special academies. --musicpvm 23:24, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pointer Sisters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pointer Sisters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be an unnecessary eponymous musical group category. It only contains the group's albums, songs and band members, and as per WP:OCAT and many previous similar cfds recommend deletion. Dugwiki 17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization. The sole article not described above, Pinball Number Count is an improper performer by performance categorization. Absent that the remaining material fits the guideline and precedent for deletion established through a number of similar CFDs. Otto4711 18:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. --PEJL 04:08, 22 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Various neighbourhoods categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename "Foo neighborhoods" per nomination as cleanup only. There was no consensus as to whether it should be of or in, and almost no discussion at all regarding American English vs British English. Recommend a discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) to get a broader consensus for of or in, and possibly the AE/BE issue, and then a relisting of all neighborhood categories here. --Kbdank71 16:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally taken to speedy by User:Darwinek under the naming conventions criterion — but it was disputed by another user, so I'm bringing it here for debate and clarification.

The dispute was primarily on the grounds that "of" is correct English. A recent batch-nomination of Canadian neighbourhood categories went with the "Neighbourhoods in..." format, but I don't know if it was clearly determined that "in" was established as the convention for all such categories, or if people just went along with the cleanup aspect and didn't actually consider the "of/in" question. We do generally seem to go with "of" for larger divisions such as states or provinces, and with "in" for smaller settlements such as cities and towns, but either choice would fit in with at least some of our existing naming conventions. The larger issue, however, is that we can't let "of/in" become a matter of personal preference; we need to clearly establish that one or the other is the binding convention for all neighbo(u)rhood categories.

There was one other nomination, which was disputed for a different reason:

In this case, the dispute was that speedy isn't the place to take a switch between American and British English spellings.

So, here are the questions:

  1. Should the convention for neighbourhood categories be "Neighbourhoods of Foo" or "Neighbourhoods in Foo"?
  2. American "neighborhoods" or British "neighbourhoods" for countries such as Brazil, in which neither dialect of English actually dictates a local convention? Bearcat 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, convention of Category:Neighbourhoods by country, and discussion of August 3rd. We use in for cities and towns, and these are even smaller. Slight preference for using local spelling. -- Prove It (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The convention for countries should be different. The categories are for the subdivisions of each city in each country. Therefore it makes sense to use "in" for the country categories and "of" for the city categories. That is what flows from natural usage. Greg Grahame 20:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. For consistency. As for Brazil, if you look closer at various categories, you will see that American English form is used only for countries which use it for sure. All other countries use standard form. - Darwinek 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Also agree with Darwinek's rationale for the Brazilian category. British English appears to be the de facto standard for such nations outside the American sphere, so should be renamed for consistency. Resolute 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Of" is well established for all types of subsections of cities, ie those that are called "district" or "area" or anything else, not only those that are called "Neighbourhood". Use of across the board. Greg Grahame 20:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favour "Neighbourhoods of". The nominator's rationale in the previous discussion misrepresented existing conventions, and in the rush of enthusiasm for consistency no-one seems to have noticed this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) states that the "of" form is used for administrative subdivisions. Neighbourhoods may not always be legal subdivisions, but a neighbourhood is far more like a subdivision than it is like a settlement, which I take to mean a distinct place, isolated from other places. Manchester is a settlement, Ardwick is a subdivision. Oliver Han 00:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per my original objection to the speedy renaming. It doesn't make sense to choose a form that almost no-one chose when the categories of this sort were created in the first place. Their choices tell us something about what the convention should be, and it shouldn't be this. Brandon97 02:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In my experience neighborhoods aren't official or legal entities, at least not in the U.S, so I was counting them as settlements, like cities, towns, and villages. It's true that subdivisions are always of, but neighborhoods don't seem like subdivisions to me. A related issue came up before, and the consensus went against me. I don't care all that strongly but I would like them all to be consistent, which means that if we decide that neighborhoods are subdivisions and not settlements, then the decision of August 3rd should be revisited. -- Prove It (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that in Category:Neighborhoods of Niteroi as well as in the suggested category name Category:Neighbourhoods in Niteroi the place's name is misspelled. The correct name of the city is Niterói, instead of Niteroi. --Carioca 20:39, 19 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Divorced wives of future Roman emperors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Divorced wives of future Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization as both a small category with no potential for growth and a narrow intersection. Otto4711 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization. It amazes me sometimes what some people consider encyclopedic. Bearcat 17:24, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Wives[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wives of Brigham Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wives of both Joseph Smith, Jr and Brigham Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete all - small categories with no potential for growth. Can easily be listified in the articles for the two men with a note of which were married to both. Otto4711 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no prior CFDs linked at the talk pages of any of these categories. Do you have a link to the last discussion? Otto4711 23:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all : with the recent decision to merge a bunch of stub articles about Smith and Young's wives into the articles about Smith and/or Young, the categories retain little use that they had at one time. Is probably more amenable to lists. –SESmith 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per SESmith. >Radiant< 09:06, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - seems unnecessary to group these people and places under this heading. As people significant in the history of the church all of the people are appropriately otherwise interlinked and categorized and the articles on the death itself and the succession crisis can be placed handily in a Mormon history category. Otto4711 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for a cat to group the article's links. - Nabla 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, people or events related to this will/should be linked from the article and there is no need for an category which reproduces those links.Shsilver 02:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jeepers. We can't slap together categories for every event in history. Wryspy 06:39, 17 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Denialism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus bordering on keep, so keep. Bduke 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were 15 users explicitly in favor of keeping this category, with 8 users explicitly in favor of deleting this category, which represents a nearly 2-1 weight of opinion in favor of keeping this category. ... 15:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Denialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This was originally deleted at a CfD overturned by DRV for the simplest of reasons: failure to tag the category as a CfD, providing adequate notice. I realize these debates on depopulated categories are a bit odd. Arguments for retention and deletion may be found at the DRV. Xoloz 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not see intelligent design in this category, and if it were in this category, it should be removed from the category. As with any category, any arguments about what belongs in the cat should be made on a case-by-case, article-by-article basis. ... Kenosis 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still undecided on keep/delete, but contents of a category do not decide POV. By that argument, the Time magazine Persons of the Year category is bad since it links Adolf_Hitler and George W. Bush. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see your point. Anyway, the problem with his category is that the grounds for inclusion are so subjective as to be practically meaningless. Most wikipedians would probably categorize young earth creationism and intelligent design as denialism. But what about theistic evolution? Holocaust denial is currently indluded, but what about this or this?
Comment: Yes, some articles might be quite problematic, although that perhaps reflects POV problems in those articles themselves. I'd really like to see some comments from the 'keep' side. I do think if the category is kept, some guidelines should be created for inclusion into the category. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Benhocking, I guess I really like your example. But I won't go there, and just laugh heartily inside. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inherent POV problems. Iceage77 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inherent POV problems. rossnixon 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective category. Any inclusion criteria would be arbitrary. Wryspy 03:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Necessary category. Notable, oft-used term and concept, no shortage of sources to avoid OR/NPOV issues. I and a number of other admins will be watching for any more shenanigans around deleting this cat, such as bogus use of the WP:ATA essay to discount valid comments, in this CFD. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and a challenge To the gainsayers of this category achieving NPOV: In December 2006 the arbititration committee ruled on the handling of the topic of Pseudoscience, including its' categorization. Their ruling stated that "Obvious pseudoscience... theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, ... may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." while theories "generally considered pseudoscience, theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Please explain to the community how the same principles reached in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience for Category:Pseudoscience do not apply to Category:Denialism. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you make a strong argument with your Pseudoscience example. I would appreciate hearing from any supporting delete, why they think this category is different from Pseudoscience with respect to POV problems. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question of whether or not something is pseudoscience is based on mainstream scientific consensus. This is somewhat subjective, but common sense rules apply: cold fusion is heavily debatable while astrology is not. The question of whether or not something is denialism is based on a good faith/bad faith distinction. The determination of 'bad faith' is entirely subjective. Climate change denial is a well-documented Exxon misinformation campaign; holocaust denial can only be motivated by bigotry. However, most scientists strongly disagree with theistic evolution; many suspect the motives of those who so blatantly violate Occam's razor. Even genocide denial, the bright red target on the dartboard of denialism has outlines of fuzziness. What about left-wing extremists perpetuating the myth of the Jenin 'massacre' or denying the murder of Bosnian civillians? Revolutionaryluddite 17:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you make some good points about the good faith/bad faith issue. I suppose Intelligent Design seems like an excellent edge case example to me. Clearly (to me, at least), some people are motivated by bad faith in an effort to pass off Creationism as ID. However, it's not clear to me that Michael Behe is part of such a campaign (although he is no doubt a pawn in the game). Creationism itself is another problematic case. Does it meet the criteria? I honestly couldn't tell you until I saw a good list of what the criteria were. Some of these problems definitely arise from POV issues in the articles themselves (or even in my imagination). However, the good faith/bad faith distinction that seems to be implied by some proponents needs to be excluded. However, according to the Wikipedia article on Denialism, its definition is as follows:

Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence, and who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly.

Each of those points are no more problematic than the pseudoscience example. The most difficult portion is "who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly". Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Denialism#Introduction says:

Denialism is a form of propaganda, and covers a spectrum of activities from simply like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent to elaborate and professional grey or black propaganda campaigns that incorporate legitimate advertising and marketing agencies using false flag tactics.

Denialism#Ideological_denialism says:

Ideologies that conflict with commonly accepted scientific theories or facts can drive their holders to engage in personal forms of denial to favor personal beliefs or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with evidence that contradicts them.

Denialism#Corporate_denialism says:

Denialism can arise from personal ideologies, corporations seeking greater profits or to safeguard profits, industry groups seeking to protect markets from damaging facts and information, political groups seeking to further agendas, or combinations of these working in concert as interest groups on issues of mutual interest.

While the article doesn't explicitly say that a good faith/bad faith distinction exists, it seems to imply something like that. Revolutionaryluddite 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-definitions do seem to suffer from POV problems as far as applying those to specific instances. For Ideological denialism, the troublesome portion is "to favor personal beliefs or to avoid having to reconcile those beliefs with evidence that contradicts them". Motivations such as these seem somewhat subjective. Similarly, with Corporate denialism, once motivation is attributed, it becomes more problematic. Note that motivation is not part of the definition of Pseudoscience. I suppose this could be addressed by reliable sources, but this does indicate a distinction from Pseudoscience. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My essential point is that the determination of pseudoscience, using the article's definitions, is partially subjective while the determination of denialism, using the article's definitions, is fundamentally subjective. Revolutionaryluddite 19:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? Exactly how would the determination of pseudoscience, using the article's definitions, be any different from the determination of denialism, using the article's definitions, considering both definitions must hinge on the sources? I think you're stretching here. Odd nature 19:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would answer you question if I understood what you're asking. Revolutionaryluddite 19:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's your criteria (pseudoscienc definition v. denialism defintion). You tell me. You claim the former is objective while the latter is subjective. I'm asking you to tell us why, because I simply don't see it given both must rest on verifiability and reliable sources. If you can't, just say so and we'll be done here. Odd nature 19:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Denialism (or if one prefers, "denial") of significant historical events or significant verifiable facts, is a legitimate category which has in common some motive, or set of motives, that creates bias w.r.t. empirical or objective historical inquiry conducted by separate, independent, objective researchers, and to the reporting of clearly established objective results of such inquiry. Each article placed in the category must pass muster as to WP:Reliable sources, WP:notability, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#undue_weight, etc.. Of course there will be disagreements, just as there are, for example, with Category:Pseudoscience and a few others. But there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms"; the category is self-limiting by the basic WP policies. Entries seen as inappropriate should be argued as such on a case-by-case basis, and if deemed to be inappropriate, removed on an article-by-article basis. ... Kenosis 04:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "But there ought be little danger of an endless collection of "denialisms""-- Why? "Of course there will be disagreements, just as there are, for example, with Category:Pseudoscience"-- In this case, with the issue being whether or not climate change denial can be compared to intelligent design and both compared to holocaust denial, the disagreements will probably be at a different emotional level. Revolutionaryluddite 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is a notable descriptor which is widely used. I don't think there's much for me to add - FM and Kenosis have hit the nail on the head. Guettarda 05:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per FM and Kenosis. Denial in the face of evidence is an important and unfortunately common, social phenomenon. ornis (t) 08:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Denial' does not mean 'disagreement'. American Heritage Dictionary defines 'denial' as "A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction" or "A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief". Revolutionaryluddite 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is quite necessary as denialism seems to be a way of life for some folks who simply cannot face reality. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The point of a category is not to brand a subject, but to make it easier to find. For every single article that might be placed in this category, there are presumably a significant number of people who deny evidence of something, like AIDS, or the holocaust, or the Armenian genocide, or whatever. This minority will object to being called denialists, since they think they are in the right, and it is the other side that is in denial. However, all this category does is help someone who is searching Wikipedia to find similar controversial issues. It does not make a judgement as to which side of a given controversy is correct, although it will usually be placed on an article which deals with the views of a minority. For example, the vast majority of scientists believe that HIV causes AIDS. And so an article on alternative AIDS theories might be placed in this category. The vast majority of experts believe that UFOs are not extraterrestrial craft. So some articles about UFOs might be placed in this category. Issues like global warming which are still in dispute scientifically might not get placed in the category, although this is a matter to debate. Some global warming articles might get placed in this category if it makes them easier to find. This category is useful, just like the "pseudoscience" category, because it helps people on Wikipedia to find things. It belongs here just as much as "controversy" and "pseduoscience" categories. Let's not remove useful categories to try to avoid offending those in the minority who might feel aggrieved, when it is not a judgement on the truth of the minority position, just a recognition that the majority of some group of experts associated with the subject feels the minority are in denial.--Filll 13:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The point of a category is not to brand a subject". Indeed, and the existence of a denialism category will do just that. 'Denial' means 'A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction' or 'A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief'. "It does not make a judgement as to which side of a given controversy is correct"- no, the description of something as denialism implies directly that believers in that something are wrong and that they have ulterior motives for their position. "Let's not remove useful categories to try to avoid offending those in the minority who might feel aggrieved"- I used to believe in Intelligent Design, and I changed my mind a few years ago. I do not feel "aggrieved" in any sense whatsoever by the editiorial consensus that Intelligent Design is denialism like holocaust denial, I just don't think that correlation belongs in an encyclopedia. Revolutionaryluddite 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The correlation you fear is only one of sharing a method, and if it's verifiable through reliable sources, then it indeed does belong in an encyclopedia. How about addressing FM's challenge and telling us how the arbcomm's ruling and method governing the categorization of pseudoscience articles does not apply to the categorization of denialism articles. Odd nature 18:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my statements under 'Comment and a challenge'. Also, the correlation-- if made-- would be based of similarity of ideology-- that is, the rejection of overwhelming scientific consensus based on partial motives-- as well as methods. Revolutionaryluddite 19:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not very compelling that. I'm sorry, but you've got a long way to go before you'll convince me with that line of thinking, such as it is. That, and your edits Talk:Climate change denial and related Global Warming articles appear to be promoting the global warming denialist view. Hmmm. Odd nature 19:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please click on my name. I treat humanity's moral responsibilty twoard our earth differently than other environmentalists because I'm on a mission from God. Revolutionaryluddite 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. One of the least fun parts of this project is the wars carried on by certain editors even when consensus is reached to undo the original and unfair deletion. This category gives readers, who might be investigating the area (like what are similar articles to Holocaust denial). I consider Intelligent design to be just as bad, but we could form a consensus as to what to include or not. This is an important category and should be kept, per my own rationale, and per FM, Guettarda Kenosis, and others.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "just as bad" is a bad argument as far as what to include. It doesn't matter whether the denialism is "just as bad" or not — just if it is present. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Important category for locating all the diverse topics that can verifiably shown to be connected to denialism. Sources can and should be provided for each in their respective articles per the RFAR/Pseudoscience categorization criteria FM points to above. Have yet to see a single valid, compelling argument made here why NPOV requirements cannot be met by this category. Odd nature 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Kenosis and FM make good points. I also note that these are often related subjects in more direct ways. For example, Jonathan Wells and Phillip E. Johnson both are involved with intelligent design(which we have sourced as being linked to evolution-denial) and denial of the HIV/AIDS link. Similarly, William Dembski who is connected to intelligent design/evolution-denial denies global warming and the hub of the ID movement the Discovery Institute has also been involved with global warming denial. So many of these movements are interlinked, not only conceptually but also in practice. JoshuaZ 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'Global warming denial' does not mean mere disagreement with the IPCC, as stated by the article. Theistic evolution equally 'denies' the current majority scientific view of materialistic evolution represented by Richard Dawkins. Revolutionaryluddite 18:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I don't think your above comment indicates a very good understanding of the matter at hand. Metaphysical naturalism is not a synonym for "materialistic evolution" and in any event the fact that many scientists are metaphysical naturalists is not a scientific matter but a philosophical matter. Most scientists who are in such categories would likely agree with that. There are other problems with the above comment but this entire matter is somewhat off topic since your comment appears to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. JoshuaZ 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I know that CfD means 'criteria for deletion', but what does XfD mean? Revolutionaryluddite 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to "Twinkle" it means "anything for deletion", be it a category, an image, or an article. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CfD refers to "Wikipedia:Categories for discussion", in which are considered various possible options such as "keep", "delete", "move", "merge to", "merge from", etc. WP:XfD refers to deletion debates in general. ... Kenosis 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Denialist tactics are a fairly well-studied and well-defined topic, so classification can indeed be done objectively. Adam Cuerden talk 18:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question If inclusion is based on tacticts, than what would be included and what would be excluded. What do you think about global warming denial, et cetera? Revolutionaryluddite 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What is (or would be) the criteria for inclusion in the category? Revolutionaryluddite 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just like any other controversial category: verifiablity and reliable sources. That, and an application of the arbcomm's pseudoscience categorization criteria FM and others mention. Odd nature 19:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Digging into that question - what exactly do they have to verify? I.e., do they simply need to use the word "denier", "denial", or "denialism"? Or, do they actually have to demonstrate not only method but motive as outlined in the Denialism article? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 19:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Principles being what they are, the same principles from the arbcomm ruling are going to apply. Meaning you can simply transpose denialism for pseudoscience: "Obvious denialism... claims which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, ... may be so labeled and categorized as such without more." while claims "generally considered denialism, claims which have a following, such as HIV/AIDS dissent, but which are generally discounted by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as denialism." Odd nature 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that practically every theory or belief "which are generally discounted by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as denialism"? What about steady state theory? The theory that solar forcing is the cause of current global warming? BioLogos? Belief that the dangers of secondhand smoke are overrated? Superstring theory? Do you see what I mean? How exactly would 'method' or 'motive' be defined? Revolutionaryluddite 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use some common sense man. Read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles. Denialism is no different. Odd nature 20:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to use my common sense, and I have to admit that the articles that Revolutionaryluddite mentions are difficult to classify. Is it obvious to you which of those are denialism and which are not? It's not clear to me at all. I'd say that steady state theory is discredited. As there aren't notable people (that I'm aware of) who still support it, it's not denialism. The theory that solar forcing is the cause of current global warming? That's harder, as it goes to the motive question. BioLogos? Not sure, but my instinct is to say it's not denialism. Perhaps it's because I'm slightly more sympathetic to it (even if I completely disagree with it). Secondhand smoke? I'd say denialism. Superstring theory. Not denialism (but not necessarily a theory, either). Again, are you sure they're obvious enough to simply use "common sense"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use the source, Luke. Again, read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Principles it all comes down to sources. This well-established, arbcomm precendent folks. Odd nature 21:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be my guide, Obi-Wan? Using your well-tuned Jedi instincts, which of those items that Revolutionaryluddite mentions belong in this category? If that's too much, do you agree or disagree with my somewhat detailed assessment? Or, are you saying that you have no idea and would have to look for sources? If so, do the sources specifically have to use the exact word "denialism"? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 21:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that we have no idea and would have to look for sources and carefully consider each on a case-by-case and article-by-article basis, just as Kenosis mentions above and the arbcomm ruling dictates. Notable, reliable sources that use the exact word "denialism" be given far greater weight in being evaluated than those that don't. Those which imply denialism but do not state it explicitely are not suitable as sources, nor are clearly partisan sources. Odd nature 22:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using that guideline, I find that 3 of the articles currently in the category don't seem to belong: Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Critical Analysis of Evolution, and Flat Earth Society. Three others might belong because of association: Historical revisionism (negationism), Politicization of science, and Teach the Controversy. Keep in mind, there are only 10 items in the category currently, and 1 of them is Denialism. Would you agree with this assessment of the articles as they are currently sourced? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd nature, you've stated that "It's your criteria (pseudoscienc definition v. denialism defintion). You tell me. You claim the former is objective while the latter is subjective." Note that Pseudoscience says "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method" and "The term has negative connotations, because it is used to indicate that subjects so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science" and "As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method." Cold Fusion (which I used to be a believer in, along with Intelligent Design) fits given that it meets the factual definition easily. The orignal experiment(s) offering some evidence of fusion could not be conclusively replicated. Denialism says "Denialism is a form of propaganda, and covers a spectrum of activities from simply like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent to elaborate and professional grey or black propaganda campaigns that incorporate legitimate advertising and marketing agencies using false flag tactics." Classifying something as 'Denialism' is not based on factual vertification or gauging whether or not there is a scientific consensus on a specific issue. Classifying something as 'Denialism' is based on the motives and tactics of those accused of being 'deniers'. I'm not saying that the pseudoscienc definition objective while the denialism defintion is subjective. I'm saying that the former is partially subjective while the latter is primarily subjective. Revolutionaryluddite 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion experiments most definitely followed the scientific method, even if the studies had flaws. I had a professor who went into depth about it (and its many errors) in a nuclear physics class. He mentioned its merits and its flaws. Its flaws did not include it being unscientific. This is a huge difference between cold fusion (which is still being researched by a handful of serious, respectable scientists, by the way) and intelligent design, just to be clear on that. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pons/Fleischmann cold fusion experiments most definitely followed the scientific method, even if the studies had flaws." Right. The contraversy comes into play regarding vertifibilty, but Cold fusion is not nearly on the same page as, say, the Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. While intelligent design is certainly unscientific, the line between it and theistic evolution is blurry enough (actually, I don't think there is a line) that's a bit of a hard-sell to call it denialism. Would Dr.Francis Collins be a 'denier'? Revolutionaryluddite 00:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I tried to explain before, theistic evolution is completely unrelated. Furthermore, the line between ID and TE is not blurry at all. See the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, or see William Dembski's comment that (slight paraphrase) "ID is no friend of theistic evolution". TE makes no claim about science other than to accept standard science and to have a consistent theological belief. This is in sharp contrast to ID which claims that their is something deeply wrong with Evolution(indeed, many if not most ID proponents do not accept common descent while everyone who is TE accepts it). In general, it would help if you commented about subjects you had some understanding of. JoshuaZ 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point in bringing up the ID/TE relationship was not to argue that they are similar, but that they are related. Compare, say, Christian socialism to democratic socialism. I'm talking about 'motives'. Having personally gone from ID to TE, I recognize that the motives of the 'believers' in both are somewhat close (in their minds, both think they're being altruistic) while their 'methods' are almost antitheical. Still, both do not have a lot of adherents in the academic world. Most ID believers disbelieve in common descent, but Michael Behe does. Some TE believers accept both common descent and the genesis accounts (Adam and Eve had children that had children themselves, but incest did not occur. Where did the extra humans come from?). Given that, the labeling of ID as 'denialism' is problematic. Revolutionaryluddite 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sources exist for Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations, Critical Analysis of Evolution, and Flat Earth Society, it's simply a matter of adding them to their articles. That there remains work yet to be done is hardly a sound justification for deletion according to the sorry WP:ATA essay. Odd nature 23:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear — I was not advocating deletion. I was merely pointing out that when I tried to "use the force", those articles came up short. On the other hand, it's not that hard to add them back after finding the sources. (I.e., we're not talking about losing significant writing here.) In case you haven't realized it, I'm not one to follow the "be bold" guideline rashly. I would rather try to reach consensus first. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 00:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What 'Be Bold' guideline are you talking about? (I'm new. Please resist the urge to choke my neck with your mind.) Revolutionaryluddite 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD I'm also relatively new, so I'll forgive your ignorance if you forgive mine. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Revolutionaryluddite 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. "Denialism" is a poorly defined neologistic concept that is more often used as a pejorative to ridicule certain positions, than it is to classify things which objectively share similar traits. Our own article on the topic variously lumps together Holocaust denial, climate change denial, AIDS reappraisal, creationism advocacy, moon landing "hoax" theories and other conspiracy theories as examples. So, it appears willing to group crackpot theories, traditional reglious teachings, and the worse forms of hateful bigotry. As our article says, denialism carries the negative connotation that "the person or group concerned is denying evident truths". It's a strongly POV term, and unlike psuedoscience lacks clear standards for measurement. As a neologism, neither dictionary.com nor the OED even have a definition of denialism. Consequently, without an objective standard of determination I consider there to be no such thing as "obvious denialism". To use the term at all requires a subjective judgment that I feel is impossible to divorce for the POV issues it presents, and in some cases comes too close to libel for my tastes. Poorly defined neologisms with strong POV issues are not suitable as categories. Dragons flight 20:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ""Denialism" is a poorly defined neologistic concept that is more often used as a pejorative to ridicule certain positions, than it is to classify things which objectively share similar traits." That's personal opinion. There are reliable sources which say otherwise. Policy requires we follow sources, not opinion. Odd nature 20:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You got a dictionary that even defines it? I couldn't find one. We are expected to make judgments about what is appropriate content under WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. I judge this is not. Dragons flight 20:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since when was inclusion in a dictionary a standard for inclusion in the Wikipedia? Please point me to that policy. Neither specified complexity nor irreducible complexity are included in any of the notable dictionaries. That doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover them, both being discrete concepts, heavily used in their field. Yours is a singularly bad argument. Odd nature 20:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both those articles provide clear definitions specifically attributed to the coiners of those terms, and so they have a definite specificity that in my opinion "denialism" lacks. If not a dictionary, show some other place that a well agreed upon definition for the term exists. It is my experience that "denialism" is used in a haphazard and often pejorative way that makes it wholly unsuitable for use as a category. Dragons flight 21:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since when is having a definition attributed to a single coiner of a term a requirement? How many topics here do not? The mind boggles. Denial is well defined at its article. How the category is applied is the same way the arbcomm calls for Pseudoscience to be dealt with. Odd nature 21:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dragonsbreath's argument seems to be that it's a neologism. So what. Every word in every language was at one time a neologism. Get over it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • A) Please get my name right, and B) No it is more than that. This neologism is poorly defined, and because it is poorly defined it is impractical as a category. This is especially true because of the strongly negative POV the term carries. Dragons flight 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the cat from Teach the Controversy, Flat Earth Society, Critical Analysis of Evolution because it was unsourced and in each case could be regarded as potentially libelous attack on a specific group of people. I also removed it from Politicization of science because it was unsourced and I consider "politicization" of science to be different from "denialism". Dragons flight 22:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't depopulate the cat until this debate is closed one way or another, it makes it harder for those reviewing the discussion to asses the merits of the category. ornis (t) 00:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider calling something "denialism" comparable in perjorative impact to terms like "racist" and "criminal". In such circumstances, avoiding libel is a more important concern. Dragons flight 00:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nonsense. Clearly the seriousness of calling something denialism scales with the seriousness of the matter being denied. ornis (t) 00:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And this is the fundemental problem. We disagree on what "denialism" means. I consider a very serious association in all cases. Dragons flight 00:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine, I won't remove it further right now, but if the association continues to be unsourced I will remove them again later. Asserting "denialism" is a very strong negative POV claim that must be sourced (if this survives CFD). Dragons flight 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Are these votes are merely symbolic? Will the actual delete/keep decision be made by Wikipedia administrators? Revolutionaryluddite 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Denialism is not a sufficiently concrete concept with a uniform meaning to support an objective standard for inclusion or exclusion. If science shows that the wine is chemically still wine and not blood after trans-substantiation has occurred during a Roman Catholic Mass, is the Roman Catholic Church and each and every one of its adherents a "denialist". POV to the xxxtreme. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perfect example (it reminds me of Dane Cook's routines)! Revolutionaryluddite 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Sex Games of the Married' cartoon on page 3 was a nice touch. Anyway, at issue is not whether or not denialism exists in an abstract sense, but whether or not it is practically possible to create a specific critera for labeling things as 'denialism'. I don't think so, which is why I voted no. Revolutionaryluddite 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd nature, please read climate change denial and Talk:Climate change denial. Revolutionaryluddite 01:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern and dedication to NPOV is touching but belied by your support of denialism views elsewhere. For the record since you don't seem to get it: We do not need to "create a specific critera for labeling things as 'denialism'" as you insist. One already exists. It's called WP:SIMPLE and you're simply in denial. A denialism denialist. Odd nature 01:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is no reason to "create a specific critera for labeling things as 'denialism'". However, in practical terms, there needs to be some kind of general idea as to what qualifys as 'denialism' and what does not. I see your point that we need not determine an exact sentance saying "Inclusion in Category: Denialism is based on _, _, and _ while _ and _is irrelevant". My point is that, as I saidwrotetyped earlier: "...the problem with his category is that the grounds for inclusion are so subjective as to be practically meaningless. Revolutionaryluddite 02:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked on your name, Odd nature. Please click on mine. If you're interested in my personal views, feel free to comment on my talk page. Revolutionaryluddite 02:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a help page for 'How deletions work' or something like that? Revolutionaryluddite 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is one of the silliest debates and discussions I have seen on here. Denialism is a perfectly good word, although a fairly new word in English. Therefore, it does not appear in many dictionaries yet, but it soon will I am sure. It is widely used in the media. Just because a category exists does not mean your pet topic will go in it. whether it is creationism or intelligent design or homeopathy or psychic surgery or whatever. Not all denialists are negative. They are not even necessariliy wrong. I think of the transhumanists for example. It is useful for groups that are widely known as being in denial of the widely-accepted factual evidence, such as AIDS denialists, or Holocaust denialists (who used to be called Holocaust deniers, so that term might fall into disfavor I suspect). Since this is so contentious, I think it needs to be fully explored. I cannot even read the material above it is such a mess, frankly.--Filll 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is calling someone a "'denialist' like a 'holocaust denier'" not pejorative? I know insults are subjective-- I wouldn't mind 'bible-thumper' or 'papist' or even 'George Bush's secret army'-- but I have never seen/heard the term 'denialist' used in a way that did not convey strong personal hatred by the speaker. Revolutionaryluddite 01:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'George Bush's secret army' refers to [1]. Revolutionaryluddite 01:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that Newsweek has "strong hatred"? JoshuaZ 01:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not specifically. Note that the Newsweek page states that "Newsweek tends to approach issues from a liberal/progressive standpoint." The Newsweek article, although factually accurate, is shrill and intense in its wording-- as a rebuttal article, also in Newsweek, mentioned. [2] I admit; I do have some feelings of negative energy twoards Newsweek as a former homeschooler (it's not very Christian of me). Revolutionaryluddite 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; this is way off topic. My earlier point was that the term 'denier' or 'denialist' is solely negative-- as the Newsweek article notes: "they hate being called 'deniers'".Revolutionaryluddite 02:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well your point is incorrect. You clearly have not spent time talking at length to a Holocaust denier/denialist. They are proud of denying it and see no shame in it. It is only your own bias and subjectivity that makes you think it is negative in any particular instance. As I said, there are those (transhumanists) who think they will live on forever in machinery when their bodies are dead. They might be right even. They are denying the reality of impending death that all humans have faced throughout history. Is that negative? I don't know, but they are in denial for sure. There are attractive girls who are in denial about their looks. Is that negative? There are plenty of AIDS denialists who are proud to deny what they see as a flawed theory of HIV causing AIDS. To them, it is not negative. Lots of examples. This is just plain silly. And the visciousness and lack of rationality of much of this discussion is breathtaking.--Filll 02:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not "spent time talking at length to a Holocaust denier/denialist", thank goodness, but I have communicated online with left-wing exteremists who refer to 'judeofascists' supporting 'NazIsreal' and its 'holocaust of bombs'. They do not like 'denier' or 'denialist'. I'm the first to admit that I'm somewhat quite biased, see my user page, as a consistent life ethicist with a ridiculously naively optimistic view of human beings and the environment. But this is beside the point. The phrase 'in denial' does not mean the same think as 'being a denialist'. Some transhumanists may be 'in denial' about their deaths as well as being "in denial" or "an utter bloody washout" at their ability to fly [3]. That does not make them 'denialists' under the definition(s) at Denialism:

"Denialism is a form of propaganda, and covers a spectrum of activities from simply like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent to elaborate and professional grey or black propaganda campaigns that incorporate legitimate advertising and marketing agencies using false flag tactics."

To be included in Category: Denialism means that the ideology/belief/theory in question must be contradicted by mainstream scientific or historical consensus to such a degree that the motives of those advocating it are questionable. Climate change denial is about a well-documented corporate misinfromation regarding global climate change. But what about Intelligent design? What about the rare earth hypothesis? What about BioLogos? What about those who believe that the element Chlorine is so harmful to humanity to be banned? The criteria for inclusion is too subjective. Revolutionaryluddite 03:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep:This category is not POV under WP:UNDUE, as long as there is clear (WP:RS & WP:V) evidence that the viewpoints in this category go against a strong scientific or historical consensus. Hrafn42 02:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see your point, and I (almost) agree. The problem is that, according to the article denialism, the term 'denialism' does not apply to viewpoints that are just 'out of consensus' so to speak. The term 'Denialism' implies that the viewpoint is firmly set against mainstream academic consensus to the degree that its advocates are acting out of bad faith. Also problematic is the fact that very many popular beliefs are in disagreement with the scientific community-- cold fusion, theistic evolution, climate change skepticism, et cetera-- and that 'denialist' is a strongly negative neologism to label a person with. Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I stated before: "Even genocide denial, the bright red target on the dartboard of denialism, has outlines of fuzziness. What about left-wing extremists perpetuating the myth of the Jenin 'massacre' or denying the murder of Bosnian civillians?" Revolutionaryluddite 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim that the Battle of Jenin was "genocide". Do you have a reliable source indicating that this claim is being made (let alone is a historical consensus)? And it is widely considered that large-scale ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide (your irrelevant link to Noam Chomsky notwithstanding. Hrafn42 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't actually looked at the Battle of Jenin article-- I assumed that the article contained some of the remarks made by media figures at around the end of the battle in which the Israel Defense Forces were accused of perpetuating "massacres" and "acts of genocide". When you ASSuMe... Also, I mentioned Noam Chomsky given that he is a participant in the Bosnian_genocide#Controversy. I think that it falls in the 'fuzziness' category given that the 'bosnia deniers' have been more successful than the 'holcaust deniers'. Having been best friends with an near victim of this genocide, I am extrodinarily biased. Revolutionaryluddite 05:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Noam Chomsky article makes no mention of the Bosnia, the Bosnian_genocide article makes no mention of Chomsky, and "bosnia deniers" aren't in Category:Denialism, making your entire argument entirely irrelevant. Hrafn42 06:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an argument for carefully policing inclusion in this category (anything with fuzziness should be out), not for the category's deletion. There is a clear difference between putting forward arguments as part of the consensus-forming process, and putting forward discredited or spurious arguments well after a consensus has formed, firmed and solidifed. Incidentally, theistic evolution does not contradict the consensus of the scientific community, it merely adds a theological viewpoint to that consensus-view. Cold fusion is neither pseudoscience nor denialism, but rather an as yet unverified, but unrefuted, possibility. Climate change denial, goes against a strengthening scientific consensus on climate change, and so has crossed over the line into denialism. Hrafn42 03:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A scientist in disagreement with the climate consensus is not necessarily a 'climate change denier' as the article defines it. As you have pointed out, my arguement is not that 'denialism' does not exist. Nor do I think that the creation of this category will put holocaust denier next to theistic evolution. My point is that the determination of what is or is not 'denialism' is so inherently subjective that policing the category will be so difficult as to be practically impossible (or at least very, very difficult). Revolutionaryluddite 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOBODY is putting "holocaust denier next to theistic evolution." Please stop making such unfounded accusations. Hrafn42 06:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what he said again. I think you took him to be saying the exact opposite of what he was actually saying: "Nor do I think that the creation of this category will put holocaust denier next to theistic evolution". In other words, he is saying that he's not claiming what you seem to think that he is claiming. I imagine that he and I would disagree on the majority of controversial issues around here, but I appreciate that he is being reasonable and civil. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 12:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I agreed with all the initial reasons for delete. On second thought, as much as I dislike procedural-error overturns/relist, I guess there was no choice but to do that here. Initial AfD probably had more of a neutral sample size though. Bulldog123 05:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does AfD stand for? Revolutionaryluddite 05:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to ask me questions on my talk page, and stop lengthening this alreay long debate. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant CfD - categories for deletion. Bulldog123 18:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the original CfD (which most people didn't know existed) had a smaller sample size, which would typically make it less neutral not more, right? Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hrafn42, et al. The "deletes" all seem to be using the same argument - that it is a pejorative term. We have articles with "denial" in the name; as shown by newslinks in this debate there is ample sourcing for the actuality and for the term. "pejorative" is questionable: we have the categories Category:Criminals, which includes Category:Mass murderers, and such categories as Category:Holocaust perpetrators, etc., which are surely far more "pejorative" in that they describe something which the majority find not only something with which they would not agree, but something which the majority find reprehensible. Yet we would be remiss if we did not have these categories. Does Category:Racism also fit the "pejorative" descriptor? Should we delete it because it is potentially pejorative? I submit that well sourced denialism is less "pejorative" than well sourced racism, although of course there may be some ethnic cleansers who would disagree with me. "I Don't Like It" has never been a reason for deletion, nor should it be now. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other argument being made by those advocating delete is that it ill-defined. I'm not advocating delete (or keep), but I agree that there are some issues involving its definition. Is it simply enough that items meet the definition of denialism as given in the article, or do references actually need to be found that use the word denialism? If we say that they only need to meet the definition, then does one source need to be found that demonstrates all criteria are being met, or are we allowed to synthesize from multiple sources? (To be fair, this probably won't be a problem, as those that meet the motive criteria will no doubt clearly meet the other criteria.) Also, if we say that they only need to meet the definition, then don't all versions the definition itself need to be sourced? Personally, I'd like to see an exact quote of the definition from somewhere since it is a neologism. (I've got nothing against neologisms, except that I think they have higher standards of verifiability.) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you present a counterexample -- an example that is clearly well within (not merely borderline on) the article's definition of "denialism", for which a strong argument can be made that it is not in fact "denialism"? Hrafn42 13:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No — I have no problem with the definition per se, just that a verifiable source of it would be good. By my reckoning, anything that is clearly well within the article's definition of denialism, could never have an argument made that it was not 'denialism'. However, an argument could be made, I suppose, that it does not (yet) have a verifiable source for it (e.g., Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations). Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now — I think there are some valid concerns raised by the delete camp, but the only problems that I see with the category are that it has some definitional problems. These are not major and can hopefully be cleared up with time and verifiable references, as long as the entire community assumes good faith. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 14:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure I should even make this overly long page longer, but I think I perceive some lacuna in our understandings here and in the logical chains of inferences people are making.

Definition of Denialism: It depends on how one defines denialism. If we define it very narrowly, we will only end up with 1 or 2 topics in the category of denialism, which clearly is wrong given the similarities of human behavior in those one or two areas with those in other subjects.


I believe we should do what dictionaries do when they define a word: we look at prominent sources like the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, the London Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Academic journals, scholarly writing, popular novels, etc to see how the word is used. For a new word, this determines its meaning, until a family of dictionary editors codifies this set of meanings as a family of different definitions that are published in dictionaries. Since we are not yet at the dictionary publication stage, but at the earlier pre- dictionary publication stage, we have to do more of the hard work ourselves. That is all.


Discussion of the word "Denialism": It is clearly a common word, in common usage, at least in some subject areas. One rarely hears the word "AIDS denier" although that is essentially what an "AIDS denialist" is (parenthetically noting that in fact an AIDS denialist is really an "HIV denialist", properly speaking). And I suspect the phrase "Holocaust denier" will fade from usage now that the new word "denialist" seems to be gaining popularity.


Are Denialists similar to or different than deniers? If one maintains that there are two separate groups, denialists and deniers, then why are there no AIDS deniers? Why no HIV deniers? Only denialists? Seems a bit strange, given that human behavior is not much different in all these cases; only the topic changes. The denying stays the same.


Denialism and Libel If putting someone in a denialism category constitutes libel, then a very large number of publications worldwide have put themselves in legal jeopardy by publishing articles on AIDS denialists and other kinds of denialists. Given that these publications have full time legal staff and large legal budgets, and the people making these claims on Wikipedia are not lawyers or legal experts, this claim seems dubious at best.


Denialism and Personal gain If we accept the gratuitous personal assertions of some that denialism is really a political movement that involves personal gain, then creationists, creation scientists and intelligent design promoters fall in this category. If "denialism" is more like denial of the evidence, then this is less obviously true, since there is a dispute about the evidence in these cases.


Are denialists liars? If we define "denialism" as some here claim, to only mean those that know they are lying about the truth, then where does that leave the most common usage of the word in the phrase "AIDS denialism" ? It obviously cannot mean "lying knowingly" in this case, or probably in all cases.


Citations for denialism I suggest that if one requires a publication to directly make the claim that "X is a Y", to put some article in a category, then we would depopulate most of the categories on Wikipedia. If Y has characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4...Yn} from dictionary definitions or from common usage, and this common usage is well-understood and evident from publication in WP:V and WP:RS sources as defined above, and if X has most if not all of the characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3...Yn}, then surely X can be put in the category Y.


For example, suppose we define a new type of urban area called a "Townlet", being an area with a common administration within a radius of 5 kilometers and a permanent human population of 5000-10000 people. Then one surely does not need a publication to state that "Filllsberg is a Townlet" to put Filllsberg, meeting all the necessary criteria, in the category "Townlet".


Is Denialism too pejorative to use as a category? I also vehemently deny the assertion that "denialist" is a singularly negative category and so should not be used. If so, we would get rid of a large number of categories, such as "pseudoscience".

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, "transhumanists" or "secular humanists" or "aetheists" might be viewed as denialists by some. And might feel perfectly proud to proclaim themselves as denialists of some overwhelming belief or putative evidence.


Summary For these reasons, I think there is nothing wrong with having a category called "denialist", or "denialism". The membership of this category might be controversial, depending on what we take as the definition of the word. Any particular subject might or might not be put in that category, given community consensus on the word's definition, and on the individual case by case analysis of any particular topic, subject or article. --Filll 15:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Reply - Forgive me, but after five minutes trying to find my response and the question asked about it on the edit page mess, I gave up. Basically, denialism has a few main attributes: 1. Overwhelming evidence against the position. Some examples that fit this qualification: Creationism, holocaust denial, flat earth, mercury-causes autism, global warming denial, smoking-does-not-cause-cancer, phlogiston, spontaneous generation, modern heliocentricism. The case against them is strong enough that it's no longer really a tenable position 2. An insistence that the belief is nonetheless correct despite the evidence - so we lose phlogiston and spontaneous generation, possibly flat-earthers, because these beliefs are no longer held. 3. Conspiracy theories: "Scientists are suppressing the flaws in evolution, and repressing creationism to protect their jobs", "physicians are repressing therapy X because they need people to be ill to make money." 4. Clinging to very poor evidence, manufacture of "evidence" for their side, and/or quote-mining for things that could be twisted to support their position, while rejecting out of hand anything that does not support them. a.k.a. "cherry-picking". 5. Prominent public campaigning for their position. (smoking-does-not-cause-cancer fails here in the present day, because the campaigning is effectively over. However, it counts as past denialism. Modern heliocentricism, as far as I can tell, does not have any significant public campaigning, and so probably wouldn't count either)
Of these, I'd say that 1, 2, and 5 are necessary requirements - without the first two, it's not denialism, and without the 5th, the denialism is non-notable), as well as at least one of 3 or 4 (to raise it from a misunderstanding to denialism). Adam Cuerden talk 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One point: the fact that it is termed "denialism" implies that it is explicit denial of a positive position taken by the scientific or historical consensus. Thus "holocaust denialism" is denial of the holocaust, creationism is denial of evolution, flat-earthism is denial of a spherical earth. There are other viewpoints with "[o]verwhelming evidence against the position" that lack this explicit denial, e.g. perpetual motion (which is only an implicit denial of 1LoT), but these are generally viewed merely as pseudoscience (or historical revisionism), not as "denialism". This narrower meaning appears to be reflected in the article's definition: "...who reject propositions that are strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence...". Hrafn42 17:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair point, since there are certainly things out there that fit the other requirements but shouldn't be classified as denialism. Of course, that's going to cause a few borderline cases in medicine - where a particular cause for a disease or syndrome is thoroughly disproven, but the actual causes are complicated enough or poorly understood that it might be hard to decide if the medical understanding counts as a positive position, but, well, we can debate those if and when they come up. Adam Cuerden talk 17:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per FM, K and CE William M. Connolley 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments by Jim62sch. This cat is notable and valid. Some people can't face reality. Agreed?  Mr.Guru  talk  20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder WP:ATA, an essay, does not trump WP:DGFA, a guideline. And WP:DGFA says "When in doubt, don't delete." It also only provides for dismissing comments when "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith." That is certainly not the case here. There is not going to be any discounting comments to alter consensus or the lack thereof here. Odd nature 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. To the closing administrator: As of this comment, I count 15 preferences to keep this cat, all of which are justified either by reasoned commentary or a note that the particular user agrees with the reasoning of one or more prior commentaries. On the versa (delete) side, I count 8, perhaps 9 to delete if one counts the nominator, all of which also meet the same standard. ... Kenosis 04:27, 22 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zion's Camp participants[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisting to get further attention. Bduke 02:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zion's Camp participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - certainly Zion's Camp is an important event in LDS history but there appears to be a complete list of those participants who have articles in the Zion's Camp article (I added the missing one). I question the long-term utility of categorizing people by this sort of historical incident. Otto4711 16:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : participation in this event is a defining characteristic of a number of the individuals in the category (though perhaps not all). It was not a small group of people (in the 100s) and there is no reason that all participants that are the subject of a present or future WP article should or will be added to the Zion's Camp article. The "long-term utility" of categorizing people this way is that it assigns them to a category that is a notable and defining characteristic or status of the person—isn't this the whole point of WP categories? Alternatively, a list might be useful if it was a comprehensive list of participants. (Full disclosure—I created the cat.) –SESmith 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify/delete per Otto. >Radiant< 09:07, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Metro Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Venues[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep, WillC brings up a good point, we already are categorizing many other venues by event. --Kbdank71 15:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metro Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:Basketball venues in the United States, or at least Rename to Category:Metro Conference men's basketball tournament venues. Do we really want to categorize Venues by event? -- Prove It (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All other conference tournaments have the same deal with venue categories....it is an honor to host them. NO MERGE! WillC 14:44, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BFCA nominated films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BFCA nominated films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_10#Golden_Globe_nominees
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_12#Category:Academy_Awards
Delete, we've already decided against Film award nominee categories. -- Prove It (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wryspy 03:39, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:British radio DJs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:BBC 1Xtra DJs to Category:British radio DJs
Suggest merging Category:BBC 6 Music DJs to Category:British radio DJs
Suggest merging Category:BBC Radio 2 DJs to Category:British radio DJs
Suggest merging Category:Piccadilly Radio DJs to Category:British radio DJs
Nominator's rationale: Merge all - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characteristic. You will here people referred to as a "Radio One DJ" or a "Radio " DJ" far more often than as a "BBC DJ". These should be treated differently from U.S. categories because the BBC is ten times more important in British culture than any one media organisation is in American culture. Greg Grahame 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are referred to as a "radio DJ" more often than as a "BBC DJ" then I don't see why the opposition to merging them into a "radio DJ" category. Otto4711 22:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Greg Grahame. DuncanHill 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many DJs move between stations/channels during their career. I therefore agree with Otto4711's nomination that this is overcategorisation, similar to actors by show. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, agreeing with Otto. Since a DJ can switch jobs to other channels, he is not defined by whichever one he presently works for. >Radiant< 09:08, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:BBC Radio 1 DJs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated, and above --Kbdank71 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:BBC Radio 1 DJs to Category:British radio DJs
Nominator's rationale: Merge - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 13:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primary defining characteristic, per above. Greg Grahame 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. A Radio 1 DJ is famous in a way that other stations' DJs never are. DuncanHill 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An MTV VJ is famous as a VJ in a way that other VJs never are, especially the early VJs, but the MTV VJ categories were all merged to Category:VJs. No compelling reason offered here as to why Radio 1 DJs should be treated any differently from MTV VJs or the dozens of other station-specific or network-specific categories that have been deleted. Otto4711 13:08, 21 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Chris Moyles Show team members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated, and above --Kbdank71 15:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:The Chris Moyles Show team members to Category:British radio DJs
Nominator's rationale: Merge - improper performer by performance overcategorization. Otto4711 13:07, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Three Sub-cats of Category:Raëlism[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, already moved --Kbdank71 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Raëlian organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Raëlian history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Raëlism. These subcategories are too narrow and contain few if any articles. Cgingold 12:46, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Sub-cats of Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, already moved --Kbdank71 15:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlian philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:Raëlian historical beliefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Raëlian beliefs and practices. These subcategories are too narrow and contain only a limited number of articles, which are, in my view, enough to retain the parent category after merging. Cgingold 12:40, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Raëlians by occupation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, already moved --Kbdank71 15:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Raëlians by occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - There is no need to categorize Raëlians by their occupations, since there are only 5 total Raëlians who currently have articles in the parent cat, Category:Raëlians, 3 of whom are already listed in Category:Raëlian bishops. Cgingold 12:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the sub-cats of this category are already being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 11 and it appears likely that all but Category:Raëlian bishops will be deleted. Cgingold 23:48, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mexican musical groups by time period[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Category:Mexican musical groups by time period and
Merge:
Category:1960s Mexican musical groups to Category:1960s music groups
Category:1970s Mexican musical groups to Category:1970s music groups
Category:1980s Mexican musical groups to Category:1980s music groups
Category:1990s Mexican musical groups to Category:1990s music groups
Category:2000s Mexican musical groups to Category:2000s music groups
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary subdivision of the already dubious Category:Musical groups by time period, which has itself been at least partially superceded by the more precise and less subjective Category:Musical groups by year of establishment. This category was kept after a debate more than a year and a half ago, but consensus can change, and that debate mainly focused on whether this was a useful subdivision of Category:Mexican musical groups, Since that time, no one has bothered to make any other similar categories for other nationalities, which suggests that dividing these time periods by nationality is not an idea that people have found useful, interesting or necessary. Which in turn suggests that it is too narrow of an intersection. Xtifr tälk 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of the articles I checked were already in other subcategories of Category:Mexican musical groups, generally by genre, which is why I did not suggest merging to that as well.Xtifr tälk 12:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per Xtifr's careful explanation. An unnecessary level of categorization by itself; and, anyway, I'm not convinced that this is a useful way of breaking down the 60s etc music groups categories. BencherliteTalk 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep These are practically useful, whereas Category:Musical groups by year of establishment is pretty much a waste of time. What is the point of putting say a French jazz ensemble that was established in 1956 but only came to prominence in the 1960s, in the same category as an American rock group that shot to fame immediately on establishment in 1956 and broke up in 1958? Greg Grahame 20:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I personally think Category:Musical groups by time period and its subcats should be deleted as well. Either way, I don't think it's useful to subcategorize by country in this case. --musicpvm 05:36, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Subcats of Category:American Latter Day Saints[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was upmerge all LDS-by-state categories' contents to parent cat, then delete. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest upmerging all Category:Latter Day Saints from state categories to Category:American Latter Day Saints
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, overstratification. There is no need to take this category from national level down to the state level. In fact, as Americans tend to move around a great deal, it is more useful to have these articles in the parent category --After Midnight 0001 11:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. If there were many thousands of articles then breaking down by state might be appropriate, but for now they just get in the way, you have to look at 50 cats instead of just one. -- Prove It (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment : I created the sub-categories, and I think I agree with the merge. When I created the American Latter Day Saints category I was under the impression from another user that when creating a category of persons classified as "Americans", it was the typical practice to always subdivide them by state. (I had never created such a category for persons before.) I see now that this was incorrect advice and I agree that the numbers do not warrant subdivision in this manner. I'd be more than happy to see them merged up in Category:American Latter Day Saints. –SESmith 05:25, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Murdered prisoners[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Prisoners murdered in custody --Kbdank71 15:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Murdered prisoners to Category:Criminals murdered in prison
Nominator's rationale: Rename, This category should be more specifically for criminals who were murdered in prison by other inmates. GCarty 10:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename as per nom. Lugnuts 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Rename per nom, the current name implies that it is also for people who were once in prison and were murdered at a later time. Melsaran 11:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed rename seems kind of picky to me, but if it is to be renamed it should probably be to prisoners murdered in prison custody since it is not necessarily so that every prisoner is a criminal. Otto4711 12:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object to suggested rename target of Category:Criminals murdered in prison. Not everyone in prison is a criminal. Vegaswikian 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed name takes a very POV stance towards all people in prison. At some times in some countries most of the people in prison are innocent. Greg Grahame 20:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any case the proposed name does not achieve the objective of restriction to people who were murdered by other inmates, as it is also possible to be murdered in prison by a member of staff or a visitor. Greg Grahame 20:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem to address all concerns. Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 23:30, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American (US) death metal musical groups[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American (US) death metal musical groups to Category:American death metal musical groups
Nominator's rationale: While I am not wholly convinced that the -al suffix is per convention, I am certain that the (US) bit in the middle of the current category is not. While the obviously good faith attempts of the creating editor to disambiguate between America and The Americas are understandable, and some may say laudable, I have never seen such disambiguation in any other category name. Jdcooper 02:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I created the cats. I really wanted to just call them American with out the (US) bit but I was afraid of offending other North and South Americans. If everyone else is for the I'm all for it because I think it flows better. Jmm6f488 02:48, 15 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Diamond albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete and it seems that a list is not required. Bduke 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Diamond albums to Category:RIAA Diamond albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename (at least), Diamond certification is region-specific, see WP:ALBUM_CERT. This appears to be intended for RIAA Diamond certified albums. Notice was provided to creator. --PEJL 00:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_15#Category:Albums_by_sales_and_subcategories
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_6#Category:Platinum_albums
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_7#Category:Multi-Platinum_albums
  • Comment Who's "We"? A link to the discussion would be handy, rather than a sweeping statement of something that may or may not of actually happened. Lugnuts 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er...see the three links directly above ProveIt's comment? I may be mistaken, but my gut feeling is that those just might be the links you're looking for. Otto4711 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you're right! Who'd of thought it? Lugnuts 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. A list of albums certified diamond by the RIAA is perfectly acceptable, but a category is just overcategorization by a non-defining characteristic that's already been deemed inappropriate in other recent CFDs. Bearcat 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with making a list article. -- Prove It (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per above. Diamond certification in the U.S. is definitely notable and not too common, so a list would be appropriate and is a better way to present this information than a category. --musicpvm 05:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually already covered in List of best-selling albums in the United States, the first 101 albums on the list have been certified diamond, so an additional list seems unnecessary. --musicpvm 05:48, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transformers Movie Decepticons[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete, overcat. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transformers Movie Decepticons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete was tagged speedy, but didn't meet WP:CSD, it has a single article and is a very narrow intersection. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization. Category:Decepticons is easily sufficient. A subcat for one work within the Transformers universe is somewhat excessive. Resolute 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wryspy 03:30, 16 August 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_15&oldid=1142606459"