Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 26

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26

Category:Realism painters to Category:Realist painters

Category:Realism artists to Category:Realist artists

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movement was called realism, but the individuals are usually referred to as realists. Chicheley 22:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename Chicheley 22:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Merchbow 18:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Antonrojo 12:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Theories of history to Category:Historiography

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Theories of history" describes itself as "This is for works that don't just document history but provide theories for why things happened the way they did and possibly what that means for the future," which describes Historiography. I recommend merging as a redundant category. Katherine Tredwell 17:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this category because the definition on Category:Historiography didn't seem to include this concept. If Histiography really does cover this then I have no objection to the merger, but I will ask that someone knowlegeable in the subject update the text on Category:Historiography. --JeffW 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that I've read Historiography I don't agree that they're the same thing. Historiography is basically the history of historical thought, which Category:Theories of history is about theories of how actual history turned out the way it did. --JeffW 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As a student of history I can state that the two are related and similar but not identical. BoojiBoy 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a historian; I did not make this proposal lightly or out of ignorance. Historiography is, quite simply, the writing of history. If you don't believe me (and you shouldn't--everything on Wikipedia should be verified) check the Oxford English Dictionary or the Encyclopaedia Britannica, both of which give that definition essentially word for word. It covers a number of concepts, including theories of history and philosophy of history, as well as the history of historiography (what user JeffW seems to be thinking of as historiography). Perhaps "theories of history" would make a good subcategory of "historiography." Katherine Tredwell 18:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you put on the talk page, "From Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, "Historiography": "2. the bodies of techniques, theories, and principles of historical research and presentation; methods of historical scholarship," disproves your point. It mentions "...theories...of historical research and presentation" which is not the same thing as a theory of history. --JeffW 21:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point in quoting Webster's was to show that historiography is more than just "the study of Historians and their works" as you claimed. I used it because it was ready to hand, and I'm sorry if it has confused the issue. I've also recommended you consult the Encylopaedia Britannica. The Micropaedia has an entry for "Historiography" which defines it, as I said above, as "the writing of history." For a full explanation it sends the reader to the entry on "History" as a field of study, which covers a lot of things including what I understand by "theories of history." There are also plenty of monographs on the historiography of specific times and subjects, even general works like Ernst Breisach's Historiography, which include theories of history in their subject matter. For that matter, here's an example of a historian online clearly including theory of history.[1] I hope you will explain at greater length what distinguishes your term "theories of history" from "historiography." Discussing some of the articles grouped under one or both categories would help me understand what you are getting at. Katherine Tredwell 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for theories of history I was thinking of things like Toynbee's ideas of how civilizations rise and fall or Strauss and Howe's theory of how there are four types of generations that interact to create great crises every four generations, and the like. If that's historiography then so be it, I just didn't see that definition in anything I was given. I'm withdrawing my vote to let the real historians decide. --JeffW 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hegel and Benjamin did not have a historiography, but he had a theory of history. They are different--Buridan 15:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how they differ, please? Katherine Tredwell 18:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:White people

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skincolour or race, however that is defined, doesn't follow from being of a certain ethnicity. I discovered this today when it was added to Category:Swedish-Americans, a category which happens to include Quincy Jones III. With these hyphenated -American categories being as inclusive as they are, I assume there must be other examples. Delete this abomination, please! Up+land 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selective nominations undermine neutrality so keep unless category:Black people is added to the nomination, in which case delete both. There are a lot of people with Caucasian blood in the subcategories of category:Black people and why is that acceptable if it is wrong for Quincy Jones to be in a subcategory of category:White people? Golfcam 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete category:white people and category:black people Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a “racial directory”. -- Olve 17:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - unencycopedic. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - unnecessary and vague (what about multi-racial people?). This is 2006, aren't we beyond/above the need for racial profiles? Cacophony 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quincy Jones III is white; his mother's white. He's also black; his father's black. If Category:Multiracial people hadn't been deleted today, this wouldn't be a problem. --M@rēino 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I note a couple people are saying, "don't delete white unless you delete black." There are hundreds of other racial and ethnic categories on Wikipedia that would have to go, too; deleting black wouldn't cut it.--M@rēino 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ethnic/cultural is fine, “racial” is not. -- Olve 19:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just considered nominating Category:Black people as well, but decided that it was probably better to treat these two separately. That category does not include a large number of ethnicities unrelated to race, as this one does. Consider this case: somebody born in Sweden of, say, Nigerian immigrant parents, grows up and emigrates to the U.S. That person would be Swedish-American, but can hardly be considered "white" by any usual definition. The point is that ethnicity has everything to do with culture, nothing with the colour of one's skin, unless people chose to make the skincolour itself into a kind of ethnicity. Up+land 19:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we re-scope this and similar categories to People who have self-identified as "white" (or whatever) - These types of categories are fundamentally flawed by the POV of interpertation. Restricting it to self-identification would give a solid, verifiable base to stand on. Kurieeto 20:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. I concur that selective nominations undermine neutrality. There is no reason to delete this category. I also agree with comments by M@rēino. Seanna 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, Category:Multiracial people should be brought back. Seanna 22:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't believe this category existed so long. Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this cat has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3#Category:White_people. --Mais oui! 17:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So it seems the best action would be a speedy delete to protected blank page. -- Olve 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. --Kbdank71 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of them. —Centrx→talk • 18:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation. James F. (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete recreation -- and the number of subcategories included are ridiculous, including southern slavs, middle eastern, arabs, turks, and south asian as "white" -- while the included articles white nationalism, white supremacy, National Association for the Advancement of White People, et alia would vehemently disagree! --William Allen Simpson 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again, very subjective --rogerd 23:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Category:Black people. We're not a racial directory. JIP | Talk 09:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, "white" is not a precisely defined term, nor is "black", thus leaving the category far too vague and open to subjective interpretation and thus POV. Additionally, such labelling serves no constructive purpose and carries no information content for the reader. Kasreyn 11:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of them. KleenupKrew 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no good reason that I can see for any of these racial categories to exist, but evidently some people think otherwise. If at all possible, I would prefer using the official racial name, like Caucasian People, to the less specific "white people." However, I note that I have heard a visitor to South America say that in the area he visited, what we would call genetic race is not so much a factor as the literal color of the skin, and two black people can literally have a child classified by the government as white based on his or her light skin. In those cases, I could, barely, see justification for this, but that's generally a problem faced by the non-English speaking wikipedia. Renaming the categories to conform to the anthropoligical formal names of the races would potentially make it harder for people to prove the qualification for any of the categories, and make it much easier to request deletion based on lack of substantiating evidence. It wouldn't completely eliminate the existence of these racist categorization schemes, but it would make it a lot harder to successfully keep them going. I think. Maybe. Badbilltucker 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all the subcategories (except Category:White nationalists). The actual articles currently present in the category should also remain. All the xxxxxx-American subcategories should be removed though. --Musicpvm 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aaron charles 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The definition of 'white people' has changed with time, expanding in the US to include the Irish and Italians, for example. Categories that have a fixed meaning such as 'Hungarians' or 'Hungarian Americans' make sense to me. The category 'black people' doesn't seem to exist so I withhold my opinion on the 'fairness' of having one category and not the other. Antonrojo 12:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete conditional on category:Black people being deleted at the same time. Calsicol 00:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Blue eyed soul to Category:Blue-eyed soul artists

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Blue-eyed soul singers. Conscious 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is vague. User:Arual 15:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Blue-eyed soul musicians to be consistent with other music categories. --Musicpvm 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be renamed to Category:Blue-eyed soul singers. All singers are not musicians, Tom Jones for example. Seanna 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all singers are musicians. See musicians. --Musicpvm 23:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Blue-eyed soul singers and move instrumentalists in the category to parent category Category:Blue-eyed musicians. David Kernow 15:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Former government officials of Hong Kong to Category:Government officials of Hong Kong

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't standard practice to divide people into living and dead or past and present, and really I don't think it is worth the effort, so let's let precedents for doing so accrue. Chicheley 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Merge as above. Chicheley 15:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Merchbow 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:La Toya Jackson to Category:La Toya Jackson albums

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category earlier. It's supposed to be for La Toya Jackson's albums, but i forgot to add "albums" at the end. --Musicpvm 07:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename would be consistent with other existing categories --Mark S (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Golfcam 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Television series on DVD

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic of theses shows. Plus, with the large number of series being released on DVD these days, this category is likely to become unmaintainably huge. - EurekaLott 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One day I was working on the list of uncategorized articles, and came across DuckTales DVD releases. The problem was, there just wasn't a place for it ... so I created one. There ought to be some sort of category for television on DVD. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form, although I can see what you're saying about there being no categories for DVDs. Perhaps rename to Category:Television DVD releases, and emphasising that it should be for articles about DVDs, not just about things that happen to have been released on DVD - there are thousands of such shows, and its not a particularly notable thing. — sjorford ++ 08:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Too minor a topic yet at the same time too broad. Way to may such DVD's -- you will never police the category and you turn that part of Wikipedia into a modern version of the first page that ever made it to the "Useless Pages" website -- someone's collection of CD's as I recall. --Anon 64 11:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Over the top as zillions of shows come out on DVD. It's only a defining characteristic if you're in the business of selling DVDs and Wikipedia isn't about selling stuff. Golfcam 11:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cat is both too broad and serves little purpose.—Asatruer 15:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I beleive that overtime just about every TV series will be released on DVD. While there might be some limited value now, I suspect any value will be reduced over time. Vegaswikian 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all the article should be renamed List of Ducktales episodes on DVD and since we don't currently have Category:Lists of television episodes on DVD and I don't really see the need to create one, just put it in Category:Television lists. --JeffW 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and what JeffW said. -Lady Aleena @ 22:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Oyaji

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everything that can be wrong with this category is wrong with it. The subject of Oyaji is not mentioned once in a single article in this cat (Oyaji aside). The category has no criteria to clarify its use. There are no sources to back up its use in any article. And, even if all those issues were resolved, I don't see how this could be anything but an arbitrary arrangement of essentially unrelated articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: while I haven't read thru all the articles to tell how "arbitrary" the category really is, the lack of clear criteria for inclusion does seem to make this a bit smack of original research. 131.107.0.81 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely arbitrary category. BTW, the link on the CFD tag doesn't bring you here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Rhythm and blues albums to Category:R&B albums

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

The result of the debate was reverse merge and rename subcategories. Conscious 17:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be merged to be consistent with the parent category Category:R&B and its other subcategories. --Musicpvm 02:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Abbreviations are bad because there are only a tiny few that almost everyone all over the world will understand. Expand the others instead. The article is at Rhythm and blues. Golfcam 11:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opppse Change the other categories to be consistent with this one to avoid the abbreviation.--Mark S (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Remove all abbreviations instead and expand all as listed below. Chicheley 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
category:R&B to Category:Rhythm and blues
Category:Grammy Awards for R&B to Category:Grammy Awards for rhythm and blues
category:R&B music genres to Category:Rhythm and blues music genres
category:R&B musical groups to Category:Rhythm and blues musical groups
category:R&B musicians to Category:Rhythm and blues musicians
category:R&B musicians by nationality to Category:Rhythm and blues musicians by nationality
category:American R&B musicians to Category:American rhythm and blues musicians
category:American R&B musicians by instrument to Category:American rhythm and blues musicians by instrument
category:American R&B guitarists to Category:American rhythm and blues guitarists
category:American R&B singer-guitarists to Category:American rhythm and blues singer-guitarists
category:American R&B singers to Category:American rhythm and blues singers
category:American R&B singer-songwriters to Category:American rhythm and blues singer-songwriters
category:R&B musicians by instrument to Category:Rhythm and blues musicians by instrument
category:R&B guitarists to Category:Rhythm and blues guitarists
category:R&B guitarists by nationality to Category:Rhythm and blues guitarists by nationality
category:R&B singers to Category:Rhythm and blues singers
category:R&B singers by nationality to Category:Rhythm and blues singers by nationality
category:American R&B singers to Category:American rhythm and blues singers
category:British R&B singers to Category:British rhythm and blues singers
category:Canadian R&B singers to Category:Canadian rhythm and blues singers
category:R&B pianists to Category:Rhythm and blues pianists
category:R&B saxophonists to Category:Rhythm and blues saxophonists
category:R&B trumpet players to Category:Rhythm and blues trumpet players
category:R&B record labels to Category:Rhythm and blues record labels
category:R&B songs to Category:Rhythm and blues songs
category:R&B songs by subgenre to Category:Rhythm and blues songs by sub-genre
Comment I'm usually always for expanding abbreviations, but "R&B" is the most common/popular usage of the term. It's not just an abbreviation (and it's definitely not one that somebody can confuse with another acronym). In the very first paragraph of the Rhythm and blues article, it states "Today, the acronym 'R&B' is almost always used instead of 'rhythm and blues'". It is also much easier to type when adding categories to articles, so I'm not sure about this. I definitely don't think Category:Grammy Awards for R&B should be renamed; the official name of the award category is "R&B", not "Rhythm and Blues". The official names of the awards in the category include the word "R&B" and not "Rhythm and Blues". This also shows that the common/preferred usage is "R&B". --Musicpvm 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand all. Categories should be clear to all, not just to the people familiar with a subject area who determine the "most common/popular usage" and often use abbreviations as short hand. Thus almost all abbreviations should go. My guess is that there are vast numbers of people (especially outside the Western world) that have never heard of R&B. Sumahoy 02:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anything, I think the opposite would be true. Many people are aware of the term "R&B" and unware that it expands to "Rhythm and blues". "R&B" is the more common term, not just the western world. It's the same reason why categories such as Category:NASCAR shouldn't be expanded. Official Billboard and world music charts and pretty much every music award show in the world (Grammys, American Music Awards, MTV VMAs, MTV Europe awards, MTV Japan awards, Canadian Juno Awards, British MOBO Awards) use the term "R&B" rather than "rhythm and blues". It has almost 20 times as many Google hits. --Musicpvm 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, compress all to R&B, as per Musicpvm. --GreyCat 07:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand all NASA and NASCAR are just about the only abbreviations that shouldn't be expanded. We expand U.S. so we should expand R&B. This is an encyclopedia, and if we have readers who don't know what R&B stands for, that's an opportunity to educate them. Merchbow 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. To someone who knew nothing about music, is the term Rhythm and Blues really more enlightening than R&B? Sometimes abbreviations aren't any clearer than the full term. --JeffW 21:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand all per Merchbow. -Lady Aleena @ 22:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expand all is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) POLICY --William Allen Simpson 22:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be clear, the POLICY isn't an absolute prohibition, it just says to avoid abbreviations. --JeffW 23:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The abbreviation R&B should be the only use on Wikipedia because it is almost solely used by everyone in the world instead of the expansion, Rhythm and Blues Jabmorris.
Expand all in line with best practice. Osomec 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Nobel Peace Prize nominees

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can not properly categorize Nobel Prize nominees after 1951. According to our own Nobel Peace Prize article, "many individuals have become known as 'Nobel Peace Prize Nominees', but this designation has no official standing." Nominations are kept secret by the committee. Nominations prior to 1951 have been published; for what it's worth, the list includes Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., also feel the category is unencyclopedic / not noteworthy. Kasreyn 07:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Golfcam 11:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify pre-1952 nominees. 70.51.10.221 04:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe anyone can make a mention, and the ones that get publicity and thus an entry here will probably tend to focus on the celebrity (and sometimes silly) end of the range of nominees. Osomec 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To expand upon nom's last sentence, this makes the category at best misleading. A "nomination" is often interpreted as meaning they had a decent case for winning it, but lost to someone more deserving. When you see Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini as nominees, however, it's obvious that a nomination here doesn't mean that, which would lead readers to getting the wrong impression from seeing the category on a figure's page (not likely in the case of a person such as Hitler, but more so in the case of a more controversial figure like George W. Bush, who recently had this category put on his page). ---DrLeebot 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus keep, with recommendation for renaming or tightening category inclusion criterion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cult leaders

This is a POV magnet and given the disputed nature of the term cult, impossible to maintain NPOV. Note also that for these reasons there is not an article on Cult leader in Wikipedia. Some editors are claiming that if there is a notable citation that refers to a person as a cult leader, that is enough for categorizing that person as such. This is in contradiction to WP:NPOV as it relates to undue weight. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It is easy to maintain NPOV; just require that all entries be supported by citations. We follow this standard for other categories and should follow it for this one. A removal of this category is a victory for cultists everywhere, which would truly be POV. Full disclosure: Jossi is a member of the Prem Rawat organization, which has been called a cult. Draw your own conclusions. Al 04:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Al 03:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many citations, Al? Is one enough? ten? twenty? By whom? An anti-cult advocate? An anti-cult organization? A newspaper article? This does not work, and it is simply a POV magnet. And remember that WP is not a place for advocaycy against or for cults. See WP:NOT ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On citation of a notable person. Al 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of the consequences of such interpretation of policy! POV pushing galore! Find one cite and you can categorize people anyway your POV wants. Sorry, but no. We have a policy of WP:NPOV in Wikipedia, in which it is clearly stated that a minority POV cannot be asserted as anything but that. Your interpretation contradicts a non-negotiable content policy. 05:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. It fits in with due weight, recognizing that a category like this must reflect significant minority views. Al 23:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting tab) It's possible to handle categories like 'cults' and 'cult leaders' using consensus if a well-defined consensus or academic definition of the term is used. Otherwise the list will constantly shift as people remove items stating that's not really a cult. The current manifestation of the category makes some steps in this direction and the list inclusion criteria include terms like 'significant minority' and 'notable people' that are difficult to evaluate objectively. I'd suggest something like List of groups referred to as cults which is also a work in progress and is closer to a formal definition of inclusion. See Archive 3 on that page for some discussion about good sources, etc.Antonrojo 12:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are people on the list that are cult leaders beyond a shadow of a doubt. Likewise, I agree with Al that citations are what matters in determining who belongs on it. I think it's enough to have more than one citation to show that it is not just one person's view that it is a cult. -- LGagnon 03:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic, if there is a citation that denies the allegation of being a cult leader, we should remove it from this category? Right? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Rename per KleenupKrew Crazynas 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Al et al. Besides, one could say that it is just as POV to refrain from mentioning that so-and-so is a cult leader, if there are viable sources saying the opposite. roma rin [talk ] 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources can still be presented in the article with accurate descriptions, whereas the category is total, it is not "Alleged cult leaders", it is not "Accused cult leaders", it is not "Possible cult leaders". —Centrx→talk • 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are intended to help people navigate, not rule with finality. All members are alleged, not convicted. Al 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be WP Policy (or Guideline) but would the average reader that didn't edit know that? Crazynas 04:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there does exist a category page, so we could make a note there. In fact, I just did so. Go look, if you like. Al 04:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Alleged cult leaders; if the criteria for inclusion remain as they are, the category name should reflect that. It's not okay to just say, "X is a cult leader," in an article, we have to couch it in terms of "Y says X is a cult leader" to avoid original research and POV-edits. If it's not acceptable to say it in an article, it would be counter-productive to do so in a category, wouldn't it? "Alleged" gets the point across without being quite so POV. Luna Santin 05:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem, IMO. The solution may to keep, with a criteria based on wide consensus of sources, such as in the case of Jim Jones. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The title looks only a little bit different in tone than a tile such as "slutty women" or "crazy people". It is inherently POV on its face and no amount of sources will change that. Furthermore it is vastly too broad with a vague meaning. Any major religion that centers on the teachings of a person is a "cult" by definition and so any leaders in that religion (this would include Popes and the Dalai Lama) would be "Cult Leaders". Personality cults are relatively frequent when we span the whole time of recorded history and many rules would be cult leaders, including Pharoahs, Ceasars, and of course modern dictators such as Stalin, Hiler, Mao and Pol Pot. Within Catholicism, some of the Saints have an organization (an order) and so they and the current and all past leaders of this order would be "Cult Leaders". And, though I personally do not feel this way, many people get a sense of negative value on the word "cult". I quote: "My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." -- J. Gordon Melton. I simply do not think it can be anything other than Non-neutral. I think that the guidelines in Wikipedia NPOV would work. They specifically use the example of someone egregiously evil (like hitler) and instruct that we must not say he is evil but simply let his works speak for themselves. THat same philosophy would reject "Cult Leader".--Anon 64 10:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Alleged cult leaders; this is the only possible way to maintain NPOV. Otherwise it should be deleted.Xemoi 16:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That doesn't help much because mud sticks. Would you mind your favorite celebrity was in Category:Alleged child molesters? I'm guessing not. I think "cult leader" is reasonably well defined, but I see the problems, so I abstain. Golfcam 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Whether "mud sticks" is not the responsibility of Wikipedia, but accurately reporting significant allegations is. David L Rattigan 19:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Jim Jones wasn't widely recognized as a cult leader until after his cult was all dead. That doesn't mean that he WASN'T one. There were people who said he was a cult leader prior to the kool-aid incident, and there were people who denied this claim, but there was no "consensus" until after the fact. a few good reputable sources should be enough to merit inclusion.--Courtland Nerval 17:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people are (or were) cult leaders. No one would argue with the inclusion of Jim Jones or Charles Manson. The category serves a legitimate navigational purpose. If category:cults makes sense, then so does this category. -Will Beback 20:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, then, I guess Mr. Moon isn't a cult leader? And Fred Phelps? I suppose it's become pov to state simple facts, which is, these people lead cults. Why have a cult leader article when you can cover it in the cult article? In a related story, L. Ron Hubbard is my hero! (that was a joke) Эйрон Кинни (t) 10:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. What the 'keepers' are failing to recognise is that the label cult itself is, in its popular usage, at once both (a) pejorative (and to many even offensive); and (b) highly subjective, there being no commonly accepted definition of the term. This is a recipe for controversy and abuse. These difficulties are highlighted in Wikipedia's own article on the term 'cult', and in fact the term 'cult' is identified as a word to avoid in Wikipedia's style guide. And whilst I would accept that there is probably a small handful of individuals that most would accept as meeting the "lowest common denominator" definition (e.g. Jim Jones), statements such as that from the editor immediately above implying it is a 'fact' that the Unification Church and Scientology are cults illustrate the sort of divisiveness and controversy the use of such categories inevitably generate. I suggest these be included in the Category "Religious Leaders" or some other less controversial heading; in the case of such figures as Charles Manson, with reference to their crimes. Really Spooky 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories exist mainly for navigation, and this seems to me a reasonable topic to navigate. I recognize problems with these "cult" categories and list, but a category can at least be argued at the article itself, where an unjustified inclusion would presumably be contested by people who know the subject. Renaming to say "alleged" could be construed as weakening inclusion criteria, but if that were avoided I could support a rename. Gimmetrow 14:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong rename: Category: Alleged cult leaders. Category:Cult leaders is inherently POV, where alleged is indisputable if the allegation can be cited. David L Rattigan 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV and subjective category. Useful to POV pushers. Oppose renaming it to "alleged cult leaders" which would be equally subjective and POV with a lower bar for inclusion, solving nothing. Just delete it. KleenupKrew 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename. The crux of the issue is as stated in the beginning that there is no definition of the phrase "Cult leader" in the wikipedia. If anyone could create such a page (and I would not be qualified to do so) which would spell out exactly under what circumstances a person would be defined as a cult leader as per wikipedia, I would have no objections whatever. But that would probably be very hard to do. I would propose instead something like "Personality cult leaders" (still has the same problem, but to a lesser degree), or "Leaders of controversial religious organizations," or "Leaders of allegedly abusive religious organizations," or whatever, with the specific criteria for who would and would not be included spelled out at the top of the page. Badbilltucker 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename: The phrase "Cult leaders" IS a POV. The term "cult" undeniably has negative connotations associated with it, will invariably be used to push POVs and will offend people. I strongly suggest renaming this category: Category:Religious Sect Leaders. The following quote reflects the negative mainstream sentiment towards the term "cult" (ironically which can even be seen in this discussion thread):

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values. Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with those two people." J. Gordon Melton

SSS108 ^talk-email 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Rename to "Leaders of Religious Sects" with requirement for strict standards of inclusion. Cult is a subjective term not suitable for a category name. Kasreyn 08:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The term sect has problems, too. In the UK it is equivalent to "cult", I believe. — goethean ॐ 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh. Oops, I wasn't aware of that! Well, what would be a more neutral term? 'Cause I know for sure that "cult" isn't it. Kasreyn 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide whether it should be kept or not, but the proposal to use "sect" seems to make things even worse, as it is much vaguer and of marginal relevance to the original purpose of the category. so Strong oppose renaming to "Leaders of Religious Sects" Osomec 17:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently and irrepairably subjective, derogatory, and POV, and since the renaming suggestions seem to be untenable. — goethean ॐ 18:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin: Precedent: See for example, Category:Dictators, deleted first on September 2004, re-created again and deleted again on May 30, 2005, recreated again and deleted on May 2006. Reason for deletion: "Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is." . See also Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sure, Kimpa Vita is a cult leader and Francis of Assisi is a saint. If the losers are the cult leaders, why isn't Jan Hus included? BTW: Holy ****, that article already got some categories I don't wish my worst enemies! And as Wikipedia is a cult (sort of), why is Jimbo missing in this fine category? Or for the sarcasm-impaired: delete and burn at the stake. --Pjacobi 22:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Harald88 00:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There are cults. There are cult leaders. Enough said. Anyone who wishes to argue those two premises can go argue it with the victims of Aum Shinrikyo's multiple sarin gas attacks, the bodies in the mass graves dug by the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, the hundreds who were poisoned with salmonella by the Rajneeshee, the infant stabbed with a wooden stake thanks to the Order of the Solar Temple... I'm sick of the POV-pushing by certain editors with agendas who, rather than risk having to think about the possibility that their group might be a cult, would rather push on all of Wikipedia, against a mountain of grisly evidence, the absurd notion that there is no such thing. Tell Leo Ryan that it was a non-existent social construct that got him gunned down on the airstrip. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the proverbial straw man appears. Where in the above discussion has anyone said that there is “no such thing” as a cult? The issue being raised here is that the term is at once pejorative and subjective. Before suggesting that Wikipedia is infiltrated by members of cults that are terrified of being exposed for what they really are, perhaps said editor would first like to provide what he understands to be the accepted definition of cult, and then explain what agenda he is pushing by insisting upon the use of a label that has been identified as a word to avoid on Wikipedia?

Using Anataeus Feldspar’s own logic, I would like to nominate the new category "Evil People":

"There are people. There are evil people. Enough said. Anyone who wishes to argue those two premises can go argue it with the bodies in the mass graves dug by the regime of Augusto Pinochet, the thousands of civilians who were incinerated with atomic bombs by Harry S. Truman, and Isaac, who was nearly stabbed to death by his father Abraham on the orders of the God of all Jews, Christians and Muslims… I'm sick of the POV-pushing by certain editors with agendas who, rather than risk having to think about the possibility that their favourite personage might be evil, would rather push on all of Wikipedia, against a mountain of grisly evidence, the absurd notion that there is no such thing". Really Spooky 11:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your are assuming bad faith on the part "certain editors"... For your information, this discussion started because of some editors wanted to add Ayn Rand to the list of cult leaders based on a couple of sources that describe Objectivism as a cult, and he fact that people are using this as a way of character assassination by guilt by association. No one is arguing that there are not people out there about which there is wide consensus about them being leaders of destructive groups or "cults". The discussion is centered about the issues surrounding the current lack of criterion for inclusion in this category, and the violation of policy by allowing the inclusion of people in this list based on a minority viewpoint and in contravention of NPOV as it pertains to undue weight. You can follow the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight.2C_NPOV_and_categorization_of_people ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antaeus, your near-personal-attack, insulting, ever repeating rants start making me angry and tired. Did you at any time consider, that opponents to your POV just want write an encyclopedia, as factual and as NPOV as can be reasonably achieved? You are always arguing with the "easy cases" (which, using a scientific approach, aren't crystal clear, either), but quick, pray, tell: Who of Kimpa Vita, Martin Luther, Francis of Assisi, Jan Hus, Simon Kimbangu are cult leaders? And why? BTW, as it seems you like to put fellow editors into bins, of any groups mentioned on the (in)famous List of groups referred to as cults, I'm only a member of Wikipedia (as far as you can be a member of Wikipedia). --Pjacobi 09:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a term which is nearly always in dispute - such terms should not be used in categories or lists (although they should be mentioned in articles). This has nothing to do with being pro- or anti- cult; merely applying a feature of Wikipedia - that categories should be uncontroversial. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Note that there is a related discussion regarding the cults category at WP:CFD#Category:Cults.--Antonrojo 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but exclude controversial cases. There are clear instances of cults, past and present. Looking up a list of them is of encyclopedic value. Like most categories, there are borderline cases, but because of the POV danger here, there should be a strong burden of proof for inclusion. In particular, if there are voices outside of the organization that argue it isn't a cult, I think that's enough to warrent exclusion. Fireplace 01:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename. In its common usage, "Cult" just means "Bad Religion". Hard to imagine how we can unilaterally proclaim any existing religion to be a cult under NPOV. --Alecmconroy 06:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Come on, no one is ever going to be able to agree on whether or not many "religions" are a cult. No one is saying "There's no such thing as a cult," but if we keep this category, we'll have endless debates about whether or not this or that group is a cult. Catholics, Mormons, Ayn Rand... It will never end, and it will always reflect a POV. Sourced allegations that an organization is a cult should be addressed in the article, but using a category lends too much weight to what will always be a subjective term. It's like the soon-to-be-created category "slutty women." Who sets the bar for what is "slutty?" I'm not as strongly opposed to something like "Controversial Religious Organizations," but I can't think of a single religious organization that everyone can agree is non-controversial. DejahThoris 10:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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