Category:People treated for alcoholism
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:People treated for alcoholism (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Delete, Non-defining characteristic, trivial,
WP:OCAT, and possible violation of
WP:BLP.
Carlossuarez46
00:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, definitely non-defining, even if it could avoid BLP issues. —
coel
acan —
00:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Non-defining.
Piccadilly
09:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - This type of biographical categorization leads to category clutter problems. Moreover, people are generally not notable for being alcoholics but instead for their other accomplishments.
Dr. Submillimeter
11:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete non-defining with potential BLP problems.
Doczilla
20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not trivial in life, but trivial as a Wikipedia category.
ReeseM
01:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if properly restricted, delete otherwise First, in regards to
WP:BLP, the guideline says that an allegation of an alchohol problem is acceptable if it "...is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Certain notable individuals are, unfortunately, notorious for their alcohol or drug dependency, and thus for those people there is often a great deal of reliable published sources detailing the problem. Thus it is not only proper but necessary to include that information in the person's biography under such circumstances (it is not proper to include simple rumors of alchoholism or very minor stories and the like.) Thus, provided this category is specifically used only in cases where the person's article presents verifiable information that their alchohol dependency and treatment was a notable part of their biography, then this category is a perfectly proper subdivision of
Category:People by medical or psychological condition (since alchoholism is a medical condition). The fact that someone is probably also notable for other things doesn't necessarily make their alchoholism or drug dependency any less notable or defining a feature of their personal history.
Dugwiki
16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Categories should not be about what mattered in the personal lives of the subjects, but rather the reasons why they have articles.
Craig.Scott
00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Honbicot
20:30, 12 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Highlander cast members
Category:Holocaust deniers
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was Keep —
anthony[
cfc
00:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Holocaust deniers (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Like the former
Category:Anti-Semitic people, this category inappropriately labels people -- it is potentially libelous and is speculative; thus, it should be deleted. --
172.164.111.115
15:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- If the information is given in an article, it can be explained. It can also, most importantly, be sourced. This possibility is not there when using categories. That is why categories are not usually used for this kind of information. The articles can and will still have it. --
rimshots
talk
16:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. "Denial" is a black and white term, but the issue is far more complex than that. This category can be used to put people who say the holocaust didn't happen, but think it would have been a good thing if it had, in the same category as people who make serious scholarly criticisms of the establishment account of the holocaust (of course some people would deny that there is such a thing as a respectable criticism of the established account, but that is part of the problem that makes this an irresponsible category).
ReeseM
01:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Piccadilly
11:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. --
Wassermann
13:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I agree with ReeseM's assessment above. This category makes no distinctions between people who believe no aspects of the Holocaust occurred versus those who believe certain aspects are true but that other aspects are exagerated based on what they might feel is a reasoned analysis of evidence. Since such a criteria therefore is somewhat broad, and the label itself can be used as a personal attack on the article's subject, the category should probably be deleted and the details of exactly what opinions the person expressed on the Holocaust should be explained solely in the person's article.
Dugwiki
16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but possibly rename to "Holocaust revisionists." A category needing a rename or improvement isn't the same as it needing to die. This is something more specific than "Anti-Semitic people" and I think has a better chance to be used accurately.--
T. Anthony
03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom - there are also WP:BLP issues when it comes to tagging..
Baristarim
10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and ReeseM.
Craig.Scott
00:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This is based on well-sourced material. How is there more potential libel with this than with
Category:Imams?--
Avi
02:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Criteria for inclusion are explicitly clear, specifically to avoid the problems this nomination claims to be concerned about.
Tom
e
r
talk
02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Hmains, TShilo and Avi.
JoshuaZ
03:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep not a valid nomination IMHO.
David Spart (
talk ·
contribs ·
logs ·
block user ·
block log)
03:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. It's pretty hard to argue that describing someone like
David Irving as a "Holocaust denier" is "libelous and speculative"; that's what the various court cases he was involved in described him as, and he was jailed for it. In addition, User:Dugwiki has made a distinction without a difference; read the
Holocaust denial article for an explanation as to why. As for
WP:OC#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue, it doesn't apply here; the Holocaust is not "a question or an issue", but a historical fact, and people aren't put into this category because they have an "opinion" about the Holocaust, they are put in it because they actively deny that historical fact.
Jayjg
(talk)
03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Criteria are clean, and the classification is unambiguous. This isn't about opinion. --
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep per above, it certainly isn't a matter of "libel".-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk
03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per above.
SlimVirgin
(talk)
03:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Hmains, Tomer and others.
6SJ7
03:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I see that the last 5 votes came in within 16 minutes of each other, are you folks hanging out together or something? :)--
Tom
13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I came in shortly after Pesach was over for me...it's possible Pesach ended for others around the same time and they saw my note to Jayjg on his talkpage. I certainly wasn't canvasing for !votes (this is about discussion, after all, not about voting...)
Tom
e
r
talk
20:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- There is a strong element of voting in Wikipedia's decision making processes, whether one choses to acknowledge that reality or to deny it. Anyway, few of the keep voters have added much to the discussion.
Honbicot
20:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Strong Delete. The main issue is not one of libel or defamation of character; it's about policy, and per
WP:OC, these types of categories are not appropriate. --
Hemlock Martinis
03:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- As JayJG aptly points out above, the Holocaust is not a "question or issue", nor is "Holocaust denial" some subjective and whimsical categorization.
Tom
e
r
talk
03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom and Hemlock Martinis, especially in regarding to
WP:BLP and a violation of
WP:NPOV.
Khorshid
04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Avi. The "libeling" is done by the law court of quite a number of western countries and by the almost unanimous consensus of historians not living in Tehran. --
tickle
me
04:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Excuse me, but your derogatory comment against Iranian historians has no place here. No Iranian historian has ever denied the Holocaust and I challenge you to back up your nonsensical claim. Otherwise remove the allegation.
Khorshid
04:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- I'm forced to agree with this... I have never seen evidence that any respected Iranian historians have ever claimed Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is regarded as historically accurate in Teheran any moreso than it is anywhere else. In fact, I've read some rather strongly-worded denigrations of his assertion by both Iranian historians and clerics. It doesn't need to be "removed", but striking it out wouldn't be such a bad idea... all flippancy aside, it does nothing to strengthen the argument.
Tom
e
r
talk
05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This cat should be deleted. Re Avi's comment: Imam is not a charged term. "Holocaust denier" is a charged term, and is inappropriate for categorizing people, just like
Category:Racists (which is deleted/protected), or any other sort of category which contains a slur.--
Ķĩřβȳ
♥
♥
♥
Ťįɱé
Ø
04:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Do the math.
The Prince
04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And to Khorsid. Didn't Iran just hold a big Holocaust denial conference? You can't tell me there weren't some Iranian historian Holocaust deniers (*mouthful*) there. And by the way, Wikipedia does have policies against threatening (or "challenging") other users.
The Prince
04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Totally wrong. There were no Iranian historians there, just political figures associated with
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I made no threats - a user made a derogatory allegation about Iranian historians and I am free to challenge that false notion. For someone to use the bigotry of a single tyrant to tarnish an entire country's academia is nonsense and biased to the extreme. Such comments, baseless as they are, have no place here.
Khorshid
05:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- And for that matter, find me evidence that any ordinary Iranians or Iranian academics were in attendance at that "conference". It was mostly foreigners from Western Europe and the United States including
David Duke.
Khorshid
05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Guys...take it elsewhere. This is not the place for this discussion.
Tom
e
r
talk
05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, and tighten the criteria for inclusion.
≈ jossi ≈
(talk)
05:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the inclusion is based on facts (like public statements or published works), not merely "opinions". BTW, since when do anon IPs nominate articles/categories for deletion? ←
Humus sapiens
ну
?
- Anyone can nominate anything for deletion at any time...the problem with this nomination is that it is completely misleading...not only does the category not "inappropriately [label] people", the criteria for inclusion preclude either "speculati[on]" or "potential[ charges of] libel[]".
WP:AGF generally applies, although given the anon's edits from the same day, assumption of good faith, coupled with the entirely fallacious charges used for the nomination especially, is a pretty difficult task...and probably a self-defeating exercise in misplaced and unwarranted excessive caution.
Tom
e
r
talk
06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per Humus Sapiens and others. --
Bear and Dragon
07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep We should not use this category as a sloppy epithet against people we (well, someone) does not like. But any category can be misused - the possibility of misuse is not an argument against the category itself. The fact is there is a veritable industry of Holocaust deniers and within tat are a group of people who vocally self-identify as Holocaust deniers, so we should have a category.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
10:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
AshbyJnr
10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Comment to closing administrator Please investigate whether the sudden flood of keep comments is a result of vote stacking. If it is, I suggest all but one of them should be disallowed.
AshbyJnr
10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Yeah, totally.
Tom
e
r
talk
00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, per numerous persuasive and self-evident arguments. ----
Leifern
11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. To be used selectively, but not to be deleted.
JFW |
T@lk
13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Any legitimate historian with knowledge of the subject uses this term. This isn't controversial.
IronDuke
14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- keep. sheesh. we don't have access to the opinions people hold, but we can certainly assess their public statements. this is a very useful category, which undoubtedly is and will be utilized to search for articles.
Gzuckier
15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep As long as we make sure the cat is not used as a slur or attack, it can certainly be objective and verifiable. --
DLand
TALK
15:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per DLand.
gidonb
16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per DLand.
Briangotts
(Talk)
(Contrib)
17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, Holocaust denial is well-known and documented. It is not speculation, WP:OR or WP:OC to include Holocaust deniers in such a category. --
Ynhockey (
Talk)
18:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep, Well-sourced and well-documented, no problems. --
Shamir1
22:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Keep it's based on what they say, what they think is unknowable to anyone (the same is true with religion and lots of other things).
Carlossuarez46
23:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. There is a high probability that vote stacking has occurred here. Just look at how the keep votes started to pour in four days after the opening of the vote. Even if they all came here after seeing comments on each other's talk pages, one can have no confidence that the community as a whole would be in favour of keeping this.
Honbicot
20:33, 12 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Films featuring museums
Subcategories of Category:Animal births by year
Category:Polish blues rock groups
- 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete.
Angus McLellan
(Talk)
10:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Polish blues rock groups (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
There is only one group in the category, and it is unlikely that there will ever be many more. All includes groups should simply be placed in the category Blues-rock groups. --
Cielomobile
talk /
contribs
01:42, 7 April 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 page's talk page, if any, or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.