- Category:Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Recently, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories were listed for deletion. The debate was balanced but inconclusive, disregarding some last-minute "me too" and "I don't like it" arguments. Especially in light of the recent decision to keep the entire Category:Wikipedians by religion user category, I think that After Midnight's decision to delete these user categories was misguided. I therefore request that the deleted categories be restored. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here follows some relevant information. If you've already decided how to vote, best to just skip it.
Stakes Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories Category:Cthulhu Cultist Wikipedians, Category:Discordian Wikipedians, Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, Category:Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, and Category:SubGenius Wikipedians
Players
- Horologium nominated the categories for deletion in part "because no collaboration is possible". Horologium also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion, and all subcategories, specificaly because they were used for collaboration.
- After Midnight closed the discussion as delete. After Midnight also voted to delete Wikipedians by religion because categories are "divisive".
- Black Falcon voted delete here. Black Falcon previously nominated Wikipedians by religion for deletion, and ranted extensively in that discussion. Black Falcon deletes a lot of things.
- Octane has a gorgeous user page, but I digress. Octane voted to delete these categories, arguing on the premise that each subject only has one article. This premise is false. Some of those user categories have many associated articles; some have entire associated subject categories.
- I voted keep. I think my argument was reasonable, but then, I'm obviously biased in favor of my own arguments.
- WaltCip voted keep, on the grounds of avoiding discrimination.
- I think that WaltCip's argument is a good argument. (this is actually an incorrectly placed canvassed vote by Lighthead at 20:32, 26 July 2007 UTC - 1st ever deletion discussion)
- As previously mentioned, there were a couple other "me too" and "do not want" voters.
Events
Discuss
- Note: The nominator, User:Bigwyrm, has canvassed for votes among former members of this category. --ST47Talk·Desk 11:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing whatsoever wrong with letting people know when there is a discussion in progress that affects them. To do otherwise invites accusations of cabalistic behavior. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 13:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- He also notified those opposed to him in the debate, such as User:After Midnight. So he was being non-partisan, the message was neutral, and he posted to less than 45 users (some of those links are article pages etc.). So doesn't this count as a friendly notice? DenisMoskowitz 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- False - He did not notify ANY of those opposed to him in the debate. He did notify me, but I did not oppose him. I was the closing admin and he was required to notify me that this was here per the process. In fact, he violated the very first principle of Deletion Review which is "1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." He clearly failed to do this and simply brought the matter here without prior discussion. I've addressed your question about friendly notice below where you first asked it. --After Midnight 0001 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for misreading the situation. I'm not sure exactly why we have the canvassing policy we have, but this does violate it. DenisMoskowitz 22:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have since notified User:Horologium, User:Black Falcon, User:WaltCip, User:ESkog, User:Sawblade05, User:Octane, and User:^demon, who participated in the original debate. — The Storm Surfer 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Aren't the originators of the initial vote guilty of the same thing? As I mentioned below, users who were part of the categories in question were not even notified that there was an attempt be made to delete our religions. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would like to irrelevantly point out that at least one person who was notified by the canvas was not a member of the former category, but will agree that all those notified have probably expressed their opinion on the subject matter at some point. --Osho-Jabbe 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - among the first group of editors to express an opinion on this matter you will note that I have marked that several of them were canvassed to do so. Please note that the fact that these marks do not continue down the page is not an indication that there are not additional canvased votes here, but rather that I got tired of looking them all up. I am certain that more canvassed votes are here, but I felt that there were better things that I could do rather than tag each one. --After Midnight 0001 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, as nom. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 09:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. Process was followed. Consensus was clear. I see no reason to disregard the comments that you characterize as "me too". When someone sees what they believe to be a well written nomination and they say "per nom", it is perfectly valid. --After Midnight 0001 10:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse consensus to delete. --Kbdank71 10:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 8 months) Overturn or add Category:Discordian Wikipedians and others to Category:Wikipedians by religion. I don't see why I and other Erisians should be excluded from categorization. --Storkk 11:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn until and unless Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted. I consider all religion a joke, to be quite frank, but Discordianism and Pastafarianism has every bit as much right to expression as Christianity or Islam. Either get rid of 'em all (which is the solution I'd prefer) or allow 'em all, but in this case, there really is no in between. It's not our place or business to decide what's a "real" religion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn per nom. There are people who can clearly identify theirselfs with for example Discordianism so I think all those religions should be merged into Category:Wikipedians by religion. --helohe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Provisionally overturn -- as long as Category:Wikipedians by religion is available. There's no obvious reason to discriminate among religions according to their apparent silliness. I wouldn't be upset if Category:Wikipedians by religion (etc) went, though: I'm puzzled by the desire for userboxes. (My page does sport one, but I'll spare you the reason for it and anyway it's religion-irrelevant.) -- Hoary 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 9 months) Overturn - Unless we're allowed to move these subcats straight to Category:Wikipedians by religion, which I'm not saying is neccessarily a good idea, I don't see how the deletion of this cat is anything but discrimination. Saying, for instance, that Discordianism is not a religion is no better than saying Wicca or Paganism are not religions. I realize not everyone was making that argument, but some were. I know there is issue in general with the polemic user cats, but I think it's useful for everyone to know what lens (or grid, if you will) authors are writing from so we can better understand various points of view expressed on both talk pages and article pages. If someone is editing the article about Historical Jesus, I for one would like to know whether they belong to Category:Born again Christian wikipedians, or Category:Wikipedians who worship IPU. Just an example, but I hope you see my point. I don't believe collaboration is the only purpose for these categories. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note - Those arguing that the first vote was sufficient should be aware that members of this category were not notified that such a vote was taking place. Seeing as how this was a discussion over a user cat, I think it was somewhat inappropriate to hold the discussion without notifying users who were in that category. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 11 months) Provisionally overturn unless "fictional" relgions such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism are allowed into the "regular" Category:Wikipedians by religion — Xoder|✆ 13:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote, fourth WP: edit in the last 2 months.)Overturn per nom. I personally don't see what all the fuss about "canvassing" is; some of us don't religiously follow User Categories for Discussion, and the first I knew of this was seeing my userpage modified by a bot. At any rate, I feel that the salient question here is, who gets to decide what is a "valid" religion which merits a category, and what is not? Obviously there's some level of "Making things up in school one day" but I feel that the groups in question here have outstripped that level and are long-standing groups with many members. And yes, before someone puts one of those little comments here, I was notified on my user page of this discussion ("canvassed", if you like, this is my first contribution to Wikipedia space in about 2 weeks) and I am a former member of the Discordian Wikipedians group. Fnord. Ryanjunk 14:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, being as the deletion followed process and policy better than this deletion review. The purpose of DRV is to correct procedural errors in deletion discussions and speedy deletions. Due to the votestacking in this DRV, I am inclined to believe that the deletion of this article through this DRV would be a greater evil than the alleged out of process closing. Pot, meet kettle. ----ST47Talk·Desk 14:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per nom, and per arguments by Seraphimblade and B. Mearns.--Alf melmac 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- (canvassed vote - 1st Wikipedia space contrib in 2 months) Overturn. Many of the arguments made in the deletion rested on falsities, such as "However, since the "religions" are satirical in nature, one cannot honestly claim them to be a philosophical view." Is Horologium the expert in what people have the ability to believe and believe in? These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical. In addition, the phrase "no collaboration is possible" is demonstrably false - a number of Discordians came together to work on the Discordian Works article, for instance. DenisMoskowitz 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- AfterMidnight, please try responding to my arguments rather than marking me as "canvassed". Or do only those who obsess about category deletions etc. count in this discussion? As far as I'm concerned, what Bigwyrm did was "Friendly Notice", which is acceptable according to WP:CANVAS. DenisMoskowitz 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Friendly notice specifies a limited number of users, which 40+ certainly exceeds. This is certainly not acceptable. --After Midnight 0001 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- All this crap about "first contrib to such and such a space in such and such a time" is bullshit. I don't know if it's wikipedia policy (because no, I haven't memorized all 67 thousand articles discussing wikipedia policy), but if it is, it needs to be addressed. If a bunch of accounts were created simply for the sake of engaging in the debate/vote, then that's obviously an issue, but the fact that I've lately been too busy with real life to edit the wikipedia namespace is irrelevant to the discussion, and placing it there implies that my contribution is somehow less important or otherwise skewed. It's crap. The fact is, we were invited to join the conversation because it directly impacts us, and we should get a say in it, something we missed out on the first time around due to negligence on the part of the vote originators to properly inform those who would be affected. If you truly believe this vote is currently unbalanced, the simple solution is to notify all those who voted the first time so they can rejoin the debate, instead of hiding behind bureaucratic policies to avoid addressing the actual issue under review. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn I am not sure the title of the category is a wise choice, but I do not see how we can possibly decide what counts as a real religion. DGG (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn per nom, and per Seraphimblade. wikipediatrix 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment notifying members in a user category is in my opinion not canvassing--it is simply notifying the people who are likely to be interested in the discussion--they will not necessarily all support it--some may think it not worth continuing now that it has been called to their attention--or if none of them do defend it after notification, that certainly indicates a plausible reason to delete. DGG (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response If what you assert is true, then why does WP:CANVAS#Votestacking state "Votestacking is sending mass talk messages only to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote."? --After Midnight 0001 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do think that contacting the members of the category was borderline votestacking, but on the other hand, failure to notify the same members during the original AfD was equally questionable. Evouga 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but they should not be canvassed in either circumstance. --After Midnight 0001 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn, despite consensus to delete. Given the existence of Category:Wikipedians by religion, barring some Wikipedians from expressing their religious views would harm the encyclopedia - not only is attacking another's religion extremely divisive and uncivil, but is is also not possible for the community to decide which religions are "serious" without invoking systemic bias, the avoidance of which is one of Wikipedia's highest policies. Moreover, as a user category, this category is not cluttering up main Wikipedia articles. For these reasons I see keeping this category as doing less harm to the project than deleting it. Evouga 17:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists. I really have no opinion on the various categories under discussion. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- overturn as per several others above, i see no valid argument for failing to treat this in the same way as Category:Wikipedians by religion, and failing to acknowledge the precedent-basied argument is in a way a process violation. That said, i hope this would be renamed if kept, to soemthing like Category:Wikipedians with non-traditional religions, or perhaps better just merge the various subcats into Category:Wikipedians by religion, so no distinction is made. But that is an argument for a different time and forum. DES (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have a few things to say about this. 1) WP:CCC 2) It is reasonable for people to feel one way about a hierarchically superior category and differently about its subordinates. For example, my friend loves dogs, but hates chihuahuas, and comments that they look like rats. 3) If someone closes a discussion based merely upon precedent and ignoring consensus, don't those items also come to DRV to be overturned? We can't have our cake and eat it too. --After Midnight 0001 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- 2) No it is not when you are trying to construct an NPOV encyclopedia. Creating a "dogs" category but excluding Chihuahuas, because "they look like rats," would be exceedingly biased. Evouga 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- 3) NPOV policy has always trumped consensus. Though I do not advocate frequently ignoring it, in this case I do not feel this category can be deleted on its own without introducing unacceptable bias. You're right that consensus can change, and if Category:Wikipedians by religion is deleted I have no objections to this category being deleted at that time as well. Evouga 22:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - I concede that I am a bit new to the community, but I have seen a number of articles and categories deleted without any discussion or reasonable consideration. I would support eliminating “Speedy deletions.” It seems safer to err on the side of being too informative, rather than not informative enough. I have noticed a general trend toward keeping any article (however poorly referenced) that fits within the dominant media culture, rather than any of the more diverse subcultures in this global community. Meanwhile, well-referenced articles are deleted, without discussion, simply because one administrator decides it is not notable (even when Wikipedia's criteria is met). The catchall phrase seems to be notability. So Paris Hilton’s drunk driving is notable, while a political movement, the symbol attached to a planet, or a less-known religion is not. As a realm of scholarly reference, Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive of fringe information (so long as sources are cited, referenced or linked).
That being said, I would support moving this category to a page with a different title. “Pseudo-religion” implies something phony or inauthentic. This is presumptuous for a subject matter where the buzzword is “Faith” rather than “Fact.” One person’s absolute truth is another person’s pseudo religion. The faithful have all kinds of pejoratives for those who differ in their beliefs: heathen, goyum, infidel, gentile, gray-face, damned, condemned, and so on. The bottom line is that alternative religion, or subculture, or minority world-view would be more descriptive.--Libertyguy 23:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will agree with those who've stated that to be truly NPOV, we need to allow for the same categorization extended to those who are involved in mainstream religions and those who are in lesser knowns, such as Pastafarianism. And I'd like to see the opposition from the original VFD speak to this point, as this seems to me to be the clincher. Bo-Lingua 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, in order to avoid being tagged, I'll mention that Bigwyrm posted a message to my talk page as well. I will also note that this is my first Wikipedia space contribution in two days (so clearly I'm not an active member of the community and my opinion is useless?). I will also note that I discovered the original deletion debate as it was being closed and so was unable to participate in it. I can only speak for Category:Discordian Wikipedians myself, because I'm not really familiar with the others.
The only argument given for deletion that I cannot thoroughly dismiss is Sawblade05's “Does not belong here,” to which I can only say “Yes, it does.” (Or perhaps “WP:IDONTLIKEIT.”)
The nominator's assertion that the religions do not exist I personally find extremely insulting. Discordianism obviously exists, and I don't think we'd have an article about it if it didn't.
The assertion that no collaboration is possible is also false. As DenisMoskowitz pointed out above, Discordians have collaborated before.
The assertion that “they are parodies or satirical religions” is an opinion that may be true, but is not relevant. It says right in his own sentence that they are religions, and I can personally assure you that there is at least one adherent of Discordianism. I see obvious elements of parody and satire in Satanism, but Category:Satanist Wikipedians seems to be free from being deleted for this reason.
The assertion that “People who wish to express their disbelief in deities are welcome to add themselves to Category:Atheist Wikipedians or any of its subcats” is about as relevant to Discordianism as it is to Islam. After all, don't Muslims express their disbelief in thousands of deities in Tawḥīd? Discordianism, FSMism, and IPUism are even named after deities!
Black Falcon's assertion that “There is no collaborative value to these categories” has already been done away with by showing that there is. His point that “Identifying with a given religious philosophy (especially philosophies that parody other beliefs) does not imply an ability or desire to contribute encyclopedic content about them. ” is a very good one, but again DenisMoskowitz has shown that the ability and desire is there.
^demon's assertion that “There is absolutely no collaborative potential for these, and any such would be original research” is incomprehensible to me. It has of course been shown that there is collaborative potential, but the original research comment is just plain strange. Discordianism, like most Wikipedia articles, is not as well cited as it should be, but is it all original research? Sufism “is primarily concerned with direct personal experience” (according to its article); is that article therefore original research as well?
Octane asserts that “The nominated categories cover one article each”, but Category:Discordianism currently has 35 pages and three subcategories.
Any other reasons for deletion I have either overlooked (if I have please correct me!) or have not yet been voiced.
I'm not really sure if there are any obvious procedural violations in the original discussion (just poor reasoning), but I think this counts as “significant new information” per DRV purpose statement 3 (even though that is guided at articles).
In summary, I believe that at the least the deletion of Category:Discordian Wikipedians should be overturned. I cannot personally provide much information as to what should be done with the others. — The Storm Surfer 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Discordianism comment well-noted, but my point still stands for the rest, unless I'm looking at the wrong parent cat (Category:New religious movements doesn't have a category for any others mentioned here, aside from discordianism). :/ Octane [improve me] 27.07.07 0139 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. Obviously, since I was the one who nominated all of these, I support the decision. There are a few misconceptions that need to be addressed above.
First off, Bigwyrm notes that I endorsed the deletion of all the religion cats, but rather egregiously misrepresents my position on the issue. I specifically stated (at first) that I did not endorse the mass deletion, but when I was informed that the categories were being used to canvass (like what was done here), I supported the deletion proposal. I didn't participate in the DRV, because I really didn't feel THAT strongly about it. Seraphimblade takes me to task for targeting certain "religions" (yes, the scare quotes are appropriate in this case). Four of the five main articles for the categories state that they are parody religions, which means they are not real. I repeat, they are not real. This is the crux of the issue. See Discordianism, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Flying Spaghetti Monster, all of which specifically state that they are parody or satirical religions; Church of the SubGenius notes that it is an offshoot of Discordianism, and later notes that it mocks Scientology and New Age religion. Cthulhu notes that the deity was created by H. P. Lovecraft as a plot device for his series of books.
I am of the belief that the "religion" category should be reserved for real religions, or the lack thereof. There are several categories that are appropriate for non-believers (Category:Atheist Wikipedians and its subcategories, or perhaps Category:Bright Wikipedians, which is a subcat of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Any religion that states in its introduction that it is a parody does not qualify as a religious belief in and of itself, and is more appropriate for some type of humor category. We go to great lengths to avoid offending people with the octopus-like scope of WP:BLP, which now covers dead people as well; why should we allow categories which openly mock traditional religions to exist?
Note also that this does not affect the userboxen associated with the categories; while I think they are pointless, I would oppose any attempt to delete the userboxen in question. I wasn't around for the great userbox purge, but I would have been there swinging against the deletionists in that case. A userbox is appropriate for noting the affiliation.
If there is a consensus that the categories should be restored, I really think that they need to be moved out of the religion (or philosophy) categories into a category of their own. (Somewhere in Category:Wikipedians by interest would be appropriate.)
I begin my vacation tomorrow, so my internet access will be spotty to non-existent. If I don't respond, it's not because I don't have a response to whatever you say, it's because I cannot log on or am actually doing something more important than Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Response: The assertion that parody means "not real" is understandable, but none-the-less false. Saturday Night Live is primarily parody, it's real. Further, it is a very genuine belief by some that parody is a very important and very useful tool. While this may not qualify as religous on it's own, you can not merely dismiss something just because it is parody.
- As far as the articles themselves claiming they are parody: a) that may indicate the articles need editing since, as is often the case, these religions have all taken on a life of their own far beyond what their originators may have initially intended, so even if the religion began as nothing but a joke or literary device, that does not mean that is the limits of it today. b) In Discordianism, at any rate, the only reference I found in that article for "parody" or "satire" is in the second line where it specifically says it is "regarded" as a parody religion. That doesn't mean it is. There are those who consider Christianity a religion that parodies Goddess worshipping (or reality for that matter). That doesn't mean members of that religion necessarily see themselves that way. If they do, refer to my point above.
- As for Lovecraft's invention of Cthulhu as a literary device: a) I would just like to point out that the originator of the Church of Scientology, was a science fiction writer. I'll leave conclusions to you. b) Many of the ancient Greek gods/deities were invented through mythology, i.e., they were a literary device. Would anyone argue that the Ancient Greeks did not have religion?
- This is not the first time in this pair of discussions, and certainly not in wikipedia at large, that these religions have been clumped together with Atheism, but that's not at all appropriate in all cases. I too, cannot speak for anything but Discordianism, but as a Discordian, I do not in any way consider myself an athiest, nor do I consider any part of Discordianism as expressing anti-theistic beliefs. We worship a goddess, The Goddess. Her Name is Eris. Just as Christians worship Jesus and Protestants worship an old man in white robes. For myself and many other Discordians, this is not merely a funny tool for talking to Born Again take-yer-picks, it's a genuine spiritual belief, and to try to tell me or any one else that they don't really believe in Her is no different then telling a Muslim that they don't really believe in Ala. So to imply that our religion is not a real religion when we, it's members, are telling you straight up it is, is nothing short of close mindedness and institutionalized discrimination.
- There was a comment about not allowing religions that mock other religions. Many religions, particularly western religions, in one way or another mock or offend other religions, notably by saying or implying that other religions are wrong, and their followers will burn in hell (just as an example).
- B.Mearns*, KSC 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure Wikipedia is a good source for information to be used in deletion debates, I believe you are misrepresenting the contents of the Discordianism article, which begins (after many edits): “Discordianism is a modern, chaos-centered religion founded circa 1958–1959 by Malaclypse the Younger with the publication of its principal text, the Principia Discordia.” The key word here being religion. It goes on to state that “It is widely regarded as a parody religion.” The key word there being regarded; in other words this stance is but one supportable opinion that many have taken (and others, significantly, have not). It happens to be your position that these are not real religions, but please do not represent it as some sort of indisputable fact upon which we should take action.
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons doesn't seem to apply to dead people (I'm guessing this from the number of times the phrase living person appears on that page versus the number of times the word dead does). In any case, BLP is not about offending people, it is about protecting the foundation from legal attacks and bad publicity. If it was about preventing offense, it might include such principles as only saying nice things about people, not putting up naked pictures of them, and not discussing politics, religion, or sexuality. Wikipedia contains content that offends some people. Some of it is in articles like Profanity, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, or Roman Catholic Church. Some of it is outside the article space, like when you say Discordianism is not a real religion. — The Storm Surfer 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn Deletion Freedom of religion here people, we have categories for everything else. Just my humble !vote. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 02:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion as being within process and proper. No one here has provided any reasonable arguments as to how these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research, which was one of the central arguments that led to the deletion. If this leads us to be inconsistent with respect to some other categories, we should examine those as well, but cries of religious discrimination are, frankly, ridiculous. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure what more you'd want me to say to support that “these categories have collaborative potential outside the bounds of original research”, or what was unreasonable about my argument to that effect. — The Storm Surfer 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the deletion was fine. I find Seraphimblade's argument not compelling - we certainly can apply our editorial judgment to distinguish between any significant established religion and spaghetti-monsterism. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I admit that I am here because of a message on my talk page. But is there a reason that Christianity and Islam should be given precedence over the above? (seriously, if there is, say so). It seems bias to allow categories for some belief systems but not others. The most "fair" thing to do is to either delete Category:Wikipedians by religion completely or keep it altogether. The fact that certain belief categories are allowed but others are not doesn't seem very neutral. Anyway, the bottom line is that I don't mind if people add their POV to their userpage, but as long as they don't add their POV to Wikipedia articles, it should be fine. Spellcast 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- What the hell? Pastafarianism isn't real. Go home, kids. You're worse than the bunch of people who insist the Zombie Survival Guide be labelled "non-fiction." If any of these are serious religions, undelete those and list in Wikipedians by religion. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I disagree, Pastafarianiam is real in the sense that it exists. It's not entirely serious and various points within its' 'mythology' confirm this. But it makes as much sense as any set of beliefs, and it is entirely possible that someone holds these as their belief. It should be included based on this and not whether anyone regards these as the 'valid' or 'true' belief. I am of the opinion that the Wikipedians by Religion Category is not useful to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but if you're going to keep some of it, keep all of it; otherwise delete it all. --Osho-Jabbe 08:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm not entirely sure if Wikipedians by religion is a useful category, either -- but that doesn't appear to be the matter at hand. The rest, we'll have to respectfully disagree on. If I saw somebody on the street preaching about Pastafarianism as the one true religion, I'd laugh along and encourage them. If I saw somebody persistently editing the Wikipedia article to present it as anything but a parody religion, I'd warn eventually block them for disruption and vandalism. You seem to have proposed that there's no difference between, say, Roman Catholicism and Pastafarianism. There's a shockingly obvious and very, very simple distinction: one is a parody, the other is not. That's clearly the basis on which one group of categories was kept when another group was deleted. You could argue whether that's a valid basis, but it is an objective and logically sound basis, and to pretend or suppose otherwise is, I suspect, mere tomfoolery. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse. These weren't useful. I'm sorry your vanity categories were deleted. They're just as useful as they ever were as a redlink. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non notable categories - endorse in general -- "pastafarianian" is non notable, a few may be notable. Neither delete all automatically, nor keep all automatically. Feel free to create a category "other". Do WP:WEIGHT, WP:N and the one about making a point, apply to such categories? What about BJAODN? I think they might profitably do so. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment discovering that user categories can be deleted without notification of those in them has moved me to start watching all categories I am in. This seems kind of broken - surely those in a category should have some chance to see that it is being deleted, just as if they were watching a page - but for now, we'll have to defend ourselves manually. DenisMoskowitz 14:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment as I see it, Notification is permitted even under existing policy if everyone interested is notified--it cannot be assumed that those in a category will support it if it is challenged so it is not votestacking. It can be a valid way of determining if there is still interest in a category. Further, some of the people, seeing the arguments, may decide that it is not a valid category--and such an opinion would cary weight.
-
- I agree with Denis that it should in fact be required and automatic and will propose such a change to the UCfD rules if it seems there is support. UCfD is a very obscure process and can easily be seen as unfair. DGG (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I specifically do not support this. Let's take an extreme example, someone wants to propose deletion of Category:American Wikipedians and it's subcategories in good faith. Is it proper to leave messages of the talk pages of thousands (tens/hundreds of thousands) of users in those categories? I don't think so. Let's extrapolate this into the article space. Right now, Category:California porn stars is listed at CFD. The category contains 27 articles. Should the talk pages of all 27 or those articles be posted as to the discussion? Should all the editors of those 27 articles be spammed with a notice of the discussion? Once again, I think not. --After Midnight 0001 17:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with adding the categories you're in to your watchlist? I'm with AM. Required notification will do nothing but clog up talk pages for no reason. If you are interested in something, why would you rely on someone else to make sure you know about it? I certainly wouldn't. --Kbdank71 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: while Pastafarianism and the IPU are clearly the real-world equivalents of WP:POINT, Discordianism and the Subgenii are another matter entirely. Both of the latter have strong ties to the Neopagan movement, and, while they have definite tongue-in-cheek elements, they also have definite "ha-ha, only serious" elements. If you're going to exclude something from being called a religion because it has nonsensical elements, you'll have to exclude Zen Buddhism as well. Frankly, I think the parent category is borderline offensive, and think it should remain deleted, but its former children, or at least some of them, should be reinstated and reparented in a more appropriate category. (Whether a by-religion or a by-philosophy category, I don't really care.) As for the general usefulness of Wikipedians-by-religion/philosophy categories, I don't see any broad consensus on that. But it is certainly a non-neutral point of view to claim that these particular categories are any less useful than other religious/philosophical categories. Xtifr tälk 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Better put than I had. To hopefully be clear, my comments were directed at the FSM and IPU categories in particular; several of the others, I'm unfortunately not as familiar with as I would like, and I can't make a judgement call on something I don't know. It may be worth splitting those off from this discussion for separate consideration, as there seems to be a bit of a crossfire going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly Endorse Closure, there was nothing out of process. Saying "we have other religions, why delete these" is no reason to overturn a valid UCFD discussion. In addition, I'm not to sure about the legitimacy of this DRV, as it seems like a "I don't like the outcome" and "I don't like the people who voted/closed/nominated." (see top about the different people, and the attempts to cast them as poor decision makers). ^demon[omg plz] 23:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- But once again, the issue here is not whether or not there was a violation of procedure per se, but whether or not the vote included all the appropriate parties. B.Mearns*, KSC 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- It was listed on UCFD, are we supposed to notify every single member of every category? That's senseless, as it would only perpetuate a stream of ILIKEITs. Imagine if we did that for Category:Wikipedians by musician (which is currently on UCFD), which contains many thousands of users. ^demon[omg plz] 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. I agree with DenisMoskowitz who says that "These religions are satirical, but they are not only satirical," and notes that the assertion that "no collaboration is possible" is false for at least some of the religions in question. Scientology, for example, is no less "made-up" than Discordiansim; nevertheless, some folks are sincere Scientologists, just as some of us are sincere Discordians. As long as Category:Wikipedians by religion exists, religions shouldn't be discriminated against because their adherents make skepticism about organized religion a central part of their belief system. I can't speak to all members of this subcategory, but Discordiansim and the Church of the SubGenius are certainly long-standing communities where collaboration is possible on Wikipedia content. Szarka 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sounds like you favor a partial overturn, in that case? That may be the way to go -- this discussion is getting fragmented because we have such a mix of categories. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Compromise (not to highlight my opinion, but because we need another section break)
- Compromise as follows(and it represents a change of my earlier views, based upon some of the arguments, particular those directly above)
- WP has no basis whatever for classifying religions as true or false, not what counts as a "pseudo"-religion. This is especially true considering it probable that some beliefs originally put forth a a joke have been seriously adopted by others. I recall Gibbon's famous line in chapter 13 of Decline and Fall “The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."
- I have pretty definite personal views on the likeliness of various religions, but I have no intention of saying what they are here at WP. Personally I follow what has been said about my profession: But I can see that some people might want to self-identify as a sign of faith, or as a sign of background, or as a joke. I do not see that it hurts the encyclopedia--some of the most objectively neutral editors here on religious topics identify strongly and openly with particular religions. Sp my inclination is to let them do so. But if anyone may do so, everyone may. If any religion may be asserted as a matter of personal concern, all must be allowed, regardless of anyone's opinion about them. Nor can we possibly decide who among them are the genuine believers.
- So each individual category is valid, and must stay, or else we lose the core principle of NOTCENSORED, and the even more important general principle of allowing freedom of religious expression in private and in public in all non-sectarian contexts.
- But what about the super-category--this category is opinion, pure and simple. I think a few of these categories are pseudo- in every sense of the word, and many or all of the individuals involved would share it. I can see how those of other religious beliefs might think it wrong to admit some of them to the supercategory religion, and how to deal with that is another matter--perhaps by renaming it religious and spiritual beliefs.
- I accept there is a category of pseudoscience, because there are objective standards--but I am not happy with it. Personally I think there is pseudo-social science as well, but there would certainly not be general agreements about what would fall under it. But pseudo-religion? No human can safely say that. I think we must remove it. As a compromise, I can see renaming it: spiritual beliefs. That at least they certainly are. DGG (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I disagree with several of the points you raise, because (in the case of the IPU the FSM, and Cthulhu) there is no assertion that anyone follows the "beliefs" of the two religions, which are (as noted above by a couple of editors) rather POINTy. The other two are a little more believable, but still essentially joke religions. If someone who belongs to either "religion" has managed to get the IRS to grant them a tax-free status as a result of their affiliation, I'd be much more inclined to agree that they are real, but (AFIAK, IANAL) that is not the case. I rather strongly feel that any retained categories should be moved into a "Wikipedians by interest" category, rather than into the philosophy or especially the religion categories. For those who want to show their "affiliation" with the category as a joke, there are a variety of userboxen (well-designed and otherwise) to use to display such an affiliation. But (especially in the case of the IPU and FSM, and less so for the Discordians, the CotSG, and Cthulhu) there is little or no use to retaining them as categories. As an aside, I find it interesting (and really, rather ironic) that most of the coordinated actions on contesting this deletion are coming from the Discordians. (!) Isn't that sacrilegious for them, or something? Horologium t-c 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing is sacrilegious for a Discordian unless they want to comment sacrilege for some reason. Episcopisian Discordians believe that the dichotomy between order/chaos is false (and that people who believe in order for order's sake are Greyfaces), and that the dichotomy that matters is creative/destructive. That said, Discordianism is somewhat of a roll-your-own-religion anyway. (I still think that these categories are useless, but whatever.) - Pope AMIB II 05:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- the IRS classifies religions for tax purposes according to its own set of rules, and I don's ewe that that has anything to do with what WPedians choose to say they affiliate with.DGG (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the main thing to remember is that since all religions are false, there is no justification for saying some are falser than others. As for some being jokes: Scientology is a joke, the result of a bar bet between L. Ron Hubbard and Robert Heinlein. Would you honestly say that no one believe it? Kww 18:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- I primarily oppose restoration of the IPU and FSM categories as obvious and undeniable parodies. It seems quite unlikely that those two in particular have any collaborative use that a quick glance at the relevant article's history page wouldn't already provide. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- You may call them parodies, but they are religions nonetheless, valid, and with a cult popularity. Religion is defined by faith, and without faith it is nothing. Therefore, if these are deleted, so too must be Category:Wikipedians by religion.--WaltCip 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are not. From Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster:
- From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article.
- And from Invisible Pink Unicorn:
- It is accepted that there are no actual believers in this mock goddess, but it has become popular, especially on atheist web sites and on-line discussion forums, to feign belief in her both for the sake of humor and as a form of critique or satire of theistic belief. These professions of faith intend to demonstrate the difficulty of refuting avowals of belief in phenomena outside human perception.[1][2]
- There are no worshipers of these "religions"; they are parodies. What is so hard to understand about this rather elementary concept? Horologium t-c 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- And how is Buddhism not a parody of Hinduism?--WaltCip 04:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're seriously equating the Invisible Pink Unicorn with Buddha? Classy. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly equating; not all religions are equal, though they are very similar. Is it wrong for a religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to be created by a man with a big idea just as Buddhism was created (this time by a big man with an idea)?
- "I'm not equating them, but here, let me equate them again." We're not here to indulge vanity. To turn around the Saturday Night Live example used several times above, while yes, SNL is real in the sense that it exists; no, we don't categorize it as a documentary or drama series, because it isn't either of those things. By the apparent argument of many of you here, we could categorize SNL in Category:Crime television series because a skit, at some point, mentioned criminals. That obviously doesn't add up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I agree with the sentiments that Discordianism and The Church of the Subgenius have grown into groups in their own right, and think that they should be categories in the Wikipedians by Religion because of this and because collaboration is possible within those two groups. However, Pastafarianism and the IPU aren't good for inclusion in Wikipedians by religion. Pastifarianism is too new to have grown much beyond the original purpose of its creator as a parody and probably shouldn't be included until more people have used as more than a POINT arguement and a joke, and actively hold it as a true belief. With the IPU I don't think anyone uses it as anymore than a POINT argument and as it is unlikely to ever grow beyond this it shouldn't be included. I've not had enough experience with Cthulu to comment on it. Those that probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia by Religion could be put into a subcategory of Wikipedians by interest called Wikipedians interested in Parody Religions, with sub-subcategories addressing them specifically, and the Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians can be left deleted. --Osho-Jabbe 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the consensus I see is this: Nobody wants Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians recreated, most everybody wants the Discordians and Subgenii recreated, and there's still widespread disagreement about Cthulhu, IPU, and Pastafarianism. Is that accurate? DenisMoskowitz 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Endorse Deletion: I don't think any amount of talk would justify keeping these vanity categories. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- I invoke Wikpedia's prime directive: Wikipedia is a project to build a high quality encyclopedia. Stupid crap has no place in that vision. It must die, and this crap was killed righteously. Let's not waste any more time arguing over the corpse. --Tony Sidaway 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- That argument is frivolous because the alleged "crap" is in user space, and not part of the encyclopedia proper. Evouga 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it's in the category space. (; Octane [improve me] 31.07.07 0819 (UTC)
- That some editors feel they have a right to colonise category-space and template-space with their own crap does not make it any less useless and, in the end, distracting from the mission in that it inculcates an entirely false view of Wikipedia: to wit, that it is a community-building exercise for its own sake. Crap must die. And yes, crap must also die when it's in userspace and not of benefit to the mission of building an enyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|