- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Delete per nomination. No prejudice against a well-sourced list. --John (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not and never will be a "defining" property. A list may be more appropriate for this. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not even sure that Group of 88 is notable (although, given that it is sports-related, I may be in a minority position here). In any case, as the nom says, this is not a defining property. --Randykitty (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism. It is not sports related, it is related to a bunch of people presuming guilt and undermining the due process that all criminal defendants should be given. To make matters worse they were rewarded for their attacks and presumptions of guilt, although their hero, Nifong, did have his license revoked. They should not get to remove their badge of infamy. Multiple books have been written focusing on their misdeads, books written by respected writers and academics and well sourced. They are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a defining property for these educators. Their most public act was a willingness to condemn students before a fair hearing had been reached, to denounce students on the grounds that they were white, "privileged" and so forth, and to spew hatred at these students. These people made it a defining link by publicly signing a letter that was the antithesis of due process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No matter how loathsome, I don't think it is up to WP or us editors to take a position on this. "These enemies of due process need continued exposure for their racism" is not in the NPOV spirit of WP, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Johnpacklambert is clearly pursuing some form of political agenda. Perhaps the "Group of 88" is more contentious than I was aware. Nigel Pap (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I think an article and a list is notable and sourced, but as a category this doesn't work - it's sort of like a club that they inadvertently joined and that was given a name, but we have deleted categories for clubs which are even more defining than this one - this one fails the defining test for most of its members. JPL I think your comments need to be toned down. That said, anyone is free to populate the category while it is under discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has come to my attention that some of the members of this group have proactively attempoted to surpress all mention of it from their Wikipedia talk pages. Here is a quote from the discussion of this issue on the page of Cathy Davidson. " Conflict of interest violations[edit]
I thought it was suspicious how there was no mention of Davidson's role in the Group of 88 in this article so decided to examine the various IPs who have all been so firmly against such inclusion.
152.3.43.222 made quite a few Davidson related edits accords Wikipedia. While some were uncontroversial, at least 6 significant edits were made opposing the Duke Lacrosse scandal material in 2013, either posting here and on noticeboards or simply removing engaging in wholesale removal of the content. While the initial version of text added did have some minor sourcing issues it's extremely clear that the material in question is highly notable and not UNDUE in the slights as was incorrectly being argued. Perhaps most worrying of all was that the IP also opposed inclusion of any such mention of the 88 for any of Davidson's colleagues either, some of whom played even more significant roles in the Group of 88 than she did. A WHOIS check of the IP shows it to be from Duke University, who were Davidson's employer at the time.
On 1st of July 2014 a second IP started editing the page, their very first contribution being the removal of the Duke lacrosse material (despite the sourcing now being improved). The IP is question belongs to Graduate Center of the City University of New York and Davidson started work there on the 1st July 2014. The CUNY edits, reasoning, style and knowledge of the issues appear remarkably similar to the Duke IP, therefore suggesting it may be the same editor who used both IPs.
As far as I'm aware, neither of these two IPs disclosed their COI on any of the issues at any time. I've now tagged the IPs and reminded them about our policies on this matter. The various comments above and elsewhere by the IP should therefore be viewed in the context of the conflict of interest of the author, and I'd ask them to be a little more honest about this in future please.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)"
Wikipedia is not censored. These people clearly pass notability, their participation in this group has clearly been noted in multiple sources, and I see no well reasoned argument to end the category. Especially in light of COI editing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- JPL you know categories too well to make the 'not censored' argument. Deleting a category is not censorship. The argument to delete this category is it is essentially membership in a club and such membership is not defining for these people.if there are issues with this being erased in articles take it up at the BLP boards, don't bring that into a category discussion.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a BLP disaster and editors involved in pushing this category should familiarize themselves with BLP practice and policies before they edit further articles regarding living individuals and use those articles to push a POV. Gamaliel (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This was a temporary ad-hoc group. This category stands more of a chance to bias an article than it does to do anything. I agree there may be BLP issues. The level of conversation that would be required to add this category to a page seems to me to be less than what's required to add this as text into the article. I'd hate to think that anyone is trying to game the consensus with this category, but that thought does come to mind. To me if it's important enough to be on the page it should be in the article. While I do agree with the deletion I also see the possibility of a COI. I do ask those with a possible COI to exercise caution.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all the reasons given above. In addition, I'd like to see less detective work with IPs and buildings and more policy. I'm not sure how Johnpacklambert came to be convinced that categories are acceptable tools in "exposing racism" or whatever, but it should stop. Drmies (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP issues, not a defining category, maybe being used to make a point, etc. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The removal from articles where the person clearly falls into the group while the category is still under discussion is a clear violation of policy. The fact that people who presumed guilt of rape are defended on BLP grounds is a sad comment on allowing public individuals to attack private ones, and then have their careers advanced for it, but not be exposed for such reprehensible things to the general public.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it didn't appear in the article I removed the category from the Article. It sounds like you are trying to Righting the Great Wrongs. Using a category as a Scarlet Letter really brings to mind to me a BLP issue. I notice that on Lee D. Baker this information was removed from the article. Why should the Scarlet Letter stand if the information can't even be posted in the article?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not defining. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think people misunderstand what is meant by the "Group of 88" and are approaching this issue with too narrow a focus. I've seen ridiculous arguments along the lines of "they just signed their name" or "it was just one document" etc but this misses the point quite spectacularly. The 88 were a group of staff who turned against their own students, young people they were paid to support and teach. The topic "group of 88" includes not just the first letter that was signed but also the second document which was pretty awful in its own way too. The topic includes the malpractice that occurred on campus, with stunning correlation between acts against the students and membership of the 88. These acts included horrific insults aimed at the victim's mothers, failing students who had actually passed courses and racially abusing the victims. The 88 thanked "protestors making collective noise" but this "noise" consisted of protestors going to the victim's houses early in the morning, calling one them to confess to a crime they hadn't committed whilst demanding their castration. The victims were also assaulted. Perhaps most significant of all is just how united the 88 are, as seen by the second document and the comments of the members in the years following the scandal, even after the person they supported so wholehearetdly went on to commit murder. To my knowledge only one out of the whole 88 distanced themselves from the group and offered to apologise, and even they failed to do so in the end, and others actually seem rather proud of their actions. The 88 hounded victims of a crime out of their own university, now I can understand some fell this might not be best served by a cat in some people's opinions, but whatever the case, there's no doubt that it certainly is very defining, not least for any who still stand by what they did.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my understanding the second letter was signed by only 87, not all of whom where a part of the original 88. They expressly state that they firmly stand behind the principle of presumption of innocence and reject all attempts to try the case outside of court. They also claim the intent of their original was misunderstood. You can cherry pick which ever part of the letter you like but I see no reason to ignore that. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Its certainly true that the second letter completely contradicts the first.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The so-called "Group of 88" does not exist and never has existed. Instead, 88 people signed a newspaper ad, and that was ill-advised in retrospect. There is nothing "defining" about signing a newspaper ad, except in the imaginations of POV pushers. This categorization is part of an aggressive, BLP violating campaign to demonize people, and is utterly inappropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am sorry that my above comments have been too emotional. I still believe that this is a cohesive group, well defined by their open, public statement of intent, and their willingness to hold to it in spite of overwhelming evidence. The fact that there are concerted attempts to surprssed well-sourced mentions of involvement from some articles should also be taken into account.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not defining, and the overwhelming evidence is that such a category does not belong at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There was no actual "group" to which these people joined - it's a term coined to cover those who put their names to the ad. It seems to be used in order to denigrate these people as a whole (including, as we have so sadly seen here, for Wikipedia editors to use to denounce them all as racists - we do not know whether any individual is actually in any way racist, and making such allegations is a gross BLP violation). Anyway, group or no group, it's certainly not a defining characteristic. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Stipulating that the sources do identify people as being a member of this group, what is the problem with having the category?Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- because it's not a defining characteristic. It's just a petition they signed - we don't build categories of 'senators who voted for bill #892' even if such a vote garnered a ton of press - simarly we rarely categorize people by membership in a club, and most aware categories are deleted for the same reason. When a biography is written of most of these professors, the fact they signed this ad will not be in the first paragraph. The number of true things about a person is vastly larger than the number if things we allow categories to be build around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those really aren't the most convincing arguments TBH. It's true that in the overwhelming majority of cases "the fact they signed this ad will not be in the first paragraph" but nor will material relating to plenty of other categories. Almost every bio is categorised by a person's alma mata, yet it's not so often we see that mentioned in the lede. Their place of birth often isn't found there, nor their religion, ethnicity, ancestry or sexuality, yet all those things get categorised as and even the school a person attended does too in many articles. In most cases, membership of the group of 88 is significantly more defining than say aspects of a person's childhood, their skin colour, where their grandparents were born or details simply relating to their personal life. It's an extremely controversial group and one they, as adults, chose to be a part of. Perhaps this is just making a case here for much less categorisation throughout Wikipedia, but whatever the case, your argument doesn't really work here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- many of those other standard biographical details are more or less considered as exceptions to the defining rule.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a defining characteristic if the sources state it as such?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do the sources state it is a defining characteristic ? I'd question the reliability of such a source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.