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:no consensus to delete. Multiple users feel that the cats are worthwhile to distinguish different types of synth pop, so although others feel the category is too narrow, consensus to delete has not been reached. delldot∇. 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Synthpop New Wave musical groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Seems to fail WP:OC#NARROW. It is too specific to label "synthpop bands of New Wave origin in 1970s and 1980s" unless there's an independent sourced Wikipedia page for "synthpop revival" genre. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. I have to laugh at a category using "New Wave" in the title to distinguish its contents from more recent things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reason is to not have the original New Wave synthpop bands of the 1980s in the same category (Category:Synthpop groups) as today's synthpop bands, as many sprouted or are influenced from other genres, not just 80's synthpop, thus having a total difference in sound and in style. As stated in the category, it's "to distinguish itself from modern-day synthpop bands of the 21st century revival" because bands classed as synthpop from the 2000s to present are not New Wave, and do not sound anything like the original New Wave synthpop bands of the 1980s, although they are of course also influenced by them. They are a fresh modern day version of synthpop. There is an independent article right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_in_electro_pop_music, and it's also explained in the synthpop article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthpop#21st_century_revival. Hiddenstranger (talk) 08:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally in favor of separation between "1970s synthpop" and "modern electropop"; nevertheless this category just looks too specific. It is like the classifications of "1960s pop music groups", "Sludge metal bands with Southern rock origins" or "Alternative metal grunge musical groups". Just pointless. Different influences mean different categorizations for each. For instance, Gary Numan is both classified with Category:Synthpop musicians and Category:English New Wave musicians due to his affilation with early synthpop and New Wave while 2000s band Goldfrapp is also labeled with Category:Trip hop groups, Category:British techno music groups, Category:IDM musicians and Category:Ambient music groups. There's no need to overlap these categories as the result would fail the WP:OC#NARROW. However, I can say that I'd agree with this classification if the modern synthpop had an totally independent genre article rather than an one about its popularity in 21st century.Myxomatosis75 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per hiddenstranger 146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with Hiddenstranger, because modern synthpop groups are not New Wave therefore having Category:Synthpop New Wave musical groups to separate them is relevant. Sectorrvolts (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (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.
Category:Lists of things named after Taras Shevchenko
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.
Nominator's rationale:Convert. Needs to be converted to a list article. It presently contains articles and each of the articles is about a thing that is named after the person. The category does not contain, as it suggests, "list articles" of things named after the person. The list article that is created may then be placed in Category:Lists of things named after people and Category:Taras Shevchenko. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nominator. The doesn't meet our criteria for a category (see WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES), and its current title is misleading; but it would be fine as a list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify we do not do named after x categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per nom. --Qetuth (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
listify as above 146.90.110.75 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2012 (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.
Category:Religious fundamentalism
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:keep. However several participants have brought up valid concerns about articles and subcategories included in this cat, and folks with this type of concern should feel free to correct those problems in a way that respects consensus. delldot∇. 03:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale this is categorization by shared name. It includes categories for Islamic fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism and Mormon fundamentalism. The fact of the matter is that these are three very different things, that really have nothing in common and the use of the same adjective to modify them really tells us nothing about them. This is grouping together things that have the same name but are not otherwise related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Aren't they all similar in that they adhere more or less to principles of Fundamentalism in a religious context? They all "demand strict adherence to specific theological doctrines", often ones that are regarded as more "original" or "ancient". Maybe this is too loose a basis for categorization, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see fundamentalism as the main topic, with the subcats as subtopics. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- nominator's justification is completely false. There is obviously a conceptually identical relation. I also see that an editor is trying to depopulate the category prior to the result of this proposal. keep the category, and stop the nonsense. please. Greg Bard (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find the generalization of the original fundamentalism to be somewhat questionable but I'm not going to fight the sources which are surely out there, so I'm not going to concur with deletion. That said, I've removed exactly two pages, one of which could not by any stretch be considered fundamentalism of any sort. I'm not going to edit-war with you over the other, but your WP:OWNership of these categories is not likely to end well. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles removed from the category were theological veto (that reason and logic are inherently flawed) and Christian privilege (that Christians get dominant privilege in certain societies and discriminate against non-Christians). While both articles feature criticism of religious thought, none currently features specific mentions to religious fundamentalism. Dimadick (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not distinct topics at all. Strict adherence to certain doctrines and opposition to modernism and secularism are the defining characteristics. Dimadick (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Fundamentalism is clearly a common factor, even though the scriptures which adherents claim to follow are different ones. They claim to adhere to the strict principles of their religion, often in a harsh way that is contrary to other interpretations of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment part of the issue is that things like "Religion and violence" are daughter categories - implying that all religion in the "religion and violence" is fundamentalist; not sure that's true because there seem to be some articles about non-fundamentalist views on violence; but when a category encompasses more than its ambit it becomes nonsensical and not necessarily useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That fits into my removals: there seems to be a bit of POV pushing behind this category, intentional or not. Mangoe (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, But prune. Only those organizations which label themselves as 'fundamentalist' should be included. One mans fundamentalism is another man's moderate. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate? Not a particularly useful term here, since religious fundamentalism is not exactly synonymous to extremism. Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism are key elements to Christian fundamentalism, rejecting most methods of Biblical criticism and all forms of Liberal Christianity. Opposition to the secular state, and thinking influenced by the Wahhabi movement are key elents of Islamic fundamentalism, with the ultimate goal being to shed all the supposed "impurities" and innovations Muslim thought gained over the centuries. Mormon fundamentalism attempts to revive certain religious and cultural practices of the 19th-century Mormons, which have since been abandoned by the mainstream Mormons. Dimadick (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2012 (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.
Category:Freopedia stubs
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:you guys work it out. This is a confusing discussion, with no clear resolution. There's no negative consequence to this staying as is, but if consensus develops at the Fremantle project, we can make a change at that time.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Freopedia stubs to Category:Potential stub-length Freopedia articles
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name implies that it is a part of project Wikipedia:WPSS. As such, there are a number of issues, including being poorly named (the stub articles are about Freemantle, not Freopedia), and lacking a stub template. A name change (and please feel free to suggest a better name) allows that the category may be useful, but not as part of WPSS. Dawynn (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category was originally created for ((Freopedia-stub)). That stub template has since been renamed ((Fremantle-stub)) (to remove Freopedia references from mainspace). The talk page banner ((WikiProject Freopedia)) is now being used to categorise articles' talk pages here, so any change will also need to be made there. - Evad37 (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These catgeories should not be merged, as Category:Fremantle stubs is a stub category, whilst the current Category:Freopedia stubs is a project category for the Freopedia project. - Evad37 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the word "potential" is ambiguous.
Are the articles "potential stubs". (I think not - they are actual stubs. A "potential stub" is the non-existent target of a red link.)
Are they "potential Freopedia articles"? (And if so, what's the difference between a potential Freopedia article and an actual Freopedia article. Eg, which is 7 High Street, Fremantle? What makes an article "Freopedia".)
Perhaps we should just not rename the category at all. Or (better) merge it to Category:Freopedia, and have independent categories for Freopedia and Fremantle stub. That might be simpler, and easier to understand. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This category should exist as a separate subcategory of Category:Freopedia (and not be merged), as it identifies stub articles that will potentially be QR-linked as part of Freopedia. - Evad37 (talk)
If the articles haven't been QR-linked why are they categorised as Freopedia? Isn't the definition of a Freopedia article one which is QR-linked? See my comment of 2012-12-12 above (this edit), where I answered my own question "What makes an article Freopedia", quoting/link three definitions. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Freopedia articles" are ones which have had a QR-plaque installed. There are currently none. These articles will have their talk pages tagged with ((Freopedia article)), which will categorise them into Category:Articles linked to by Freopedia
"Potential Freopedia articles" are articles being considered for QR-linking. They do not currently have a QR-plaque installed. Permission will need to be obtained from buidling/site owners prior to plaque installation. A list is available at WP:Freopedia#Articles. These articles should have their talk pages tagged with ((Potential Freopedia article)), which will categorise them into Category:Potential Freopedia articles
If the "Potential Freopedia article" is a stub, then it should definitely be expanded prior to being QR-linked. These stubs should have their talk pages tagged with ((Potential Freopedia article|stub=yes)), which will categorise them into this category instead (currently Category:Freopedia stubs, but it should be renamed to avoid confusion with stub sorting categories)
The above templates are documented at ((WikiProject Freopedia)) (which can also be used for organisation participating in Freopedia), and the above definitions can be seen from WP:Freopedia#Tagging
Comment See Wikipedia_talk:GLAM/Freopedia for discussion that led to this situation. I believe this, while formerly a stub category, has been effectively split off as a project categorisation, and hence should have a name something like Category:Stub-class Freopedia articles. --Qetuth (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the word "potential" (or something similar) in the name would be a good idea, as the articles categorised here have not yet been QR-linked. - Evad37 (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are two seperate things, articles in the Category:Frematle-stub are directly related to the location of Fremantle, where as articles within the Freopedia scope can be related to the Locations of Fremantle, North Fremantle, South Fremantle, East Fremantle, Beaconsfield, Hamilton Hill or not at all given that the Freopedia also encompass objects that arent "Fremantle" but on display in Fremantle. Gnangarra 05:03, 20 December 2012 (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.
Category:Interstate conflict
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:rename as nominated, removing American Civil War (which is in Category:Wars involving the United States, and in Category:Internal wars of the United States despite the note on that page.) – FayenaticLondon 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - no objection from me (category creator) Greg Bard (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Inter-state conflicts in the United States to match the Indian category. Re-create subject as a paretn for both. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what happened is the category was not tagged for the previous discussion, so the nominator of this discussion didn't know it was already being discussed. Now we have a mess, which is one reason categories should always be tagged when nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, there was a mess. I closed the other discussion since the nomination was not completed. It would be nice if we had a bot to find these so that someone can do something early in the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note. As noted above there was another discussion on this that was not correctly opened. I closed that one to avoid confusion. The closing admin for this discussion should review the comments there in case someone is not aware of the new discussion. No reason to ignore discussion comments if the nomination was incomplete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Rename (to a title to be named later) I had assumed that the category was about road range incidents on I-95, so a rename is appropriate, but none of the proffered choices captures the essence of the topic. The category organizes articles by a strong defining characteristic. I had never learned much about the American Civil War when I was back in school, but apparently it was some sort of conflict that involved one group of U.S. states that were at odds with another group of states, and as such it would seem to be the cardinal example of interstate conflict in this country and a clear case of POV-pushing to exclude it. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the claim that the US Civil War was "a war between the states" is a POV-positon. It is one interpretation of the war, an interpretation that is undermined by works like "The South vs. The South" and an acknowledgement of the role played by African-Americans in the war, African-Americans who were overwhelmingly from states that in theory were fighting against the Union, yet the African-Americans overwhelmingly fought on the side of the Union. To call it an insterstate conflict is to disvalue the role of many of the participatins in the war, a view of history that has been generally rejected by professional historians since the 1970s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To call it an international conflict would bestow upon the secessionist government a recognition it could never earn during its existence. It was clearly an example of Interstate conflict in the United States. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was clearly an internal conflict. It is much less clear it was an "inter-state conflict" with people on both sides often originating from the same state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2012 (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.
Category:American gay-related television programs
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This was nominated for merger on November 2 and closed no consensus. However, the rationale for opposing merger is not viable. The objection rested on the existence of two similar categories for other countries and the existence of a vestigial "Gay (male) media" category tree. The other two gay shows by country categories were merged per CFDs opened November 4 and November 5.
The reason for merging this category is the same as the reason for merging the other two. There is no body of research that indicates that gay males have been treated so differently at the American television series level from the way that gay females, bisexual males or bisexual females have been treated as to merit gendered categorization under WP:CATGRS. This category is now the outlier, existing in isolation as the sole category at this level.
The existence of a vestigial gay male media category tree does not justify this category. There are a very few types of media that merit categorizing LGBT media by the separate components of the acronym. The existing vestigial tree, largely the work of a single User:MaybeMaybeMaybe, has been reduced through CFD, with the merger or deletion of categories for gay-related TV episodes, gay-themed musical groups, gay-related newspapers and others along with the merger of many other gay-related, lesbian-related, bisexual-related and transgender-related categories. Buck Winston (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Nothing is gained from seperating out these categories beyond the LGBT level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I see no point for a subcategory here. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question (leading to a possible delete) The category prvides no description of its inclusion criteria and there is no reference to a parent article, so what exactly makes a television program gay-related or LGBT-related? Is it the overall theme of the series, is it the presence of a preponderance of LGBT characters (or just one lead character as in Will & Grace) or is there some other definable characteristic? Do we rely on a description of the program by its producers or do we use characterization by reviewers and other outside entities? The presence of the word "-related" makes it rather unclear how to decide if a program belongs in this category or if it doesn't, as well as making it clear that those who have created the category aren't quite sure either. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We generally don't distinguish the various types of LGBT. - Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is in multiple categorys so merge to parents.146.90.110.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, for the moment. Alansohn brings up a valid point, though. The parent cat needs a clear rationale for inclusion, or it should be deleted as well. "Related" is much too vague. Nymfhideliho! 17:44, 16 December 2012 (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.
Category:American Hyper-Calvinist clergy
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:merge all into Category:Hyper-Calvinism, including the unnominated Category:Hyper-Calvinists. I'll be bold and merge that category to match all other "-ism" subcategories of Category:Christian denominational families, as well as Category:English Hyper-Calvinists and the empty Category:English Hyper-Calvinist theologians.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The first category is an unneeded subdivision of Category:American Calvinist clergy. The one article in it, Fred Phelps (a BLP), is probably best placed in Category:Baptist ministers from the United States (it's already in that category). The latter two categories above will be empty if the one article taken out of the first category. Those labelled in this way don't really identify themselves with this term anyway, and it's often used as a pejorative term, so it's probably one that is best avoided in categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you to do your research. Hyper-Calvinism is NOT a subdivision of Calvinism... ergo American Hyper-Calvinist clergy is not a subdivision of American Calvinist Clergy. Rather than blindly say we should delete this category, do your research. ReformedArsenal (talk). Also... the precedent seems to be that we can ignore what a group says of themselves if there is substantive support from other recognized groups saying or labeling them. See Conversion therapy#Balance and NPOV for an example. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even going to address the fact that you are trying to merge two distinct theological systems into one with no support for why we should do this? Hyper-Calvinism is NOT a pejorative... ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be pejorative to you, but others consider it to be so. I've addressed where the one article should be placed, and no massive merge would take place. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that, or is this just WP:OR? Can you produce a single source that identifies this as a pejorative? ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too hard to discover that this is a term that was applied by the critics of the doctrine in question: "Hyper-Calvinism" in theopedia.com: "It is called Hyper-Calvinism by its critics, who maintain that it deviates from the biblical gospel ..." It's a term that was clearly created as a pejorative. From a blog (not a reliable source as such, but it gives you a flavour): [1]"Unfortunately, the label Hyper-Calvinist is used frequently in our day to insult or ridicule anyone who is more Calvinistic than oneself."Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term Christian was originally applied by critics... so was Calvinist, Lutheran, Papist, Baptist, Ana-Baptist, and just about every other theological term. Does that mean that it is not a legitimate way to label a person? Do you have a source or not?ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been "re-claimed" by those who adhere to it like those other terms. It is still used primarily as a pejorative. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: Jim Ellis, "What is Hyper-Calvinism?", Reformed Perspectives Magazine, vol 10, no 15, April 6–12, 2008: "Hyper-Calvinism is a term of derision that today is often used to negatively label anyone with a strong theological view of God's sovereignty in the affairs of men."Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should learn to read dude. Storms is saying that the term is sometimes used pejoratively to describe anyone more calvinistic than one's self... and then proceeds to define what a Hyper-Calvinist ACTUALLY is.
Hyper-Calvinism, explains David Engelsma, is the denial “that God, in the preaching of the gospel, calls everyone who hears the preaching to repent and believe. It is the denial that the church should call everyone in the preaching. It is the denial that the unregenerated have a duty to repent and believe. It manifests itself in the practice of the preacher’s addressing the call of the gospel, ‘repent and believe on Christ crucified,’ only to those in his audience who show signs of regeneration, and thereby of election, namely, some conviction of sin and some interest in salvation” (David Englesma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel [Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980], pp. 10-11).
Your article by Ellis functions the same way... it is a term of derision WHEN IT IS NOT USED CORRECTLY. He is arguing for the fact that we should use it correctly and NOT derisively.
Finally, I hope it is clear that hyper-Calvinism is not to be considered a legitimate form of Calvinism, for it is not. By the same token, however, it should also be clear that honest theological discussion should refrain from labeling legitimate variations within orthodox Calvinism as "Hyper-Calvinism."
LOL at the fact that your source just said that you shouldn't do exactly what you're trying to do. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did read them and I understand the argument being made; however, it doesn't change the fact that the term is often used as a pejorative. Some want it used in a certain "technical" way, but it just so happens that it is very rarely used in that way. It's far more often thrown out loosely as a pejorative. As the Theopedia says, "The prefix 'hyper' may be used generically to refer to anything that is considered 'extreme' or which goes beyond the accepted norm. There is therefore a sense in which one may refer to Calvinistic views regarded as going beyond normal Calvinism as 'hyper.' This non-technical use, usually as a pejorative term, has been applied to a variety of theological positions which fall outside mainstream Calvinism..." Categories aren't as nuanced as a magazine articles and lengthy explanations can be. Another blog (not a reliable source as such, but provides more flavour): [2]: "The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative". I suggest you just chill out a bit and let other commenters decide. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So just because something COULD be used pejoratively, we shouldn't use it in the proper sense? The question that needs to be asked is if the theology of Fred Phelps fits the technical definition that is accepted of Hyper-Calvinism by reputable sources. It is not your decision to make. I have provided sources that put him in that camp (published WP:RS), a technical definition of Hyper-Calvinism which frames it to keep the pejorative uses out. You have blog articles and other Wiki's... ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to let the community decide. Are you? Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one category that has an article with Category:American Calvinist clergy. The fact that Hyper-calvinism is categorized as a pejorative probably indicates we should avoid using it as a name of a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again... do you have a source that states that it is always a pejorative? Because all the sources that I see say it is only a pejorative when used incorrectly. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all sub-categories of Category:Hyper-Calvinists to that category. At the moment there is no viable content in the American categories and the English category is hardly big enough to have required diffusion. The fact that Fred Phelps' article states that he identifies as Old School Baptist means that categorising him elsewhere as well is against the BLP rules. The result of taking him out of the bottom category is that it is empty and therefore not required until such time as Category:Hyper-Calvinists is large enough to require splitting on national lines. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all sub-categories of Category:Hyper-Calvinists to that category. It is ludicrous to have any sort of category tree for a handful of articles. And then have a cfd on Category:Hyper-Calvinists (Hyper-Calvinism is one of the least accessible articles I have encountered on wikipedia). Note that the word 'hyper' was not even mentioned in the Phelps article until very recently so the term is hardly defining. Oculi (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Upmerge all sub-categories of Category:Hyper-Calvinists to that category. Too few articles to warrant sub-categories. And this should probably serve as a subcategory of "Category:Baptist", since the article on Hyper-Calvinism applies the term to certain groups of Reformed Baptists. Dimadick (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all categories of Hyper-Calvinism. As a pejorative we should not be putting anything in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm assuming you have some kind of WP:RS that defines this as exclusively pejorative... I would hate to think that you're just deciding on your own WP:OR. Also, why ar eyou voting twice? ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dubious micro-over-categorization. Having read the parent article I'm unconvinced that Phelps holds to such a theology, but in any case a structure of three categories for one person is a WP:SMALLCAT problem. How many different ways do we need to say that he is a uniquely bad person? Mangoe (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you deciding that you don't think he holds this theology is irrelevant WP:OR. We've got published experts saying he is... ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the SMALLCAT problem tho. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I don't have a problem NOT having the category as long as he isn't placed in another category incorrectly. If we don't have HC category, then he should go in Protestants (possibly Independent or Baptist)... but not Calvinist (He denies some of the core tenets of Calvinism). ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment where is the source that says Phelps is a hyper-Calvisnist?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RA, how could you possibly imagine that a book of polemics from a rival megachurch's pastor, published by that same church, could be considered a reliable source? Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think that you can consider WBC a rival for anyone... especially for Calvary (They are separated by two time zones and about a thousand miles). Notice that the book is a polemic against all of Calvinism, and he STILL sees the need to delineate between Calvinism proper and Hyper-Calvinism. When even those opposed to a system (Calvinism) say "That guy's not a Calvinist, he's something else" that's significant. Bryson is well published by both Calvary's internal publishing and other publishers (including a Reformed publishing house). The fact that he is opposed does not make him automatically not a valid resource. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- This is not about denominations, but a theological position. Calvinism is the view that those who will be saved are already determined by divine election. Hyper-calvinism takes this to an extreme: "If I am one of the elect, that is certain. I therefore do not need to preach the gospel or to leave a holy life, because my eternal fate will be the same whatever I do." That is probably a caricature, but when put in those terms it is clearly contrary to scripture. As such, I find it hard to believe that any minister would explicitly preach this. Accordingly, I regard this as an attack category, which we cannot keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again... you have some kind of source that determines that this is an attack? WP:OR Seems to be a plague around here. Here are a few highlights from his sermons that SQUARELY place him within the camp of Hyper-Calvinist
Theirs is a dangerous heresy only masquerading as predestination, but saturated
with Arminian lies, carefully avoiding the adjective ‘absolute’. Unless they believe and BOLDLY
PROCLAIM ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION, they are false prophets soon to join Balaam and
Denying ANY salvation outside of belief in the 5 points of Calvinism is a hallmark of Hyper-Calvinism ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Proposed Solution - The solution that I propose (and my original interlocutor has agreed to) is that we rename Hyper-Calvinism to High-Calvinism and create an associated category tree, persons like Phelps and some of the other people in the various Hyper-Calvinist categories (and named by the Hyper-Calvinism article) would be placed there instead of in Calvinism proper. This preserves the distinction between the two discrete systems, but uses a term that is less likely to be used pejoratively. Objections? ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree that Phelps should be included in any such category tree, for some of the reasons users have outlined above. In any case, it's probably best to let this discussion close before actually implementing any changes. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Good Olfactory that moving the article is not a part of this discussion. Any discussion about moving the article should take place on the article's talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reading the comments looking at the category, it's clear this category is for POV pushing. We don't need it at all. Benkenobi18 (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does WP:BLPCAT mean that Fred Phelps needs to say "I'm a hyper-Calvinist" in order to be categorized as one while he's alive, or is it sufficient for him to make statements which are agreed by RSes to be hyper-Calvinist? --JFHutson (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment considering it is generally seen to be a pejorative and attack term, I would guess the former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've made that clear, and if you've been paying attention to the discussion you know the question of whether it's a pejorative is contested and/or irrelevant. I'm asking if we can bypass that and say that we can't cat anyone with a religious disposition with which they have not self-identified. --JFHutson (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say in practice, we usually don't categorize BLPs by religion unless they self-identify with that term. But I'm not sure that there is any clear-cut guidance anywhere on this specific issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (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.