File:Vuillard sPortrait 1889.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image is PD-US but not in home country and will soon be deleted from Commons. Commons file name is Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg. -Nard 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the circumstance, an overturn of the most recent I8 deletion seems proper, if there isn't a way to keep the upload history intact through other methods. I'd assume a valid fair use can be made here (possibly not on Self-portrait, but cerainly on Édouard Vuillard), but I would suggest you submit a draft of it here before undeletion so that it can easily be added to the image when undeleted. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Was just put up for deletion, so I don't think this is necessary yet, so it might not be necessary. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Édouard Vuillard 001.jpg only has the nomination statement on it so far. I'd also like to ammend my previous statement to say that it'd probably be better to keep the image at its current title instaed of the one in the nom to avoid confusion and the need to update the articles. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore - this won't survive on commons. GRBerry 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Trade Organization (WTO) (edit | [[Talk:Template:World Trade Organization (WTO)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|TfD)

While I understand the need to clean up articles with junk, i think this template does add some useful info, namely a quick way to make sure that a country does in fact belong to the WTO. I also think that this template does deserve to be kept on the WTO main article. I think it might be useful to keep this template but make sure it's only on the Articles that deal with the economy, for example, Economy of Foo and not have it on each country's main article. This being said, we do include many other international world membership templates on main articles. Just a note: This template was deleted but was reinstated by Woohookitty (talk · contribs) because more then 250 articles use it. Thanks PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article has already been reinstated, why have you still brought it up at DRV? Shereth 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty (talk · contribs), the admin who deleted this template and also undid the first deletion, asked me to do to bring it up here.--PatrickFlaherty (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original nominator, I believe it should stay (rather, should have stayed) deleted. To briefly recap my prior arguments: Yes, we have membership templates, but not for organizations that most countries belong to. As far as I know, there's no UN template cluttering the pages of all UN members. The template is too huge to be helpful, and navboxes are supposed to be navigation aids for readers. No reader is going to want to jump from Economy of Cambodia to Economy of Canada because both countries are WTO members (and that is the point of having a navbox--to connect articles people might want to jump between). This was reflected in the previous discussion. I would not object to reopening the discussion for more comment, but as it was only one person spoke up for the navbox even though its deletion was announced on the 250 pages it was transcluded on. Mangostar (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to counter you, only two people spoke out about deleting the template. I'm focusing not so much on the navigation aspect of the template, but rather in its information value, it's a very quick way to check WTO membership, which has to be done since over 50 nations are not part of the WTO. This is how i used the template in the past and this is how I noticed it was gone. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the national economy articles should (and most do) have an infobox that lists intl economic memberships. Mangostar (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that many actually have that. I just did ten random countries using the very nice WTO template and only 3 out of ten had it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the solution is to mention the WTO on the economy article, not to add this navbox... Mangostar (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but who will do this? It's a very tedious task to make all the changes. Let's keep this template for use on the WTO pages and put a mention on the template page that the template should not be used on Economy of Foo pages, rather this info should be added to the infobox. What do you think? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that... and I actually had been doing the changes, but as you said it is tedious and I cannot do them all at once. I probably got through 30 or so a couple days ago? I'll do them chunk by chunk in the coming days. Mangostar (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the very tediousness of all of that work was the catalyst for creating the navbox in the first place. Consider that it's also gone through a good number of edits within its ~3½ years of history since 12.2004, all of which should also be a fair barometer of usefulness.

I've noticed that in addition to "Economy of foo" articles, many country articles also use the navbox and many countries' "Economy of foo" articles still lack the "Economy of Country table", which should instead be an infobox. A sentence noting membership in an "Economy of foo" article without the infobox/table would in addition be inconvenient to look up for. I also agree with PatrickFlaherty in all other points that support keeping the template, including the possibility for a quick overview of who the members are (and aren't).

I just had a fleeting thought that since the number of non-member countries of WTO are in a minority, perhaps if there could be a navbox listing these, too??

-Mardus (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise if I'm re-arguing the original discussion but wouldn't the template serve a good purpose on just the two articles WTO accession and membership and World Trade Organization neither of which actually have a list of the members? I can fully understand and probably agree with not having it on almost all of the pages but on those two there seems to a good reason for keeping them there. Davewild (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree on this point. This template is extraordinary helpful on the WTO article. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it is used on two pages, it could be kept. If it is only to be used on one, it can just be substed. Mangostar (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could still be subs't on those two, except for the qy of updating. DGG (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree with Davewild and and agree with PatrickFlaherty. -Mardus (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the closing admin. I just want to explain why I restored the template. I did it because I deleted it without realizing that I hadn't removed the template from the transcluded articles. I am usually very good at that but I must've gotten distracted. I myself think that this is a bit of a pointless template. Just so people are clear on this, if the template stays removed, we can always engage a bot to remove the template from the articles. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this why we have categories? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but there is WP:CLN saying why we can have both. No opinion on whether it should be considered here. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template seems usful in some articles such as those countries where World Trade Organization is a more significant part of who they are and perhaps some of the WTO articles. If the template is put in articles where it doesn't belong, such as United States, just remove it from the article.JohnABerring27A (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JohnABerring. —Nightstallion 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's presumptuous in the extremis for the nom to assume he knows what a reader will find useful, or how they wish to navigate. Such links serve better in many cases to a list or a category, and given their complexity and the edit difficulties such table organized items create on a page. In this case, something cross connecting 'Economy of foo articles' is quite likely to be useful to someone vice a template linking just main articles. So have to disagree with noms reasoning there.
     Moreover, the concept/guideline that single use templates should be deleted needs itself be revisited/deleted. There is absolutely no reason save the unwarranted fear that someone might vandalize a template unbeknownst to those watching an article for the extant policy to exist.
     Frankly, it's far more sensible for those with such worries to watchlist the template than it is for the many that have to wade through and past tables not kept in template space when editing an article. If that means 87,000,000 template pages, so be it, I'm all for "timesavers for editors"—for my part let's start with the infoboxes on all pages so we can read the prose and edit that, not wade past crystallized tabulated data that only occasionally needs an update! Organizing such complicated and relatively fragile constructs and keeping prose in articles neat and editable is what template space is for, forsooth!
     Bad enough good articles require tedious care to edit past good citations these days, we need to revisit that 'onesie policy' in light of citations and making things easier on editors in article space. The only other drawback to 'onsies' is categorization, and that can be handled by a "One of templates beginning with A, B, C, etc." category series. Policing templates comes near dead last on any rationale prioritization of needs around here. Next, it's a whole lot easier to protect template spaces than pages which would violate the spirit of the five pillars.
     Lastly, most nav boxes these days can be collapsed or shown, and since they are at article bottoms, don't junk up anything. I suspect the whole prejudice against such is lazy editors who resent an extra need to page down one more time to see cats. This is a good looking template. (I just put it in above) No reason someone researching the WTO, or looking at comparative economies, or even finding out about some economies sub-segment wouldn't like the convenience of following link to link. // FrankB 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

In this case, I agree in hindsight that I probably erred on the generous side in keeping this. I think your point about synthesis is extremely valid but it wasn't specifically discussed in the afd and I did not therefore take it into account in the close.

• We don't need this at DRV because I have already accepted that this close may have been in error.. I'm going to relist the AFD when I have a moment. Can someone close this in the meantime? (Oh the irony - being criticised for not deleting something). Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of groups referred to as cults (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AFD|AFD2|AFD3|AFD4|AFD5|AFD6)

There also was List of deadly cults AfD, and List of religions once classed as cults AfD. JohnABerring27A 08:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the delete was not based on a valid policy reason but based on issues with the content, the false idea that the article could never be cleaned. (There are clear guidelines for list articles making that process easier.) and, most importantly, on the number of votes ignoring the valid points which is evident in the closing editors comment who discusses the number of votes which is incorrect for an afd. There may have been more delete comments but there can be no real consensus to delete if the arguements to keep were not answered or proven incorrect. I believe the article constitues a valid list according to list guidelines and complies with all policies. The afd was also flooded with lengthy straw man arguements, personal objections and discussions about article content effectively burying good productive comments and making it difficult for editors to contribute effectively. neon white talk 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the standard applied to decide which groups qualify as a cult is OR and it is POV; it was deleted for the same reason we don't have List of movies refereed too as bad or list of restaurants with good food. The article also had a year since its previous AFD which was no consensuses and the issues brought up there were never addressed. -Icewedge (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect and similar to some of the poor straw man arguements made in the afd that i mentioned above. Cult is a notable subject and every article has a POV. The article is not titled 'list of cults that are bad' or 'list of cults that are good' The list would be valid in the article. If the sources are verifiable they are permissable. --neon white talk 17:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I voted delete, but we actually do have List of films considered the worst. I should add this is just an "FYI" as I'm not adding any opinion on the matter since I voted/discussed on the AfD.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cult is clearly a notable subject; thats why we have the article Cult. But their is no valid method to determine which organizations should go on the list, articles such as Christianity and Buddhism were on the list until the completely ad hoc 1920+ rule was established. -Icewedge (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a method to determine what should go on the list, it's called verifiability and it's wikipedia policy. --neon white talk 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As if we have lists and articles on everything that can be verified within invented parameters. WP:V does not give editors the right to disregard WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, etc.. I also don't see any point to discussing verifiability in the first place, since this particular objection is about the inclusion criteria and not the material so included. Even the 1920 guideline is a wild interpretation of something Melton once wrote, and not notable and "verifiable" in any sense we promote. The rest are even less "verifiable".PelleSmith (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the 1920+ rule isn't valid, then no source of authority external to Wikipedia is valid:

1920+ is based on a reliable secondary source (OCRT — find "During the 1920s and 1930s"), citing a reliable primary source (Superior Court of California, 1985 — find "It began as a sociological term in the twenties and thirties."), which is the sworn testimony of the internationally recognized authority on cults, Dr. J. Gordon Melton, UCSB, author of Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in America, 1992 (Search).

As if that weren't enough, Dr. Melton is the second most prolific contributor to Encyclopedia Britannica, which folks at the top of WP want to emulate.

Now that you know the facts about 1920+, beware of Escalation of commitment and consider the wisdom of striking your unresearched remark before this DRV is archived. Milo 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that argument quite addresses the point, does it. The 1920+ rule had nothing to do with the arising in the 1920s of the term "cult" in its modern sense. Rather, the rule was designed to ensure that more established groups, which had been founded before 1920, would be excluded from the list, regardless of whether they had in recent years been referred to as a cult, in the modern, post-1920 sense of the word. That is really quite separate from the linguistic issue that Melton was talking about. Melton never said that groups formed before 1920 couldn't be cults in the modern sense of the word. Just to cite two obvious examples, the Jehova's Witnesses and the Church of Latter-Day Saints each were founded before 1920, yet both groups have been the subject of well-publicised cult controversies, and criticism by the anti-cult movement, during the last fifty years. I am afraid this is entirely representative of the multiple, and quite egregious NPOV, OR and SYNTH problems the list suffered from, as the closing admin rightly observed. Jayen466 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (10:43): "The 1920+ rule had nothing to do with the arising in the 1920s of the term "cult" in its modern sense."

Contrary to your counterintuitive assertion (1920+ somehow has nothing to do with 1920s), that is exactly its basis. The idea was to do what editors wanted (even during the 6th AfD, after 1920+ had been hijacked – leading to the 6th AfD) and disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms. For example: Vaquero100 (17:13, 20 July 2006): "...it is intellectually misleading, if not dishonest, to equate the ancient theological sense of "cult" and the modern sociological sense of the term."

Jayen466 (10:43): "...regardless of whether they had in recent years been referred to as a cult, in the modern, post-1920 sense of the word."

But they weren't. You are arguing to consider a hypothetical which doesn't happen. There are no [USA] reliable sources which claim that traditional Christianity-generally, is a populist mind-control cult. or other major religions, [LDS, JW are reliable source cult-calling examples given for Europe/Russia] Rulecrafting hypotheticals is impossible since there would be an unlimited number of invisible pink unicorn-type cases to consider. [But ok, in Europe it isn't hypothetical.]

Jayen466 (10:43): "...Church of Latter-Day Saints ... well-publicised cult controversies..."

If so, not all that well publicized [in the USA or on Google news], or not at all [rarely] in reliable sources [given a Washington Post report on LDS being called a cult in Russia]. I did a search of the entire 150-some year history of the New York Times and couldn't find any for-certain instances of the searched phrases in which they had called Church of Latter-Day Saints a cult.

Jayen466 (10:43): "Jehova's Witnesses and the Church of Latter-Day Saints ... criticism by the anti-cult movement, during the last fifty years."

No, you are confusing anti-cult movement with counter-cult movement. The latter is a purely Christian theological dispute found in POV religion books. [Pardon, you've convinced me you're correct. European press attitudes must be a lot different than those in the USA.]

Jayen466 (10:43): "Melton never said..."

Oh, but you are saying that? Ok, get your Ph.D.s, in History and Religion, write a historic-revisionism study, titled say, 'mind-control cults of the past', get it published in a non-fringe journal, and then your position will be taken seriously here in criteria rulecrafting. (BTW, pros do that work because certain types of historic revisionism are punishable offenses in some countries.)

Jayen466 (10:43): "I am afraid this is entirely representative..."

Since you don't know the cult topics terms of art well enough to avoid confusing two of the major positions, your sweeping opinion of anyway-mythical list issues lacks credibility, and consideration of your vote on any related DRV issue should appropriately discounted. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 has convinced me in the next post (Jayen466 12:11) that he does have valid points, and that he knows a lot about European reliable source cult-calling that I don't know, though his entire presentation would have been more effective without having previously overstated his case. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 09:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am sorry to have to take up even more space on this page with things that don't really belong here. However, some of the things Milo says above are again so "egregious" that they really deserve a reply.

As regards the 1920 rule: As I have already said, the exclusion of groups founded before 1920 from the List of cults did not disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms. It was simply a means to avoid causing offence to older groups by reporting that they, too, have been referred to as "cults" in the media, in the fully modern sense of the word. But they weren't, you say. Please. The Jehovah's Witnesses were identified as a cult in the 1995 French parliamentary commission report. Do you think they used the pre-1920 meaning? For the past 50 years, the JW have regularly been referred to as a cult in the European press. Every anti-cult website has its collection of material about them. The Church of Latter-Day Saints is considered a cult by the French government-funded UNADFI anti-cult organisation. The Church features on anti-cult sites like rickross.com, prevensectes.com, and on the website of the International Cultic Studies Association. In Russia, there have been widely reported calls for the LDS Church to be banned as a cult (see e.g. here). Just a google news search for current English-language news provides enough evidence that there is a cult controversy around mormonism that extends beyond the field of Christian apologetics. And that's before we get to its polygamous splinter groups.

Regarding your assertion that there were no "mind-control cults of the past", I have no need to write a "revisionist" paper refuting that, because it is common knowledge in the sociology of religion that new religious movements were so characterised in the past. The word "brainwashing" was not there, but Roman intellectuals widely argued that only people not being their normal selves, perhaps because of some Oriental magical spell, may join such a strange movement as Christianity. Christians, in turn, quickly saw heretics as bewitched. In the 19th century, evangelicals in France [5] and Mormons in the US (e.g. [21]) were considered by popular novelists, and other opponents, as "mesmerized" or hypnotized: certainly, nobody would join such obviously unacceptable religions out of free will (quoted from The Future of New Religions, M. Introvigne). Plus ça change ... Jayen466 12:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Jayen466 (12:11): "exclusion of groups founded before 1920 from the List of cults did not disambiguate uses of the ancient word from uses of its modern homonyms."

It substantially, and logically did so. That it did not perfectly do so is a demand for perfection fallacy that cannot be satisfied.

Jayen466 (12:11): "It was simply a means to avoid causing offense to older groups by reporting that they, too, have been referred to as "cults" in the media, in the fully modern sense of the word."

It substantially avoided offense by preventing the ambiguation source of offense. As Vaquero100 said, "Vaquero100 (17:13, 20 July 2006): "...it is intellectually misleading, if not dishonest, to equate the ancient theological sense of "cult" and the modern sociological sense of the term.""

Jayen466 (12:11): "The Jehovah's Witnesses were identified as a cult in the 1995 French parliamentary commission report. Do you think they used the pre-1920 meaning?"

I agree that they did not.

Jayen466 (12:11): "For the past 50 years, the JW have regularly been referred to as a cult in the European press."

Except for some familiarity with UK press, I'm not very familiar with the European press, and I hope you're talking about mainstream reliable sources.

It appears that the USA press is a lot more tolerant of religions generally, including sects and cults, since there are many more churched people in the United State (about 50% last time I heard), than there are in the UK (5-10% churched, IIRC).

Jayen466 (12:11): "Every anti-cult website has its collection of material about [JW]." .... "The Church features on anti-cult sites like rickross.com,"

No problem, not reliable sources (except the rickross mainstream news archives).

Jayen466 (12:11): "Latter-Day Saints is considered a cult by the French government-funded UNADFI anti-cult organisation."

Maybe reliable. I'd have to know more than I do about how they check facts. How for example do they define a cult (secte)?

Jayen466 (12:11): "International Cultic Studies Association."

I came across them previously, but I'd have to re-research them for reliability. How do they check facts, and what's their definition of a cult?

Jayen466 (12:11): "In Russia, there have been widely reported calls for the LDS Church to be banned as a cult"

Ok, it was reported by reliable source Washington Post. You've convinced me. I'm going to strike some of my previous statements.

Jayen466 (12:11): "Just a google news search for current English-language news provides enough evidence that there is a cult controversy around mormonism that extends beyond the field of Christian apologetics."

Not today, anyway. It's all Christian apologetics and FLDS (plus cult movies). (Btw, "cult-like" doesn't count at LOGRTAC.)

Jayen466 (12:11): "it is common knowledge in the sociology of religion that new religious movements were so characterised in the past."

That's not the Wikipedia definition of common knowledge.

Jayen466 (12:11): " 'The word "brainwashing" was not there...--M. Introvigne' "

It's an interesting reference, and I take your point that there's a long history of the feeling that "mind-control" exists (which btw, is evidence that it does exist). But take mine and Introvigne's that until you get those Ph.D.s, you can't hand me a list of ancient religions that can be reliably sourced as "brainwashed" or "mind-controlled" cults at LOGRTAC. (Or LOGRTAC19).

In general, I've already proposed a solution which would cover what you're getting at about old religions being occasionally called modern mind-control cults. Your quibble about the 1920 dividing line is insubstantial. Articles can be created around that line, and it works because it is a historical watershed. There could be a second list for old religions:

Create the following article:List of groups referred to as cults and founded 1919 or prior(Suggested discussion acronym "LOGRTAC19")

Here editors could work on reliable source cult-calling of old religions, without any guilt-by-association issues related to co-listing of destructive cults. Because of the issue you raise, that there are modern cult-callings of some old religions, this list would have its own set of problems to solve of how to avoid the confusion of cults of veneration with mind-control cult-callings. But with old religions again out of the way, LOGRTAC could go back to a working status. Milo 09:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That last sentence is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was Catholic. Such behavior is not appropriate. See below also for two more examples of this.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just violated WP:AGF. I've never met Jayen466 before the AfD, and I had no knowledge of his belief system. His vote should be appropriately discounted because he made a sweeping opinion which his knowledge base doesn't support as meaningful. Milo 00:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hide behind policies that are not applicable when the editor in question is clearly violating other policies. Do you disagree that this is an ad hominem argument you are making? Clearly it is. I have nothing further to say. Feel free to retract your various ad hominems and I'll retract my commentary about them.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←PelleSmith (02:26): "ad hominem argument"

Yes, of course it's an ad hominem argument (meaning "to the man"). You seem to be laboring under the illusion that an ad hominem is necessarily invalid during informal debate, or worse, that it's always in violation of some WP rule. Both your belaborings are just that, illusions.

WP:NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks,...". Did I use any offensive language? No. Did I question character? No. Ad hominems without those elements aren't PAs. Is describing an editor's actions an ad hominem? Yes, it's about what the editor did (or shouldn't have done).

If an editor did something, one can describe it. Otherwise, when editors act objectionably, no one could tell them about it, and they could never know about it to either act differently, or explain their actions.

ad hominem: Real world debates are not exercises in formal logic. If an editor attempts to influence the votes of other editors and closing admins by using dismissive language and sweeping generalizations ("I am afraid this is entirely representative of the multiple, and quite egregious..."), as though drawn from vast expertise in the subject matter, any league debater is going to closely examine that other debater to vet whether s/he is really what they imply themselves to be. When the debater reveals a gross lack of basic knowledge, like confusing two well-known terms of art, that's out of bounds and is validly subject to an ad hominem argument.

discount: Since it's a "vote" in the homonym sense of casting a ballot, but not a "vote" in the sense of an election, voters are required to explain their votes. If a vote is illogically described (like voting one way while talking the opposite), or if a debater tries to snow others (and closing admin) with flawed expertise, it's logical to describe what's wrong, and suggest that their vote be discounted (reduced in value). Of course the admin may ignore it, but it does signal everyone paying attention that there may be something significantly wrong with what that debater is saying. It also serves notice to the other debater that they need to improve their presentation.

PelleSmith (02:26): "This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was a [named religion]."

WP:AGF: I wrote no such thing, and you can't supply a diff of something you only conjured up. I've already denied it once, yet without diff evidence you persist in that slander. Lacking diff evidence to the contrary, that's a violation of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote: "Mamalujo is a member of a major religion (that is also defined as a theological cult), which the hijacking group members planned to use as AfD bait by removing the 1920+ criterion. It worked as planned, and here he is. He can't take revenge on the group members, so he's taking revenge on the article. Since his positions are mostly a rant that doesn't make logical sense, I suggest that the closing admin ignore his vote.Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)" You may claim what you will, but your argument was clearly based on the premise that Mamalujo is part of a "theological cult", and that his being so affiliated had directly contributed to his supposedly illogically ranting. If you just wanted to say ... its an illogical argument, discount it, you did not need to comment on the editor's religious affiliation. I will not assume good faith when you resort to asking admins to discriminate in their own judgment based upon someone's religious identity. I didn't AGF then and I wont AGF now. The rest of your response is simply a poor attempt at sophistry (e.g. you are not civilly commenting on Jayen's "behavior" you are using his behavior as evidence some supposed ignorance endemic to his intellect and asking to discount his opinion based upon this supposed ignorance.)PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PelleSmith (02:26): "This user asked in the AfD to have another user's opinion discounted because that user was a [named religion]."

You have supplied no diff of me naming a certain religion. That means that you researched the name of that user's religion and then attributed your incompetent inference to me.

Thus you slanderously painted me as an anti-(named religion).

Your slander is aggravated because you slandered me after I resolved your complaint.

You complained about my request for the closing admin to ignore the other user's vote. Then I withdrew that request after the other user wrote a second post, that I accepted as understandable enough to debate (see 6th AfD Milo 07:57, 19 June 2008).

This suggests that you are gratified by conflict for its own sake. You also wrote an edit summary which suggests that you don't want to avoid conflict:

Cult 22:16, 13 June 2008 PelleSmith (cleaning up more language and removing advice about avoiding conflict ... this is not a "lets all get along" FAQ, but an encyclopedia)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Go to a boxing gymnasium.

I asked for a diff three times, because diffs are primary evidence to back up an accusation, and diffs link to the entire context. Instead you quoted me out-of-context – which quote also includes a discourteously unnecessary copy of another editor's name. I suggest that you should at least delete his name and replace it with ellipses.

What happened was that the other editor wrote an AfD "Delete", with a wordy series of explanations that were not factual, so I challenged his vote here (page find "irrational"). The preceding section of my post that you omitted is "Most of those statements have too little factual basis for a response. For example, patent nonsense is just random typing, and WP:SYN and WP:NOR are impossible for an article that contains only links and quotes as content. So why would he mount such an irrational attack? .... Milo 13:25, 17 June 2008" I then offered an explanation which you quoted, that he was baited by a group members' plan, which was bait for a member of any major religion that has been called a cult. His specific religion didn't matter, and contrary to your slander, I didn't name it.

The further context was the subsequent long debate between me and the other editor on the "logical sense" of his vote in regard to his misapplication of Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. The other editor's religion was not named.

I told you were wrong the first time you raised this issue ("No. Re-read my last sentence". Milo 17:05, 17 June 2008), but you just ignored me. You were unable to parse my initial presentation of issues into its two components, the any-major-religion bait issue and the patent-nonsense illogic issue. You couldn't get off of a wrong track, and now you've escalated your misunderstanding into slander.

Since you appear to be a minor high school student, I judge this slander as a loose cannon blunder consequent to your careless disregard for checking the facts before making ill-considered accusations. Since you were warned that you were wrong, add to that a judgment of willful blindness in an egotistical pursuit of a debate that was out of your league.

It wouldn't be a surprise if you again wolf cry 'Admin, admin, WP:NPA!' , but since I'm prepared to evidence each of the adjectives I've used to describe your actions, there are no WP:NPAs here, and you will have to be satisfied with simple dislike of well-deserved criticism.

Your many small editing mistakes which I needed to clean up, your sometimes pretentious and often wrong-track debate reasoning, and your usually contentious, aggressive demeanor over the last 14 days suggests that you will now try to justify your slander when you ought to apologize. Milo 11:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo this is a dead horse, and your attempts at explanation get more and more boring. If you think I'm going to take this "minor high school student" emotional bait you're very sadly mistaken. Maybe I'm a "major" high school student ;). But seriously I'm sick of this sophistry. We all know what major religion you were referring to, and its pretty obvious that your original request to ignore his argument rested firmly on the fact of affiliation. Give it a rest. Maybe, just maybe, it would behoove of you to refrain from argumentum ad hominem instead of trying so desperately to defend you choice to constantly point out when someone's affiliation or perceived lack of knowledge should make us doubt their reasoning skills. What affiliations should we be worried about with you Milo? As I've said already I doubt that anyone editing that entry has any more or less of a COI than you do, and I don't even have to know any of your "affiliations" to understand that. We simply do not discriminate the way you want us to, and no amount of paranoia about "group members" "hijacking" the list will change that. If you would just follow a very basic Wikipedia guideline and stick to the arguments instead of the editors this wouldn't be happening.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer - as I'd anticipated a DRV the majority of my reasoning for endorsing is couched in the close itself, and I will refrain from repeating my rationale. I will stress, however, that the argument that this is a problem with content and not a deletion debate has been repeated at every single previous discussion and yet the issues have failed to resolve. One can only argue for cleanup and improvement over deletion so many times, particularly when the case for deletion is made in such a strong manner. Shereth 18:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Reason for deletion thoroughly explained by closing admin, using context from the AfD discussion. No obvious procedural problems. Townlake (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse at least until such time that Neon White produces compelling evidence of the laundry list of problems he claims plagued the AfD. While there are guidelines for writing lists, there are also policies for all articles and the list guidelines Neon White refers to make us well aware that these policies also apply to lists. For a taste of the policy issues--some delete voters cited WP:NPOV because the list was biased towards groups labeling other groups with a clearly pejorative term (as opposed to being biased towards actual scholarship on the subject); WP:COATRACK because the list promoted this bias for no good reason beyond the various content filled entries already existing on individual groups and/or larger concepts (cult, destructive cult, etc.); WP:NOR because the criteria for inclusion was entirely "arbitrary", and the result of WP:SYNTH. My own objection relates to policy through the fact that the criteria for inclusion wasn't simply arbitrary but it in fact shunned scholarship on New religious movements and "cults". In other words it promoted a bias that was against the most reliable sources on this subject--against the sources that could, if utilized, actually create a reliable and verifiable criteria for inclusion, not to mention an informative entry. I'm pretty sure Neon White calls this a straw man argument, or a delete vote based upon personal objections. I don't agree and again ask him to clarify with examples.PelleSmith (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid sources being used is not a reason for deletion. The list can easily be cited using academic sources. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a coatrack. List criteria is not permanent and therefore not a reason for deletion. Claims that it 'promoted a bias that was against the most reliable sources' is not evident at all. It seems that yet again this is a personal objection to the content. Your arguement is not one of the straw man arguements referred to but i believe it is based on issues with the content rather than the subject of the article. --neon white talk 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims regarding bias were discussed consistently on the entry talk page and the AfD talk page. Scholars understand the popular and media usage of the term as pejorative and misleading, and that even includes scholars who want to restore the academic use of the term. Sociological studies have addressed this directly, but commentary exists throughout the field. One recent study I cited clearly shows how the "cult" label effects popular perception of the same groups and another editor cited a United Nations report that condemns media portrayals of minority religions. Your choice to disregard these arguments is your choice, but I have to note the irony in your own preferred use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Taking ones cues from scholarship does not equate to a "personal objection", it just simply doesn't. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Thjs was a well judged close well within the closing admin discretion. The inclusion category were so wooly its hard to see how this could have had any consistent encyclopaedic criteria for inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion. The AfD was procedurally flawed. It ran for ten days rather than the normal 5 days. It's not clear if thedeleting admin discounted new, single-purpose editors.[1] I count 23 requests for deletion out of 38 opinions, which is only 61%. Arguments such as those by PelleSmith above are not among the list of reasons to delte articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An AfD discussion running for longer than 5 days is not a procedural flaw, and an AfD discussion is not a vote count, a policy-based analysis such as that given by PelleSmith above is precisely what deletion decisions should be based on. --Stormie (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article had been discussed to death, was not showing visible signs of improvement to an acceptable standard, and there was nowhere else to go. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - competently closed on arguments instead of numbers. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Good call on the part of the closing admin. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Endorse (I've been convinced that, at least, the article needs another chance to find consensus one way or another) though the following question stands: though I might be persuaded differently, doubt I'll have the chance. What did the article accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by a category? Then the decision as to whether or not to include each group would be a matter for each article on the group "referred to as a cult," which presumably means RS doing so, and probably not isolated RS. The Category would be referenced from the Cult article, and the category itself would describe standards for inclusion. Simple. Somebody wants to get a copy of the deleted article from an admin, they could tag the articles and see what happens.... might be some details to work out, though, a little tricker to maintain, given present software (is there any way to Watch what is added or removed from a Category?) I see this as basically a category, not as an article. --Abd (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC) changed Abd (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Change records for documentation of one method of logging and watching additions to categories. I don't know of a method for logging removals. GRBerry 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Deletion review is not a second chance at an AfD, and reasons to overturn should be based upon a flaw in the process. From Wikipedia:Deletion review: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate itself was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category proposal is a perennial. Here's the explanation thread from the 6th AfD:

Categorization was tried and rejected long ago. The basic objection was that Wikipedia was seen as declaring categorized groups to be cults, which nearly all active groups deny. The exception is destructive cults, which everyone agrees are cults in fact; but there are less than 20 of those, most of which no longer exist.

"accusations of being a cult ... will already be given in the group's article"

Unfortunately not. Eventually all regular cult topics editors learn that groups' articles are collectively WP:OWNed by each group. Unless endlessly watched and coerced, reliable-source mind-control cult references will usually be purged from their articles. Occasionally certain groups become object lessons for editorial enforcement, but most purge cult accusations as they please. That leaves LOGRTAC as the only place in Wikipedia where further research can be done on most group's cult accusations, and naturally that means LOGRTAC is a target for tendentious group members, who never give up on trying to get it deleted. Milo 04:03, 14 June 2008

Categorization is a potentially worse idea as it gives no explanation or context. Plus we already have Category:Cults.--T. Anthony 04:19, 14 June 2008

Note that the criteria of Category:Cults specifically prohibits adding groups. It is only used for general articles on cults. Will Beback 05:12, 14 June 2008

Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse for the reasons given in the closing statement. The huge volume of the AfD alone indicates that the drama-to-content ratio of this article was excessive, and the closing admin correctly identified several probably irremediable core policy issues.  Sandstein  23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be your inferences, not verifiable facts. The closing admin did not mention core policy issues. One of the reasons that close should be overturned was that it did not actually identify any issues at all, meaning that any of the many presented myths he may have believed cannot be determined. His close was indistinguishable from 'I detect a trend toward editors voting WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I'm going to accelerate that trend.'

Wikipedia:Is wikidrama bad?: "Consider, we would never delete evolution even though the article is a constant source of Wikidrama."

Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, good call. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I disagree with the actual decision, for I think a proper definition could be constructed, but that has nothing to do with it. The close was correct about the consensus. DGG (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - good review and good call. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member of a group that became eligible for listing at LOGRTAC after 1920+ was WP:COI removed. You then refused to help restore 1920+, and stirred up trouble with a bad listing of RCC, so your opinion here is another WP:COI to be appropriately discounted. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That response is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. If Milo can show that Storm Rider is in fact in violation of WP:COI then I will retract this, but his claim is a red herring. Milo feel free to tell us what the applicable part of WP:COI is here.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that someone's opinion should be discounted because of what you perceive to be a potential conflict of interest is not especially helpful and is bordering on incivility. Let's please focus our discussion on the content (or in this case the AfD) and not the contributors. Shereth 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the guiderules, and WP:COI is why this discussion is occurring. From Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007 there were no more than minor content problems (discounting exaggerations by listed group members). After the WP:COI hijack of 1920+ there was a return of previously repaired major content problems, which provoked members of major religions, of which Storm Rider is one by his own declaration. I completely agree that his religion shouldn't be listed, but his edits caused harm that would not have occurred without his WP:COI, which in turn wouldn't have occurred if it were not for other WP:COIs.

I don't want to make too much of this, I'm just pointing out that his known WP:COI should be considered in counting or discounting his opinions. Milo 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't write them and it seem you have not read them either. I'll ask once again. Can you please quote the applicable part of WP:COI? Your claim that this policy is being violated is a red herring, and you are using it to ask for someone's opinion to be discounted. That is completely inappropriate. We don't ask everyone with connections to a given subject matter to refrain from editing. Muslims edit Islam, Catholics edit Roman Catholicism, atheists edit Atheism etc. etc. This editor is no more a COI editor in cult related entries than you are. You can prove me wrong of course by actually citing the applicable policy language. Be my guest.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already quoted WP:COI below. You forgot to update here that you already responded to it. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you quoted is just as irrelevant there as it is here.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Full disclosure: I participated in the AfD. While there were some policy issues surrounding the AfD itself, they were settled early on, and it looks like the closer appropriately ignored those issues once they were cleared up. Other than that, consensus seems pretty clear on this one, despite the vocal objections of a few vocal objectors. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This AfD was procedurally dirty and should have been closed immediately. The 6th AfD was incorrectly listed as an invalid AfD procedure by a nominator who didn't want the article deleted, only a "discussion". The opening admin wanted it to be closed as a bad nom, and voters began to vote for close. Then after two days opponents started talking about how it was now a "real AfD". But by that time it was too late. (The phrase "lipstick on a pig" comes to mind (no offense to Miss Piggy).) The final voter was confused by the original header and initial "speedy" votes, and voted "speedy close". Then the closing admin refused to count the "close" votes. Good thing I ignored the advice that I didn't need to revote my "close" vote, updating it to "keep" in the relisted section, because I would have lost my vote. If I thought it were worth analysis, I sense there might be a case for unintentional bias of procedural strictness toward one side and procedural laxity toward another. • Aside from the procedural dirt, the single worst thing about the AfD were the many false claims that the article had failed. It didn't fail – List of groups referred to as cults was Wikipedia:Conflict of interest hijacked because it was working. It was a smoothly working article from Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007, with so few complaints that most of the centrist editors went elsewhere. At the latter date, the article was deliberately deconstructed (led by a now-banned WP:COI group member) by removing its scientifically referenced 1920+ basis for preventing the worst of the 8-some homonymic conflicts. Article deconstruction – editing to make an article fail (in this case by deliberately provoking readers to anger and AfD – is a type of bad faith editing that should be made against future Wikipedia guiderules. • That it happened to LOGRTAC should not be held against the article or its centrist editors, by endorsing an AfD (dirty or clean), which was a setup by editor(s) working for their belief system, and not working for the project. WP:COI editing to make one's belief look better is problem enough, but WP:COI editing to make someone else's belief look worse is disruptive and dangerous . Don't endorse it. Milo 03:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: An AfD is not decided by a vote. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."PelleSmith (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There already is List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. For other groups, people can just use Wikipedia's handy-dandy Cult checklist. You can also use List of groups refered to as cults by the media -- JohnABerring27A (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of groups refered to as cults by the media needs to be deleted. That has not been worked on in a very long time and now duplicates a deleted article. --Justallofthem (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Traditionally we give some leeway to things in userspace. I would very much be against deleting that unless User:Zappaz is, at least, consulted.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • All due respect, but that is not in any reasonable definition of "some leeway". Let me clarify early on that the subject user is not the issue, he has not edited since January of 2006 and I am sure that the page was put there in good faith. I simply make the point that now it must be deleted, see Wikipedia:User page:

        While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion.

        If someone here wants to delete it then please feel free, otherwise I will list it for speedy delete once this review wraps up. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose if you want to be technical. I just don't think we need to be strict on every dumb little thing like that. I'll put a question on the page's talk page about deletion.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but you were the one who insisted on playing hardball. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On an article. Userspace is a different thing in my book. We allow deleted lists to be in it. See User:Clapaucius/List of people widely considered to be eccentric. As an article I felt that there needed to be a deletion debate regardless of the nominator's motivation.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus/default to keep. The closing admin's editorial analysis and subsequent dismissal of the keep votes was based on a clearly fallacious slippery slope argument for the gradual establishment of a consensus to delete. Well, it's not there yet, so don't jump the gun. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn agree w/ rationale provided above by Will Beback (talk · contribs) and anetode (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – as the closing admin said, the list had multiple, and quite egregious problems, above all made-up, partisan and shifting inclusion and exclusion criteria never tied down to any outside authority, unlike List of groups referred to as cults in government documents. The close accurately reflected the consensus of the (quite lengthy) discussions. Jayen466 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have conflated your opinion with the closing admin's opinion. He did not name specific problems, which is a reason for overturn.

Jayen466 (11:01): "[Wikipedia:OR|made-up] ... inclusion and exclusion criteria"

External lists (Top-10 this and that) are typically copyrighted. It could be a copyright violation if criteria were not made up, but such criteria generally don't exist to copy. That would mean that Wikipedia can't have lists. Since under WP:SNOWBALL Wikipedia will have lists, made up criteria are both acceptable and necessary.

Jayen466 (11:01): "[Wikipedia:NPOV|partisan] ... inclusion and exclusion criteria"

This is an unsatisfiable demand-for-perfection fallacy. NPOV can never be perfect, and all articles can be discovered to have some or many NPOV imperfections.

Jayen466 (11:01): "shifting inclusion and exclusion criteria"

Another demand-for-perfection. Most articles at Wikipedia shift as consensus changes.

Jayen466 (11:01): "criteria never tied down to any outside authority"

An unresearched exaggeration. Criteria 1A-C are tied to dictionaries. Criteria 1D is tied to the eight-some homonyms of c-u-l-t. Criteria 2 is tied to the ambiguity of types of things referred to as cults. Criteria 3 is tied to the fact that groups typically stop being considered cults with a lifetime, though 50 is an approximation to some number not exactly known. Criteria 4 is tied to the eight-some homonyms of c-u-l-t. Criteria 5 is a convenience criterion affecting formatting rather than content, however it is tied to foreign words. The 1920+ criterion not presently installed is tied to Dr. J. Gordon Melton's scientific history research - see the box on this page titled "Scientific authority source for the 1920+ rule list criterion". Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1A and 1B, for a start, ignore that "sect" and "cult" have been used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years. There was a useful analysis of this published in the late eighties:

Utilization of "Sect" and "Cult" in the Print Media: In her content analysis, Lindt (1979) encountered the concepts "sect" and/or "cult" in approximately two-thirds of the newspaper and news weekly issues she investigated. The results of the present study also indicate that the press has had few reservations in attaching the labels of "sect" and "cult" to the various NRMs. There are sharp differences, however, depending on the time periods and the groups concerned.
An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult." When we juxtapose Tables 2 and 3, an unexpected discrepancy emerges. In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post-Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms. This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10 [...]
There was a certain amount of confusion as to which label, "sect" or "cult," was the most appropriate for NRMs in the print media studies. Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings. Somewhat confusing discourses were the result, highlighted by sentences and phrases such as: "A little-known fundamentalist Christian sect, which some theologians believe to be the nation's second largest cult" (a reference to The Way International in the Washington Post, October 13, 1981); "The right to temporarily remove cult members from their sects" (New York Times, May 24, 1981); Amongst the more feared special interest groups, according to cult leaders, are organizations of parents of children in the various religious sects" (Washington Post, December 16, 1978).
Rarely was an attempt made to define these arbitrarily applied concepts, and on the occasions when this did take place, anti-cultist definitions were much more prevalent than social-scientific insights. Furthermore, merely by adopting the concept "cult" as a descriptive category, NRMs were, willingly or not, condemned to occupy a position in the same category of groups that includes the People's Temple, the Manson Family, and other marginal movements which evoke public fear and horror. A great deal of effort has been expended within the social-scientific tradition to unravel the complexities of marginal religious organizations. Unfortunately it seems that the message is somehow totally lost to the majority of those employed by the major print media. Because of the level of professionalism that characterizes the staff of the newspapers and news weeklies in our sample, it can be expected that the situation is even worse among the more local and popular media, as can be deduced from the findings of Bromley et al. (1979). They note, for instance, that most anti-cult oriented stories were printed in small community newspapers.
The failure of the print media to recognize social-scientific efforts in the area of religious movement organizations (as our previous research [van Driel and Richardson, 1985] also shows) impels us to add yet another failing mark to the media report card Weiss (1985) has constructed to assess the media's reporting of the social sciences.

— James T. Richardson, Sociological Analysis 1988, 49, 2:171-183

It was yet another example of ignoring existing scholarship on the topic and instead heading off into OR-land, looking for sources in agreement with privately-held ideas (not that any source was actually cited, mind you). As for external lists being copyrighted, this is just nonsense. We cite the list compiled by the French parliamantary commission in Groups referred to as cults in government documents, e.g., and we cite various such sources in List of films considered the worst. Criterion 1C asked editors to assess the "contextual intention" of foreign-language material, and so forth. You'll pardon me if I excuse myself from this discussion now. Jayen466 13:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←Jayen466 (13:02): "Criteria 1A and 1B,"

Criteria 1A and 1B read:

1. Listing is based on a single academic or government reference, or two media references, to reliable sources,

(A) as a "cult" in North American English; or,

(B) as a "sect" or "cult" in British English only if contextually intended to mean "cult" in North American English; or,

Jayen466 (13:02): ""sect" and "cult" have been used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years."

Your generalization is not supported by your quoted citation. Richardson, 1988, says:

"An analysis of the use of these two categories, in both the headlines (Table 2) and body (Table 3) of contextual units, reveals that a shift took place. After an initial preference for "sect," as a descriptive term for NRMs, the print media later chose to embrace the more pejorative term "cult."

...which doesn't support your "used interchangeably in the U.S. media during the past 50 years" generalization. Richardson's results indicated that interchangeable use occurred some, not all of the time:

"Labeling of NRMs varied from one contextual unit to another and, as Tables 3 and 5 reveal, multiple units (42 in total) referred to NRMs as both "sects" and "cults." These were then used interchangeably, without an explanation of their respective meanings."

But you did not quote Richardson's "Tables 3 and 5", so we don't know how many print media units Richardson studied, or what actual percentage of them interchangeably used "sects" and "cults."

Yet most of the print media units did distinguish the difference between "sects" and "cults" in the body of stories, during a specific period of time:

"In the contents of contextual units dealing with NRMs, the preference for "cult" is only manifest in the period of November, 1978-April, 1979, which is immediately post-Jonestown tragedy.9 Before and after this period there is no clear choice of terms."

Compared to the body of stories, in the case of headlines the two words are used distinctly:

"This is not he case with regard to categorization in headlines. Here the shift from sect to cult is more dramatic and enduring.10"

My understanding of Richardson is that the print reporters have been cautious about cult-calling except during the period of outrage following Jonestown, though headline writers have been less cautious about cult-calling. The Jonestown period shows print media clearly know the pejorative difference, but use some degree of deliberate ambiguity to avoid the perception of bias.

The LOGRTAC article is in any case primarily about the c-u-l-t spelling, as and where it appears, but the "sect" word, as and where it appears, only when it intends one of the homonyms of "cult".

Oddly you seem to be using Richardson to edge toward a position that LOGRTAC should add the confusion of North American "sect" to the article, merely because some print media have done so in a way that Richardson seems to oppose.

The Jonestown period suggests that print media want to call cults as "cults", but often call them "sects" instead. There's no inverse suggestion that print media ever wants to call a sect a "cult". That demonstrates a lack of bias – as opposed to Richardson's conclusion that the print media failed to adequately educate the public as to the cult-sect distinction.

Jayen466 (13:02): "It was yet another example of ignoring existing scholarship on the topic and instead heading off into OR-land, looking for sources in agreement with privately-held ideas

This sounds like a canned algorithm that you regularly use to attack text articles. It doesn't make any sense at the LOGRTAC list of links to and quotes of locations where c-u-l-t is found. Links and quotes are never OR.

Jayen466 (13:02): "(not that any source was actually cited, mind you)."

It would not be possible for me to have posted any more prominently on this page, the Melton source for the 1920+ rule criterion, so it looks like you are ignoring sources not in agreement with your privately-held ideas.

Jayen466 (13:02): "Criterion 1C asked editors to assess the "contextual intention" of foreign-language material"

If you are denigrating source-based research, which editors are required to do, take it to the policy Pump.

If you are implying that Criterion 1C is too difficult, well, the world has changed since you got your education. Surprisingly, a determination of the contextual intention of foreign words meaning "cult" is now possible for English-speaking editors to do, using the Yahoo/AltaVista and Google online translation software.

LOGRTAC editors vetted this method 2008-05-02/06, to compare "cult of personality" in English: "cult promoting adulation of a living national leader or public figure, as one encouraged by Stalin to extend his power."[2] to the contextual intention of "kult líchnosti" with an original source in Cyrillic Russian: "a blind reverence for the authority of some figure, the exaltation of the role of a particular person, conferring upon him supernatural qualities and attributing to him definitive influence on social development"[3]. It turns out that "kult líchnosti" has a somewhat different contextual meaning in Russian, because Khrushchev's 1956 "Secret Speech" (On the Personality Cult and its Consequences) was not officially published in Soviet Russia until 1989. As a result, the English phrase (NYT, 1956) carries a Stalinist head-of-state connotation that the Russian phrase carries only covertly or not at all.

You may think that's not much of a difference, and indeed that's the point – that the determination of foreign "cult" contextual intention can have a fine degree of resolution, well within the source-based research capabilities of English Wikipedia editors. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 (13:02): "As for external lists being copyrighted, this is just nonsense. We cite the list compiled by the French parliamentary commission..."

I don't know if that one is copyrighted, but if understand jossi's list-OR theory, also no public domain government list can copied here unless it has Wikipedia-style header criteria, which I assume the French Report does not.

The nonsense is jossi's WP:COI rewrite of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) in order to get LOGRTAC and similar lists deleted because they list his own belief group. It's nonsense because if actually implemented, it leads to either a risk of copyright violations or to almost no Wikipedia lists at all.

So why does requiring header criteria to be found in reliable sources mean either copyright violation risk or no lists at all?

First, just think about it. Have you ever seen a list with header criteria anywhere except Wikipedia? Well, if there is nothing to copy, then what you get is nothing.

Here's how I explained it while replying to jossi at the 6th AfD (Milo 02:08, 23 June 2008):

Two months ago (LOGRTAC 10:33, 30 April 2008) I did a formal-logic style explanation that some may prefer:

Now that the nonsense-on-steroids elephant is in the list room, what to do about it?

Go around and AfD every stand-alone list? Including List of trees? That would be unpopular, and editors would complain about WP:POINT, even though it's "just enforcing the guiderules".

List of events named massacres may be at risk, though List of films considered the worst will probably just ignore the guiderule.

Ah, I see. Since one can get any list deleted with this rule, it will only be used to get rid of any list anybody doesn't like for any arbitrary reason. Specifically it will be used to suppress any future list like List of groups referred to as cults that might list jossi's belief group.

Finally, a foot in the door to establish WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a Wikipedia article requirement – in other words, jossi's "reliable sources list criteria" is a perfect tool for trolls. Milo 13:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with hearty congrats to the closing admins for their professionalism. "Cult" is never other than an obscure pejorative, regardless of occasional and doomed academic attempts to control popular usage. The article was an opinionated sham. Rumiton (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a member of a LOGRTAC listed group or its affliates, which means that your low opinion of a reliable source list of references, mostly to mainstream newspapers, is a WP:COI to be appropriately discounted. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: That response is a textbook ad hominem and should be considered in violation of WP:NPA. If Milo can show that Rumiton is in fact in violation of WP:COI then I will retract this, but his claim is a red herring. Milo feel free to tell us what the applicable part of WP:COI is here.PelleSmith (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [4] and search the page for "Rumiton" and read all the relevant Arbcom entries (this is a lot of reading). WP:COI: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Milo 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any findings of COI, and the entry in question is not Prem Rawat but a generic list of so labeled cults. What interests is this editor advancing other than his own interpretations, opinions, and beliefs about this subject matter? No offense, but that isn't COI, and you know it. There are more specific guidelines and I'm sure you'll find that none fit the bill. Feel free to retract your commentary anytime. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Prem Rawat group was on the LOGRTAC list. Rumiton denies he has a conflict of interest. However, as part of a persistent triumvirate of PR editors, he is perceived as having a COI. In conflict of interest cases, perception is as important as fact.

Arbcom Prem Rawat#Remedies: 2.1) Editors on Prem Rawat and related articles and pages who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest with respect to these articles are reminded to review and to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on NPOV and conflicts of interest. Passed 8 to 0, 14:15, 12 May 2008

I would appreciate that you drop the high school speak of "...and you know it." Unlike students, adults are very dissimilar, so one cannot claim to know what they know. Milo 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no finding or even "perception" of COI in relation to Rumiton in the link you provided to Prem Rawat remedies. I also note that these findings pertain to "Prem Rawat and related articles" which do not include any generic cult entries, and it certainly doesn't include this list. In other words COI related to Prem Rawat involvement officially does not to include the entry we are discussing. Again, a complete red herring. I'm done responding to you, but as I said above I will not AGF when you ask for this kind of discrimination. It is entirely inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumiton has an inherent conflict of interest because he's casting a vote that benefits his group by helping to suppress his group's listing at LOGRTAC. Whether that rises to WP:COI is the closing admin's decision. My perception is that it does.

That Rumiton was among a group of editors recently reminded by Arbcom to "comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on ... conflicts of interest" in a parallel case only further fuels my perception of his WP:COI in this case.

PelleSmith (12:02): "involvement officially does not"

That's wikilawyering (attempting to defeat principles by argument of details and technicalities). Milo 23:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. Milo you link to arbcom case remedies implying that these remedies establish COI for Rumiton in the case of List of groups referred to as cults. I point out that not only did they not establish any COI for Rumiton whatsoever in these remedies, but in fact the remedies do not pertain to this or any other general entry on "cults". And you call this "wikilawyering"? Puuleeasse. As if arbcom didn't have every opportunity to extend the COI into cult articles more generally (though again Rumiton is not party to those restrictions in the first place). Those are Jossi's restrictions and they relate to "Prem Rawat and related articles". Maybe you need to look at the related articles once again, cult is not on it, NRM is not on it, Milo's favorite lists of cults ... also not on it. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read again what I actually wrote. What's this, about four times now I've asked you to read again what I wrote? Put my paragraphs in a simple text processor like Notepad and place each sentence on a separate line with a blank line in between. Think about each sentence by itself. Then think about how they relate to each other. Then compare each sentence to what you wrote. Hopefully you will see that I already covered the issue you raised. The key phrase is "in a parallel case".

I use the sentence separation technique when I don't immediately understand a paragraph someone has written. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, this is not how we debate in Wikipedia. Just think about what you are saying for a moment. If we applied the principle that you are trying to establish here, this would have far-reaching consequences well beyond this present discussion. For example, it would have to be assumed that all Jewish editors have an inherent conflict of interest in articles relating to Israel, Palestine and the Holocaust. If we followed your rationale, their voices would have to be discounted in any and all content disputes touching on these topics. Likewise, all U.S.-based editors would have to be deemed to have a COI in content disputes involving foreign perception of U.S. foreign policies, and so forth. I am sure that this is not really what you are advocating, and you can surely see that it would be unworkable.

(Btw, I participated in the above ArbCom case. Jossi never had any restriction relating to these articles. He voluntarily committed to a self-imposed restriction of only contributing to the articles' talk pages; the ArbCom commended him for that, and added that the restriction was not actually required by COI policy. [5]) Jayen466 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're "shocked, shocked" to discover the massive inherent conflicts of interest in the articles you mentioned. COIs are inherently there, but they have to rise to the level of WP:COI to be actionable. I didn't write WP:COI, so go argue with them. It's also not quite the problem you seem to think. After a while, editors can tell who accepts the neutral point of view principle, and who is trying to subvert an article for their own group's purposes. LOGRTAC has been thoroughly subverted by group members trying to hide an index to their bad press, mostly crimes they've committed. Milo 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say these are POVs, not COIs. Btw, I have recreated List of cults, with a link to List of groups referred to as cults in government documents, which is authoritatively sourced. Bad press or crimes committed by the various groups should be covered in the articles about the groups themselves, which is where our readers would look for that information; LOGRTAC never aspired to being an exhaustive review of bad press à la rickross.com. But I can see your point that some of the articles on the groups themselves may be subject to whitewashing. In the AfD, I suggested creating a List of cult controversies or even List of cult crimes and allegations, where these controversies could be described in detail. The LOGRTAC sources could be used as a starting point. I think this would ultimately serve readers better than a list of names with two random references using the word "cult". Jayen466 15:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have recreated List of cults" - bad idea. I have prodded it. It is contentious and against the spirit of the AfD we just finished and which we are validating here. You are welcome to speedy it but I hope we do not have to do an AfD on it. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD. If you review the AfD carefully you'll see that many of the delete comments concerned the "referred to" part of the title, or the choice of criteria for the list. Neither of those objections applies to the redirect that Jayen created. Indeed, there's no reason not to develop a full list with that title, if problems with the old list can be circumvented. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your right. Please then see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cults. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I can only apologise for starting this AfD in an awkward manner (with a Keep vote), however having read the talk page and had the article on my watchlist for two years I could not see the problems being resolved on a talk page. And so I went for the AfD, having scanned through the previous AfDs it was clear that in four years a strong case had never been made for a Keep, the third AfD came out with 12 Keep votes to no delete votes but the main reason was the quick nomination (AfD 2 finished in July, AfD 3 started in December and most editors seemed annoyed at the nomination). The other four previous AfDs all verged on delete (6K/5D, 17D/16K, 12K/0D, 17K/15D, 14K/14D being the records of all five). There has been a lot of leeway given to let the article address its problems, however this never happened and more problems appeared. I know AfD is not a vote but 23 Deletes to 8 Keeps cannot be anything other than a consensus to delete, and those 23 editors were not all SPAs or cult members. This (final?) AfD was the most debated and well argued and after a 12 month gap there was no reason not to nominate. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand what a consensus means. Wikipedia is not a majority democracy, there are valid reason to keep this article based on policy that are not being addressed or refuted. They are continually being ignored in favour of i don't like its and issues with the content. There is absolutely no reason given that this article cannot be based on reliable sources making a good encyclopedic article. A list article has to be one of the easiest to clean. To suggest that a list article can never be salvage is ridiculous. I cannot find any reason by the portrayal of cults in the media is not notable. --neon white talk 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness the previous AfDs had very little argument (in the case of AfD 3 none at all). Four years and five AfDs (complete with a couple with it under another name) have not righted the problems, the article could not be fixed, and that was the consensus among those who argued in the sixth AfD. I certainly would never fall back on to an IDLI argument during an AfD but the leeway given by the closing admins in the previous AfDs had been very generous, and the article could not be fixed. You are not giving any good reason to overturn. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Despite the mythology, the article was working smoothly between Aug 6, 2006 to Oct 25, 2007, preceding the hijack of 1920+ that was intended to make the article stop working. Most LOGRTAC opposers ignore this distressingly inconvenient fact, since of course they would have to admit they were wrong, which Escalation of commitment does not permit.

It appears that article deconstruction has not occurred before at Wikipedia, at least not on such a grand and obvious scale. I'm not convinced that's a defense for gross failure to acknowledge this obvious condition of article space invasion. Milo 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced it ever worked all that well. However that period was based, to a degree, on things editors like me somewhat invented to make it work. We based it on a synthesis of real concepts and terminology, but it was always a bit of a weak foundation. I supported it because I like lists and I felt the topic was notable. Still the situation collapsing was somewhat inevitable and the topic is still dealt with on Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony (23:20): "not convinced it ever worked all that well."

(shrug) You can't argue with success. After 1920+ the vast majority of complaints went away, and the centrist editors departed in the quiet. It had been a rather long slog. That left a few unhappy group members, so it wasn't possible to get any more work done – like sorting by legal status and cult-denial-links, both of which would have improved residual fairness issues that had some validity beyond a satisfied NPOV. Milo 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can argue with a claim of success that I'm not sure existed. You state that was a period of success and in relative terms I remember it being so. I suppose I'd need to see the history opened to confirm it was actual success rather than relative.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's consense on a relative article success during the 1920+ era.

←My compliments to all the earlier editors for working through what is candidate for a top-10 most difficult-to-write Wikipedia article. This includes a present member of Arbcom.
The article had its origins as a list within the Cult article started in 2001. Circa February of 2004 there was a series of awkward list moves out of Cult, that spawned the Destructive cult text article, and then moved on to Purported cults, which was renamed several times to the present long name (with an initial-letter acronym of "LOGRTAC"). The present name was consensed to avoid Wikipedia either endorsing or disendorsing references to cult-calling attributable to reliable sources. The name stuck because, as a sound byte, if one does not like references, one does not like encyclopedias and should not be editing at this project.
The simple bullet-list of seven List of purported cults (2005-04-16 version) does not look anything like the last 2008-06-22 version of LOGRTAC with highly evolved multi-color click-links, 25 strict academic references, 85 media references, and NPOV information notices about the reliability of academic and media sources.
For those who want to look at the last WP version or save copies of it, here is a link to the Google cache: List of groups referred to as cults - 2008-06-22 version, Google cache. I strongly advise to not repost it without first restoring it to the 1920+ version. To restore it, add the 1920+ criterion: "Groups referenced must not have been named by reliable sources to independently exist prior to 1920 in their substantially present form of beliefs and earthly practices." to the criterion list as #6, and then simply remove every entry of a group which was founded before 1920, which includes all old religions.
Cairoi (who always had a redlink like I do) was the number one contributor to both article and talk pages. IIRC, on the talk page cairoi wrote 286 posts, while Will Beback and I were about tied for a distant number 2 around 218 each. (Note: using Wikidashboard which tabulates circa the last two years) I thought Cairoi had the most neutral point of view combined with a no-nonsense pro-reporting position, yet he strictly accepted polled consensus with which he didn't necessarily agree. Accordingly, I always deferred to him as lead editor, and no one could replace him when he departed with excellent timing at the peak of relative success.
Will Beback was quiet, succinct and also irreplaceable as a long term article-continuity editor. I wish I had more of his many talents.
An honorable mention should go to early editor Ed Poor. He was a member of Unification who took a strongly questioning position on cult-calling, but he was serious about working with other editors to reach consensus. The good reputations of group members like Ed are gradually moving Unification along the normal path toward a post-cult-referred denomination. Ed is possibly best remembered for his consensus on the all-time most difficult issue of article title. Milo 22:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 2008-06-12 List of groups referred to as cults GDFL contributor's list[6]:
Michael A. White, Pronz, ZipaDeeDooDa, DumZiBoT, Jossi, Milomedes, Kozuch, Christoph616, Jclemens, Ramons lo Montalbes, ClueBot, Kodyack, Mamalujo, Really Spooky, Rjwilmsi, David Plum, Charles Matthews, XLinkBot, Denn034, Storm Rider, Pseudomonas, Vina-iwbot, Raspberrywall, Couchbeing, Rumiton, Simschr, Boodlesthecat, Dance With The Devil, User000123, Flatterworld, Aleta, Cuñado, Wowest, ClaudeReigns, Ryancormack, Darrenhusted, WBOSITG, LAPDboy, Zelduh, Byebyeviking, Gimmetrow, GoodDamon, 77night77, Lucasbfr, Boffob, SatyrTN, Benjiboi, SerialVerb, Dale Arnett, Lonewolf BC, Eproletariat, SmackBot, Chocolatepizza, Wjhonson, Europe22, DJBullfish, Cenarium, PhilKnight, Danlev, Koavf, Jmlk17, I AM JOHN SMITH, Landau7, Lobojo, Sfacets, BotMultichill, Arkalochori, Antonrojo, Mee hlp u, EALacey, Dbachmann, Gatorgalen, Yovinedelcielo, AndrewRT, Conrad.Irwin, GirasoleDE, Dudey239, Cirt, SqueakBox, Matthardingu, FyzixFighter, Joseph Solis in Australia, Love-in-ark, Gaius Cornelius, Moon Rising, Docboat, AangelQT, Dylan Lake, Xanthius, Bobo192, Brian0324, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Artnscience, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Drumpler, RookZERO, Legalist, Rashaun, .V., Ichibani, Matty2487, JetLover, Skep91, Quicksetright, DMCer, Pedant17, Flamgirlant, Voidvector, Olaf Stephanos, Rursus, Karuna8, Spacefarer, Joie de Vivre, Smee, StAnselm, Whobillyocean, Túrelio, DumbBOT, Walton One, BatteryIncluded, Darak Soran, Serpent's Choice, Kkrystian, AJackl, VSing, Abronkeeler, GreenMile, Xnuala, Netsnipe, Endlessmike 888, Alison, Jayvdb, J2thawiki, Pat Payne, Cpcheung, Pjacobi, Formercobuslave, DancingMan, Rams 4 life, Berethor222, Menchi, BabyDweezil, Antaeus Feldspar, Xandiar, Tanaats, TalkAbout, Cairoi, InSearchOfTheTruth, Riveros11, Chameleons84, NlynchN, Dementation, RB972, Justinw, Alphachimpbot, Holyghostofgod, DoctorW, Kmarinas86, Name3rd, Harro5, Merman, Dash77, Bookgrrl, Sm1969, Willia, Zondor, Firsfron, Robma, Cholmes75, Dr U, WikiLeon, Hroðulf, TransylvanianKarl, The Diplomat, TurabianNights, TheGunslinger, Monger, Shadowlynk, Lawikitejana, SJK, Dermo69, Roman Nikolaev, T. Anthony, Coffeemaker, JivaGoswami, Xenumaster, Rajah, Bartleby, Davidstrauss, Argyriou, Sam, Fuhghettaboutit, Thiseye, Betacommand, TheEditrix, Sxeptomaniac, MG8992, Stephanie thomas, The Fading Light, Wow3, Neil, Andries, SSS108, Woohoo74, Leflyman, Bryan Derksen, Pegship, Longhair, CapitalR, Crzrussian, Ig0774, J.smith, Punanimal, Robinfoote, Alexandrov, Butko, Tangotango, Geneb1955, Everyking, Quiddity, Neutrality, Jahiegel, Wikipediatrix, SpencerComoli, ESkog, Khalid1402, Hanako, Accuratehistory, Alienus, LaszloWalrus, Jerry Cornelius, Hropt1421, Michaël, Scurmot, Shanekorte, Buckdj, Psy guy, Ugur Basak, Whosasking, Adbatstone, Zappaz, RST Ninja, Scottinglis, Tommstein, Modemac, User2004, Dtobias, Zanimum, Goethean, Nae'blis, Bcorr, JesuXPIPassio, Mailer diablo, Shaddack, Gng11, Gazpacho, DanMS, Kaliz, David Gerard, Jmchuff, Cberlet, BonsaiViking, Enumclaw, David.Monniaux, Jachin, Pgreenfinch, Smjg, Bradeos Graphon, Thryduulf, AI, Ombudsman, Nigredo, Espantajo, Sjakkalle, Hoary, Brer vole, Butsushin, KneeLess, Hawstom, Bovlb, Scottperry, Pspadaro, Bluemoose, JamesMLane, Carlj7, Jnc, MikeX, The"Return"ofJesusIsLove, Ed Poor, Visorstuff, Alai, Stevertigo, LeeHunter, Szyslak, Grammarbot, CesarB, DJ Clayworth, Sdfisher, TomTheHand, Ahoerstemeier, Moncrief, STP, BM, Squiquifox, Greyweather, SlimVirgin, Pakaran, Michael Hardy, FCYTravis, John Brauns, JoeHine, Cool Hand Luke, Mav, Gary D, Hadal, Anton Hein, Ike9898, OneGuy, BoNoMoJo, ExitControl, Art LaPella, Donvinzk, StopCultPropaganda, Kill Bossy, Francs2000, Formeruser-81, Chris Rodgers, Noone, Jiang, P0lyglut, Jason M, Davodd, RickK, Luis Dantas, Rlvaughn, Adam Bishop, Nilmerg, Wik, Branddobbe, Fubar Obfusco, Someone else, Buddhist72802, Efghij, Balanone, Rmhermen, Cyp, Harvester, Rado Vleugel, IKWOWE, Evercat, Bpt, Olivier, MartinHarper, Tannin, Prefect, Wesley, Vicki Rosenzweig, Sodium, James, Damian Yerrick, Malcolm Farmer, Verloren, and Anonymous user(s) of Wikipedia.
Milo 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - time to close this per WP:SNOW ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is almost always a bad idea to snow close a contested DRV. This is obviously contested. For a particularly prominent and flagrant example, read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war#Gaillimh's early closure of the deletion review was inappropriate and associated background. GRBerry 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed Too much discussion still going on to snow this. No need to rush a close. Townlake (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree Almost inappropriate to invoke that.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree as well. This dead horse, unfortunately, needs to be beaten to satisfaction.PelleSmith (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: apart from administrative confusions, the closing administrator explains the deletion primarily on the basis of statistics and perceived trends. I see the actual arguments for deletion in the AfD as generally confusing POV with NPOV, the past with the present, wide consensus with narrow originality, and secondary mention with primary equation. -- Pedant17 (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant17, I'm a master of English rhetoric, with a considerable grasp of general systems theory below the math level. I don't understand what you just wrote well enough to explain it to someone else, with any certainty that I was correct. Could you please parse out and expand your compressed reasoning in a bullet point list? Milo 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Re-edited 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • POV and NPOV: Discussion in the AfD veered between assigning POV to the selection criteria and to the sources used in List of groups referred to as cults. The contention that the wide range of sources and the vastly different attitudes summarized in a single list constituted, all together, a balanced neutral viewpoint got very little airtime and substantially no criticism. One might well wondere, in the wake of the cult wars, whether opposition to the pejorative use of the word "cult" has expanded to include opposition to the dispasionate discussion or presentation of anything containing the "cult" label. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past and present: any detected trend in voting-patterns or straw-polls like a the multiple AfDs needs to take into account that an article changes over time -- especially articles like List of groups referred to as cults, which gets edited heavily and frequently. Much of the opposition to the article came from viewpoints which may not have cared if the article had retained its post-1920 restriction (thus excluding presenting (say) Christianity as a group labelled as a cult). -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus and originality: repeated claims portrayed the criteria for inclusion in List of groups referred to as cults as WP:OR. Yet the basis for inclusion rested squarely on the most universal consensus of all: popular language use of the term "cult". You can't get more consensual the whole collectivity of the speakers/writers of a language. Yet it still seems easy for people with a relatively clear idea of what "really" constitutes a "cult" to object to the use of the broader interpretation -- even when backed by relaible source. -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary mention and primary sources: some participants in the AfD discussions demonstrated confusion over the identification of primary sources as opposed to secondary (and even tertiary) ones. This misunderstanding gave undue prominence to claims of WP:OR and of WP:SYNTH, as well as to expressed fears of unmaintainability. It also relates to the widespread confusion between "Org X = a cult" and "Source Y associates org X with the label "cult". -- Pedant17 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The closing admin acknowledged that there was no consensus, basing the decision to delete on what s/he saw as a "trend" towards consensus to delete sometime in the future, stating:

"...over time, consensus in each debate seems to be straying from keep and trending closer to delete, I do not feel that closing as "no consensus" will be of any aid except to stave off deletion until the next debate rolls around."

A perception of trend between different AfDs is not part of the deletion policy. At least a rough consensus must be found within the AfD itself, otherwise the default is keep. The closing admin did not find even a rough consensus within this AfD, therefore according to policy it should not have been closed as delete. (For context, this DRV is the first I've seen of the topic; I did not comment in the AfD and have just now read through it.) --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit this is a good point.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "rough consensus" in the context of deletions is defined here. It is not a headcount. Jayen466 06:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Jack-A-Roe. You've identified the specific flaw in a close to 'accelerate that WP:IDONTLIKEIT trend'. (And that's separate from the invisible delete-reasons issue.)

Of course you also have to convince the closing admin that this is 'not a vote'.

( "wink, nudge" -- Monte Python)

Milo 07:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as usual, has nothing to do with this. Or are you now also claiming the closing admin just didn't like it? Lets not forget very basic rationale for deletion here, provided clearly by the closing admin and in full regard for our policies: "To put it more succinctly, the arguments being made in favor of deletion are stronger than those made for keeping this material." Consensus is not reached in an AfD by way of a vote, that is indeed correct.PelleSmith (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse because I don't intend to read all of this crap. whether it's relevant or not.. Corvus cornix_talk 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Smith (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Tommy Smith (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I have three objections to this deletion.

• • He is notable football player, signed a 3-year contract with Ipswich (England Second Division - or whatever they are calling it now) and on was on loan to professional team in Conference National. As such meets requirements of WP:ATHLETE.
  • It is unclear to me how the outcome of an AFD process is a speedy delete.
  • Shouldn't the closing Admin be neutral on the issue, rather than the person who argues most for deletion? Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Several points here. Firstly on the substantive issue of his notability consensus in the AFD was pretty clear that they did not feel he met WP:ATHLETE. If I had come along to close the AFD based on the arguments there I would have had to close it as delete - both your points were disagreed with by the other contributors to the AFD. I would also note that the AFD had gone the full five days.

• On the speedy delete, an article on the same person went through AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer), the deleting admin felt the articles were substantively the same thus meeting the G4 speedy criteria. On comparing the two articles the new one has some sources (the original was unsourced) and has several new facts (under 18 national, under 17 world cup, playing for Stevenage and being on the shortlist for a trophy). Given these difference I think a G4 was probably not correct. Lastly I don't think the deleting admin should have deleted the article himself as he had argued in the AFD, would have better to tag the article for G4 and let someone else do the deletion if he felt it fit the criteria.

• So there's a couple of things I disagree with on the deletion but as the article had been fully considered at AFD and there was a consensus to delete cannot support overturning the deletion. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion (as closer). I felt that as it was so clear that he fails the notability criteria (i.e. WP:ATHLETE - I have no idea why Nfitz thinks he meets it - he has never played in a fully professional league - the Football Conference is not fully professional) that there was no problem with me deleting the article once I had discovered the previous AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G4. The speedy delete closure doesn't mean that the debate ended that way, it simply means that the article was speedily deleted during the AfD and therefore the AfD doesn't need to be open any longer. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Smith (soccer) is pretty clear as well. Hope this helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No longer endorsing G4, given comments below. My opinion of the speedy was assumption, since most G4's are properly done and I couldn't see the versions. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for convienience added the lonks to the other article GRBerry 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave it deleted If there hadn't been a new AFD, this would be a clear overturn of the G4 deletion, because the new article was very different from the original. But the new AFD should have been closed, by a different admin, as delete on its own. So I can't say that we should undelete the article. GRBerry 13:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, even though it was technically improper. The closing admin shouldn't have closed this as anything since they commented in the discussion, and I really don't think this should have been a G4...the last discussion was over a year ago. Still, consensus was pretty clear here. I think any admin could have normally closed this as a delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Technicalities aside - Smith was on loan last season, and appeared for, a fully professional team, in a league where nearly all of the teams are fully professional. This clearly meets the intent of "fully professional league", and as such WP:ATHLETE has been met. Nfitz (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?? You've just shown that it doesn't meet the criteria. Most is not all. The Football Conference is not a fully professional league because not all the teams are fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It probably shouldn't have been deleted as G4 or closed by a participant of the debate, but those problems aside the consensus of the debate was most certainly delete. Shereth 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The standard for notability of a football player is laid out at WP:FOOTYN. It makes quite clear that as long as the team itself if fully-professional, that it doesn't matter if there are some other non-professional teams. Why is everyone ignoring this? Nfitz (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FOOTYN was developed by WP:FOOTY but was not accepted by the wider community, so at the moment is meaningless. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:FOOTYN seems far more tailored to football than the generic "fully professional" note in WP:ATHLETE, which is hard to bend to dozens of different sports. Here we have a professional player, who played for a professional team, in a national level league where the majority of the teams are fully-professional. We have a standard that allows this based on the consensus of those who cover the area. Why would we not stand here and say this is the reason that this article shouldn't be deleted? Nfitz (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Number 57 answered the question quite well - WP:FOOTYN is not a document that has undergone community-wide scrutiny and thus cannot be applied to an article in lieu of accepted notability standards. If you feel that it is superior then perhaps you should submit it for review (perhaps at WP:VPR) but in the meantime it is unacceptable as a reason to overturn the deletion. Shereth 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse some other admin should have closed it, but nobody could reasonably have come to any other conclusion about the consensus. DGG (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Had the closing admin been aware of the previous AfD at the time of his first comment, he would have been within his rights to delete the article outright then. On discovery of the other AfD, he was still within his rights to speedy delete the article. No substantial changes were made from the version that stood AfD—specifically, no new claims of notability were made. The speedy deletion was appropriate; the termination of the AfD due to speedy deletion was likewise appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could a speedy be at all appropriate? The previous AfD was in 2007, and the player at that time had not played on a team that met the WP:FOOTYN criteria. He didn't do that until 2008. Although many argue that he still isn't notable despite now meeting WP:FOOTYN criteria - it clearly doesn't qualify as a speedy any longer. Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural objection - I don't have a photographic memory but I'm pretty sure there is a clause under G4 which says something like "an article can be deleted if it is *substantially identical* to a previously deleted article", which here is not the case. in addition an editor who does not spend all of his life reading discussions in WP:FOOTY can surely be forgiven not knowing that the Blue Square Premier is not considered a fully professional league, and really is there any harm in leaving an AfD open for 7 days instead of 3 or whatever happened in this case? ugen64 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was open for 5 days. Even if a speedy isn't proper (it's not), it'd be a consensus to delete. No need to be wonky. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, I'm generally a deletionist - if you trawl through my deletion log I'm sure you'll find quite a few speedies that were technically against policy but quite obvious. But there are a few rules on Wiki that 99% of people don't seem to understand, and that's the only reason I make such a big deal in every case. It's true, in this case despite G4 being technically invalid the deletion itself was probably valid, but what about the 5,000 other cases in which G4 has been applied in a similarly invalid way? I'm sure quite a few of those were actually encyclopedic articles, deleted only because some admin or other didn't really know the CSD rules. ugen64 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Slap User:Number_57 for closing a discussion he participated in or for dubious CSD#G4 judgement. He should have modified is !vote. Endorse deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I probably deserve that... пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]