Content deleted Content added
MilesMoney (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MilesMoney (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::Key language in the category description was altered without discussion or consensus a few weeks ago, by a new user. The change did not reflect practice, and the usage it promoted violated [[WP:LABEL]]. The usage clearly is also problematic under BLP, since it implicitly labels those associated with groups as cult members based simply, as here, on the opinion of a single individual. Itr is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a means of attaching pejorative labels to those whose opinions one disagrees with. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
:::Key language in the category description was altered without discussion or consensus a few weeks ago, by a new user. The change did not reflect practice, and the usage it promoted violated [[WP:LABEL]]. The usage clearly is also problematic under BLP, since it implicitly labels those associated with groups as cult members based simply, as here, on the opinion of a single individual. Itr is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a means of attaching pejorative labels to those whose opinions one disagrees with. [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::Your opinion is not convincing. Try again. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
::::Your opinion is not convincing. Try again. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::For the record, the problem with Wolf's argument is that it's backwards. He keeps edit-warring to change the category so that it applies to cults, which means that any group mentioned in any of these books is being called a cult in WP's voice, quite likely violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The version before his edit-warring had been improved so that it only required that these groups be ''called'' cults. So, for example, Ayn Rand's Collective is being called a cult by this book, and that would mean it qualifies without WP making a commitment towards its actual culthood. [[User:MilesMoney|MilesMoney]] ([[User talk:MilesMoney|talk]]) 22:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:56, 28 December 2013
Books C‑class | |||||||
|
Objectivism C‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, is there any policy-based basis for removing this? MilesMoney (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. It's stated in the associated edit summary, which you've acknowledged reading and haven't disputed the accuracy of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your edit summary was "inappropriate category; other books in the cat deal with the subject generally, not with purported examples, and other books on the particular topic are not in this category". I did not refute it because it doesn't support your edit. Even if it were the case that the other books in the category deal with the subject generally, the category is explicitly defined as "containing books on specific groups that have been called cults, as well as books relating to or describing cult methodologies and theories". As such, this book, which discusses a particular group that's been called a cult, fits into the category.
- Now that I've pointed out your mistake, I'm sure you'll do the right thing and revert your edit. MilesMoney (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Key language in the category description was altered without discussion or consensus a few weeks ago, by a new user. The change did not reflect practice, and the usage it promoted violated WP:LABEL. The usage clearly is also problematic under BLP, since it implicitly labels those associated with groups as cult members based simply, as here, on the opinion of a single individual. Itr is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a means of attaching pejorative labels to those whose opinions one disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not convincing. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the record, the problem with Wolf's argument is that it's backwards. He keeps edit-warring to change the category so that it applies to cults, which means that any group mentioned in any of these books is being called a cult in WP's voice, quite likely violating WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The version before his edit-warring had been improved so that it only required that these groups be called cults. So, for example, Ayn Rand's Collective is being called a cult by this book, and that would mean it qualifies without WP making a commitment towards its actual culthood. MilesMoney (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Key language in the category description was altered without discussion or consensus a few weeks ago, by a new user. The change did not reflect practice, and the usage it promoted violated WP:LABEL. The usage clearly is also problematic under BLP, since it implicitly labels those associated with groups as cult members based simply, as here, on the opinion of a single individual. Itr is inappropriate to use Wikipedia as a means of attaching pejorative labels to those whose opinions one disagrees with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)