The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name could be interpreted as meaning people who support the idea that free energy should be suppressed. These are people who have promoted the conspiracy theory known as "free energy suppression". It is a subcategory of Category:Conspiracy theorists and the proposed name matches the general format of the other subcategories. This is a borderline speedy C2C, but I thought it better to perhaps bring it here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Conspiracy theorist is of course a laden term, but the present label, proponents is positively wrong. If a neutral label for these people who "advocate the position the free energy science and technologies are being suppressed" can be agreed upon, that would be the best. __meco (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term Free energy suppression is properly explained in the article. To clarify even more, one could add a sentence about the position of a proponent. An alternative to proponent could also be opponent or believer. (btw, my apologies for undoing Good Olfactory's edit, I wasn't aware the discussion was here).FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "conspiracy theorists". It would be nice if we found a word which fitted better than "proponents", but "conspiracy theorists" is far too prejudicial a term. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the articles should use such laden terms only when attributed to a source, and opposing views should be given due weight. Using terms such as this in category names neither attributes the POV not accommodates other viewpoints. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire tree Category:Conspiracy theorists. This is one subcategory of it. "Proponents" has practically the opposite of the intended meaning in this context, so something different has to be used. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to have Category:Conspiracy theorists as a parent category, but it's a difft matter having it in the title of a category in which biographies are actually placed. If we rename this category as proposed, all the biographical articles in this category have the unattributed POV label appended to the bottom of the page, and that's non neutral. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are 200 articles currently in Category:Conspiracy theorists directly. It's not acting as a mere container category. Also note that the other subcategories use the terminology. If we're going to depart from what is currently the standard, as always it would be helpful if those who oppose the terminology would tackle the issue head-on, instead of in a piecemeal fashion. (I understand that in part this is perhaps due to the difference between proactive nominations and reactions to nominations started by others, but the principle still holds true. It would make far more sense to me to rename this one to match and then nominate all of them that use the term to something else. It would certainly be cleaner and easier for all users to understand what's going on.) Anyway, it doesn't change the fact that "proponents" doesn't work. If you reject "conspiracy theorists", a different term needs to be proposed, because "proponents" can at least potentially mean the exact opposite of the intended meaning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think that JPL's proposal of Category:Free energy suppression opponents (with spelling corrected) solves the problem. as to other categories of "X conspiracy theorists", I usually favour a comprehensive solution, but I think that we are likely to need different terminology for the different cases, so this will need to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be hard-pressed to find them described as such. They are generally described as "conspiracy theorists", which is why I support the use of that terminology. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename either per non or to Caegory:Free energy suppresion opponents. These people Oppose the suppresion of free energy. However mainly they go around trying to convince people the think expists, so conspiracy theorists works. The current name clearly does not work. My first assumption on seeing the name was these were people who felt man-made climate change was a result of energy being relatively too "free", and so they wanted to increase the cost of energy to make it more expensive and less used, thus theoretically limiting human CO2 creation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to conspiracy theorists. This word works, and we have 3rd party sources that call "free energy suppression" a conspiracy theory, and it fits in the category tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Articles should use such laden terms only when attributed to a source, and opposing views should be given due weight. Using terms such as this in category names neither attributes the POV nor accommodates other viewpoints, and it slaps a prejudicial label on all these biographies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be true if conspiracy theorist was indeed a laden or POV term. As you can see from discussion on Category_talk:Conspiracy_theorists and the several discussions to delete that category, opinion is widespread on whether this term is a laden term, so your POV that it is POV is actually just your personal POV - and not a consensus view (yet). I personally don't see it as prejudicial - if someone thinks there is a secret conspiracy to suppress research on the existence of free energy, then calling them a conspiracy theorist is not name calling, it's just calling a spade a spade. We should be careful, as with other cats in this tree, about ensuring attribution - e.g. that a 3rd party source did use those or similar terms to describe each of these individuals, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with the term itself. If you don't like the term, then nominate the whole tree and come up with a reasonable re-naming for the whole tree rather than piecemeal. Until then, I agree with the proposed rename.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not of itself a prejudicial term, because "conspiracy theory" is defined by Merriam Webster in a neutral fashion as "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" ... bit is used a prejudicial term, because it is applied only to those who hold a conspiracy theory which doesn't command mainstream support. It is not applied, for example, to those who believe that Al Quaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
If you want to keep the term, then apply it to the 9/11-Al Qaeda conspiracy theorists, or the Watergate conspiracy theorists, or tho those who believe that the Mafia is a conspiracy.
As noted above, I usually favour a comprehensive solution, but I think that we are likely to need different terminology for the different cases, so this will need to be tackled on a case-by-case basis. For example, using the word "opponents" works fine here, but renaming Category:UFO conspiracy theorists to Category:UFO opponents would be a nonsense. There is no one-size-fits-all solution here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Opponents" doesn't really work here either, because no one calls them that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for preference -- The person who wanted opponents has not read the headnote. The people categorised are propounding that suppression is taking place. This is as scientifically irrational as the 9/11 conspiracy proponents. "Conspiracy" is perhaps not an ideal word here. The proponents are not the conspirators; they claim that governments are conspirators. It might be better to rename the parent "conspiracy theory proponents". Peterkingiron (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The current name suggests they suggests the people are proponents of "Free energy suppression" when if fact they are opposed to the suppresion of free energy, the main thing is that they think it exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, do you know the meaning of the term "conspiracy theorist"? No one thinks that means that the conspiracy theorists are "conspirators". "Conspiracy theory proponents" and "conspiracy theorists" mean about the same thing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename This category is already part of a well-defined structure of Category:Conspiracy theorists. As far as I can tell, there are no people who belong in Category:Free energy suppression proponents, which would appear to appropriately include only those people who know of the existence of free energy systems and support suppression of that information. Category:Free energy suppression conspiracy theorists would include those people who believe that free energy systems exists and that somewhere out there in government and industry are people who are working in concert as part of some conspiracy to keep these world-changing ideas from the public. Alansohn (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I *ALMOST* would support a move to "free energy suppression conspiracy theorists" based on the fact that the article "free energy suppression" very clearly describes the idea as a conspiracy theory. People who advocate it are therefore conspiracy theorists. The BLP issue ought to be resolved by strict policing, so that only those who are really identified with/by the theory are so categorized, and not every person who has occasionally dabbled or been recorded ranting once about it. So I don't have a problem with the "conspiracy theorists" part of the rename proposal. .... BUT I have a problem with category names that are five words long where each word is really substantive. It's just too hard to parse. Can't we call it Category:Free energy conspiracy theorists at the very least? I realize it's not exactly parallel to the "free energy suppression" phrase but it seems close enough that as long as it doesn't create ambiguity with some other concept it would work. --Lquilter (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The Alpinism article redirects to Mountaineering because the two are the same thing. ("Mountaineering is often called Alpinism..." from the mountaineering article.) Having two categories for the same topic is redundant, especially when a lot of the articles in the Alpinism category are simultaneously in the Mountaineering category or subcategory thereof. Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge. The shades of meaning between the two terms is not sufficient to merit separate categories. I've also notified the climbing wikiproject of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if we cannot even come up with a seperat article on Alpinism, it makes no sense to have a seperate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- There is a difference: alpinists are mountaineers who concentrate on the Alps, perhaps being members of the Alpine Club, but I do not think it useful to distinguish those who climb in a particular range. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Articles which are inappropriately categorised should be dealt with through the usual editorial processes. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Convert. Very unsimilar sub-categories. The sub-categories are now just a mish-mash of things, without any explanation. Main Nikola Tesla article should be sufficient/better. FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - not sure what the goal is here - do you want to listify the contents of the category and reference them in the article? We do have categories for certain notable individuals when there are many articles that are related to them - in this case, the category makes sense to me as is. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close unclear nomination. Nikola Tesla already exists, and this category does not contain extensive descriptions, it's only a category in content, not an article created in the wrong namespace. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep a perfectly legitimate category; nominator does not understand category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. I have removed the "cat main" link, as the article Pan-Europeanism was merged into Pan-European identity in 2008, but that content was deleted later that year. I have pasted it into the category page, where it can be trimmed as appropriate. – FayenaticLondon 08:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately, move the article, but there is no reason for these two to be differently named. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Under the current name it can be confused with Pan-European nationalism, which is a distinct concept. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Wizardman 19:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Your article on skepticism which this category points to basically has a wide range of skeptics. Basically any one who doubts the dominant paradigm is a skeptic. Agnostics atheists ufologists conspiracy theorists are obviously included but so are third party supporters vegetarians climate change skeptics holocaust skeptics people who have any off the wall or minority views on anything Mayan calendar aficionados survivalists pacifists those who are skeptical of papal infallibility or of the European Union the electoral college or whether evolution is true or whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4 billion which is the skeptic and when. 24.7.178.138 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you bother checking the articles? The persons included are not the kind of people you describe. George O. Abell was "passionate about debunking pseudoscientific claims" and was both a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and a contributor of the Skeptical Inquirer. Steve Allen was a member of "the Council for Media Integrity, a group that debunked pseudoscientific claims". Jerry Andrus was a lecturer at skeptics conventions and workshops such as the Skeptic's Toolbox. Marcia Angell has published books and articles criticizing goals and claims of the United States healthcare system, the pharmaceutical industry, and alternative medicine. Comparing them with the medical evidence actually point to. I think you misrepresent the category and what it is about. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category links unlike things. The various people where the categorization makes any sense at all, opposed specific claims by specific people. This is mixing religious skepticism, skepticism towards paranormal claims, skepticism towards alternative memory and many other things. It makes no sense to claim there is one centralized approach to skepticism, these people, where the categorization makes sense at all, are skeptical about specific claims, and grouping them together makes no sense. This is not an overarching philosophy or movement, it is specified opposition to specific things that has no overarching unity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is also the whole Category:Skeptics by country tree that should be considered at the same time. I'm not sure if it makes sense to split this by religious vs scientific skeptics? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Due attention to the category structure. This is a child of Category:Skeptics by country and a sibling of the latter's children. There is no reason whatsoever to delete this or any of the other such country categories. Hmains (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
apparently Wikipedia is content to have categories of people living or dead that have so little in common that some aspect of your broad definition of skeptic would any encyclopedia bent on accuracy rather than keeping some people's ideas of what types of skeptics are there have such a category of such inaccuracies or ambiguity? 24.7.178.138 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- possibly some material may need to be moved down the tree inot a "religious skeptics" category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a very useful category (I have used it many times to find skeptics), and many others exist for other countries. You want all those deleted as well? Hopefully not!!. These categories are useful IMO. As Dimadick wrote, I think the IP has misunderstood the category. Fodor Fan (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an identity, "skeptics" is a term of art, not just a general parlance word meaning someone who has skepticism about something If it's deemed insufficiently clear then the better solution would be to rename it with a modifier, as for example Category:Religious skeptics.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
