User:Tautologist/Coatrack Argument for Deletions


 * ( This is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. Therefore, it is a combination of opinions and consensus information.  Your contributions are welcome.  However, if there is a difference in opinion, try not to delete the opinions of pervious contributors, but only to add your opinion as an alternative or additional opinion.)
 * ("Coatrack" and "coat" are not well defined in the current consensus WP:COAT essay, but that is the most current consensus, well defined or not, so it is used as best as possible, given ambiguities from the lack of well definition, to create the "argument template" below. The purpose is to have a template to plug arguments into, in order for editors to reach consensus without taking up administrator time resolving debates.  So contributions with that end in mind are especially welcome.)


 * First, remember that you should start off assuming good faith on the part of the contributor; that the contributor did not intend to create a coatrack or a coat. This implies that -
 * It is best to make suggestions that keep the article or article section, while making changes in titles so as to make it more difficult to use as a coatrack. Similarly it is best to try to keep the relevant information content in a sentence or group of sentences, while removing any information that has no relation whatsoever to the article or section it occurs in.
 * * Argument Needed - One should put an argument in the discussion page of the article. Do not simply write "coatrack" in the box for the reason for the edit, and delete someone’s good faith contribution.  This is almost guaranteed to cause an unnecessary fight, and your inadequate argument will be the cause.
 * If you have already made the argument, refer to where you made it. However, always first check if the editor made changes to satisfy your argument, and did not just stick the same thing in.  If they made changes, then repeat your argument as it relates to your changes.
 * :* One should NEVER use "It is obvious" as an argument. This is no argument at all, but rather a provocation to the editor whose material is being deleted, who in good faith put the contribution in.  If it were "obvious", the contributor would not have made the contribution, since it is assumed the contributor is assumed to be contributing in good faith.  Instead, first try as best as you can to KEEP the article, section, or sentence of the contributor, and instead modify its wording, so as to make it work without deletion of it.
 * If it is a coatrack or coat, you should be able to put the title into the definition sentence in WP:COAT, “The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the ‘coats’.”  Substitute the “title” or “header” for “nominal subject”, and cite examples of what your think are coats in for ‘coats’.  If you cannot do this, then you are likely wrong in making the deletion on a “coatrack” basis.


 * Use of "Coatrack" vs. "Coat" – Calling something a "coatrack" and a "coat" at the same time is an error; the two are different.  If your argument uses both terms for the same thing, you are wrong in making a deletion.  An  "article" or "section of an article" might or might not be a "coatrack", while a sentence (or collection of sentences) might or might not be a "coat".
 * Essay not Policy - WP:COAT is an essay, not a policy.  WP:COAT says at the top, “This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion.”   So keep in mind that WP:Coat is an essay, and does not have to be heeded, although in the interest of consensus, it should be heeded.


 * Example - An example of the application of the above is the resolved debate regarding presidential candidate Barak Obama's church Trinity United Church of Christ, which had controversial sermons in which Obama might or might not have been present. Consensus was finally reached.  Then a new debate raged over vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's churches, Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church, as well as for pastor David Brickner, who Wasilla Bible Church sited as being responsible for the creation of Wasilla Bible Church, was invited to give a sermon there, and whose sermon was internationally covered as being very controversial.  Since there was no template abstracting the basis of the consensus in the Obama church situation, many of the identical points were redundantly debated.
 * New section headers were proposed in the United Trinity Church of Christ and Pastor Jeremiah Wright articles. “Coatrack” arguments were made for deletion of material, for United Trinity Church of Christ and Pastor Jeremiah Wright.  Persons arguing for including the material were accused of being partisans of presidential candidate John McCain.  After everyone calmed down, and more importantly, after everyone came to understand what a coatrack was, consensus was finally reached to include sections titled "Controversy", and "Political Controversy".
 * Similarly, Sarah Palin’s former church Wasilla Assembly of God made controversial statements including about Bush critics and Kerry voters not getting into heaven, announced a controversial convention to pray for conversion of gays to straights, and made other controversial statements, covered in the international press. Palin was likely not present for most or all of these.  Similarly, pastor David Brickner, head of Jews for Jesus,  gave a sermon at Wasilla Bible Church asserting that Jews were responsible for deaths in Palestinian terrorist attacks, asserting that the deaths of innocents was "God's punishment" for Jewish failure to convert to Christ.  While Palin was at the sermon, she may or may not have known who Brickner was before attending, and may or may not have made a donation to Brickner.  Wasilla Bible Church, at the beginning of the sermon, stated that Brickner was responsible for the very existence of Wasilla Bible Church, and there is evidence of a past relationship going back to at least 2004.  The content of this sermon was the subject of international controversy, independent of Palin, before Palin's nomination.  A debate ensued as to whether the section “Controversial Statements”, the nominal subject, was a coatrack for statements about Sarah Palin, the coats.  The issue is whether or not there was sufficient information related to controversial statements for a section, when unrelated statements on Sarah Palin obscuring the nominal subject were removed.