User:Xenophrenic/sandbox1




 * Hi, bd2412 ~


 * I'm pinging you to notify you of my intent to file a Deletion Review of the above close decision you made. I greatly appreciate that you volunteered to close what is obviously a lengthy discussion, but I must ask you to overturn your decision.  According to WP:DELREVD, I must: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first."  I note that you have already begun discussing the issue with another editor, ThePromenader, on your Talk page, but rather than resolve the matter, that discussion has only emphasized the problematic nature of the reasoning behind the close decision.  Please review my concerns and let me know if you think we can remedy this instead of opening a formal review.


 * As is evident in the initial close decision wording, and in the response to the follow-up request for explanation, the closer is operating under the misunderstanding that consensus is determined by vote counting:
 * As is evident in the initial close decision wording, and in the response to the follow-up request for explanation, the closer is operating under the misunderstanding that consensus is determined by vote counting:


 * Since consensus is usually interpreted to require around 2/3 of participants to support a particular outcome... --bd2412
 * that would require something more like 24 !votes to delete to overcome the weight of editors arguing that the category should be kept... --bd2412
 * A clear majority (more than 50% numerically)... --bd2412
 * ... a substantial number are amenable to... --bd2412
 * There were 14 !votes for straight deletion (including the nominator), and 12 !votes to keep... --bd2412
 * Therefore, there were 22 !votes supporting the proposition that there should not be a category at the title under consideration, which is reasonably sufficient consensus... --bd2412
 * There is a clear majority in favor of deleting this category... --bd2412
 * Policy is clear, however, that there is no "2/3" vote requirement, or "require 24 votes", or other counting nonsense when determining consensus:
 * Consensus:
 * Deletion guidelines for administrators:
 * Articles for deletion:
 * Deletion policy:
 * Closing discussions:
 * I assume you are already aware, "closers are expected and required to exercise their judgment to ensure the decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached." Would you be so kind as to indicate which arguments, counterarguments and policies you relied upon during this close process?


 * The category was nominated for deletion because (among other problems) it violated WP:OCEGRS, and it was empty. The closing admin apparently agreed that the category should be deleted, but then inexplicably created a new category with the exact same problems.  Google Scholar (and likewise JSTOR, EBSCO, GALE, etc.)  searches show that "Persecution by atheists", "Persecution by atheist states", "Persecution by atheism", or any other attempted artificial construction conflating atheism with the actual cause of persecution, is not a recognized intersection.  (Compare with hundreds and sometimes thousands of hits for "Persecution by Christians" or "Persecution by totalitarian regimes", or "Persecution by Muslims".)
 * The category was nominated for deletion because (among other problems) it violated WP:OCEGRS, and it was empty. The closing admin apparently agreed that the category should be deleted, but then inexplicably created a new category with the exact same problems.  Google Scholar (and likewise JSTOR, EBSCO, GALE, etc.)  searches show that "Persecution by atheists", "Persecution by atheist states", "Persecution by atheism", or any other attempted artificial construction conflating atheism with the actual cause of persecution, is not a recognized intersection.  (Compare with hundreds and sometimes thousands of hits for "Persecution by Christians" or "Persecution by totalitarian regimes", or "Persecution by Muslims".)


 * Instead of "Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes" (as suggested in the discussion) or "Religious persecution by secular governments" (as also suggested in the discussion)? If you point to head-count again, instead of common sense, policy or rational arguments, you are so going to get trouted.
 * Instead of "Religious persecution under totalitarian regimes" (as suggested in the discussion) or "Religious persecution by secular governments" (as also suggested in the discussion)? If you point to head-count again, instead of common sense, policy or rational arguments, you are so going to get trouted.


 * I'm hopeful that this can be corrected before going to Deletion Review or ArbCom. Please let me know your thoughts, bd2412, here on this page or your Talk page if you prefer.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you at least acknowledge that I've contacted you about this matter? That appears to be a requirement before I can proceed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. bd2412  T 14:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Deletion discussion was here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_4
 * Previous Deletion discussion was here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19
 * Closer's Talk page: User_talk:BD2412

Regarding the proposal to delete the problematic category and create a similar problematic category named "Persecution by atheist states", objections were voice and never addressed by the closer:
 * As pointed out above, we already have a category for persecution by communists. An additional category, on top of the communist one, could contain e.g. the persecution of Catholics by the Mexican government in the 1920s and by the Spanish government in the 1930s. However I'm not sure whether the Mexican and Spanish regime at that time can be characterized as "atheist", so I would be hesitant to support this rename proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggested to change of "persecution by atheistic states" doesn't make any sense either. The idea that a state sponsored religious ideology is the defining feature of sweeping persecution is a very slippery slope towards some very inclusive categories (for instance, "persecution by Christian states" is going to accrue an awful lot of content as everything is done by nominally Christian nations in the west). The starting point for this whole piece should be with a clear rationale behind the category. It fails on that front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koncorde (talk • contribs) 12:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your "by atheist states" has many of the same problems and policy violations as the "by atheists" construct. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ["by atheist states"] makes no sense. You may as well say "Religious persecution by English speaking states" is a valid criteria for a category, or "Religious persecution by nominally irreligious states". Associating some grouping mechanism with a state does not indicate that the persecution has anything to do with the manifestation of their political beliefs. Koncorde (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

1. It doesn't have a "Persecution by atheist states" head article, nor could it ever, as required by policy. 2. It's redundant to existing categories - what does this artificial intersection add? Attempts to create a head article have been made before, usually resulting in this: Historical persecution by atheism (deleted) or Historical persecution by atheists (deleted) (see deletion discussion 1 and deletion discussion 2), and it is hard not to view the creation of this problematic category as an end-run around past community consensus. 3. The closer, in a nod to the several editors who are fine with any name variations as long as the category still implicates atheists as the cause of religious persecution, created the new "Persecution by atheist states" category, saying it is "to specify that the relevant remit of the category is persecution by states that are officially atheist". Which means only Albania, which was the only "officially atheist" state in history. I think the closer was trying instead to categorize "anti-religious" states, but I can't know for sure as the closer has declined to discuss his reasoning.

This close just kicks the can down the road without addressing any of the problems.

29 people commented. All but 3 said the problematic category should be scrapped outright, or scrapped and new categories created under different names. Only 1 (Jason from nyc) of those 3 who !voted to "Keep" it as is even attempted to give a reason for their position.


 * Delete - K.e.coffman
 * Delete - Marcocapelle
 * Delete - Hijiri88
 * Delete - SoWhy
 * Delete - Johnuniq
 * Delete - Gamall Wednesday Ida
 * Delete - Rhododendrites
 * Delete - Xenophrenic
 * Delete - Ratatosk Jones
 * Delete - IP:87.2.118.56
 * Delete - jmcgnh
 * Delete - Laurel Lodged
 * Delete - Mr. Guye
 * Delete - Koncorde
 * Delete - ThePromenader
 * Delete - JackNinja5
 * Delete (if "similar" persecution cats are also deleted) - Ramos1990

Keep & Rename - Mangoe Keep & Rename - Renzoy16 Keep & Rename - Desmay Keep & Rename - Moataz1997 Keep & Rename - Omar Ghrida Keep or Rename - Eliko007 Keep or Rename - Majoreditor Keep & Rename - 1990'sguy Keep & Rename - IP:2A02:2788:1036:6D5:6954:3163:A3CA:EDCA

Keep - Knox490 Keep - Jason from nyc Keep - Tahc