Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Persecution

Mixing persecution, discrimination and prejudice into one category in my eyes is no good idea. The holocaust and prejudices against people with piercings are just too different. At Talk:Anti-American_sentiment two others agreed with me that the template is not helpful, and the creator supports it with arguments that in my eyes show he partly wants to use it for mockery about the controversial term "anti-Americanism". Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * User:GBWR is confused.. 1. He/She is confusing the issue of the template itself, with the problem of classifying anti-Americanism. So, this whole deletion is out of place. But User:GBWR is learning the ways of wikiculture, and I dont begrudge him/her with feeling a sense of frustration that is common among those who disagree with me. 2. I didn't add it for sake of mockery. The topic of "anti-Americanism" mocks itself, when put in the context of legitimate persecution. Thus, one can argue that the material should be classified elsewhere, like say category;phobias, or category;perniciousrumous.-Stevertigo 22:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * is a confused person is intolerable according to Wikipedia policy No personal attacks. The issue is not the article anti-Americanism but as explained the mixing of the three very wide topics into one template. Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GBWR writes:"I find it questionable that an administrator who tries to defend a template that is opposed by three others in an article blocks that article. I find it intolerable that an administrator personally attacks others and deletes deletion requests. I am puzzled given what I wrote above. Get-back-world-respect 23:31, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)"
 * Ok, youre really pushing it, kid. Thats three times now that you have completely misrepresented what I have said or done. I did not remove any VFD material - you added it to VFD as a link (which I simply changed) and to the template itself, both caused it to stretch too wide. My comments about your desires to outright delete something I've put together, claiming a "consensus" of only three people, are born of frustration - not because you are correct, but because you seem to be playing a silly political game. Sorry, I may sound condecending, as youve commented about several times now, but youve still refused to answer the straightforward question Ive asked of you (how else to classify?) and on top of that, youve chosen to delete the entire template on the grounds that a subentry within it doesnt fit. I think you are very confused about what is going on, and what youre doing. -Stevertigo 23:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I already answered that no categorization is needed and that the one you suggested is damaging and that the question here is whether a template for such three wide topics is helpful and not the subentry where it does not fit. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If your template does not work as you like that is not my problem. A vote for deletion note is necessary in order to help others to join the discussion. A link from vfd is helpful in the same context and is common practice. Condescending comments like "kid" are intolerable. I already answered that no categorization is needed and that the one you suggested is damaging and that the question here is whether a template for such three wide topics is helpful and not the subentry where it does not fit. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you all chill out? Take a break - or edit an article on flowers or something? Secretlondon 23:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If your template does not work as you like that is not my problem. A vote for deletion note is necessary in order to help others to join the discussion. A link from vfd is helpful in the same context and is common practice. Please do not further deface my talk page with condescending comments like "kid". I saw we already had a similar conflict where you ignored the wikipedia policy to refrain from personal attacks. I really cannot see why a person like you should be admin, not to speak of mediator. Get-back-world-respect 23:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Adding the link as a header automatically adds the VFD header to the page, which happens to be a template, which gets stretched. For you to say that "[if] your template does not work as you like that is not my problem" tells me that you are perhaps unfamiliar with the concept of taking responsibility for your actions, or admitting a mistake. I apologise for making the comments that you misrepresent as "personal," if only because it gives you cause to continue to evade your responsibility to think rationally and communicate clearly. -Stevertigo 23:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If your template stretches what do you suggest to make people know that it is up for deletion? Just deleting the deletion request ignores wikipolicy. Your continous attempts to insult me say more about you than anyone else, and we can all do without "apologies" like your's. Get-back-world-respect 00:18, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe add it to the template within template's width constraints? Hm? It could be that youve stumbled accross some new policy issue - how to deal with templates on VFD? I'll refrain from saying what everybody knows about your assumption of what we can all do without. OK, now back to the real world. -Stevertigo 00:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did and point out that you should have done so since the note clearly says do not delete until there is consensus to keep - although you deleted that part again. I apologies for deleting our off-topic talk here, thought it was in the interest of the community because no reasonable person would want to read all of this, we are just scaring people away from voting like this. Get-back-world-respect 10:02, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Dont presume that people will not mind their comments be deleted, nor that the be "scared off" by "off topic." I appreciate the apology, and would like to restate my regret for making unnecessary sarcastic remarks. -Stevertigo

Keep

 * Stevertigo 05:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete

 * Delete. I believe it would be a liability to add this to an article as a template. Some corresponding categories might be useful. -- Jmabel 00:51, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * What categories would you suggest that each of the subentries in the template be classified? This seems like a good solution. -Stevertigo
 * I don't think Vfd is the best place to sort this out, but for one suggestion, we could have Category:Ethnic Persecution, Category:Ethnic Discrimination, and Category:Ethnic Prejudice under Category:Ethnic_groups. But fully expect inclusions to be controversial. Insofar as concerns are specific to ethnicity, we might sort this out at WikiProject Ethnic Groups. Insofar as concerns are not specific to ethnicity, we'll need some other categories that descend from elsewhere in the hierarchy. -- Jmabel 07:28, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there any group not discriminated against in some places and times? Anti-French (e.g. "freedom fries"), anti-Catholic, anti-Scientology, anti-illegal-immigrant, anti-Latino, anti-troll, anti-abortionist, anti-anti-abortionist, anti-atheist, anti-Christian-fundamentalist, anti-white-separatist, anti-Wicca, anti-Pakistani, anti-Holocaust-deniars, anti-Palestinian, ... jallan 16:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the point. The point is organization of the particular existing articles into their appropriate and relevant associations. A "persecution" category might be preferable to the template. So, would anti-Americanism belong under "persecution"? -Stevertigo
 * See your talk page. jallan 18:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Templates really should only be used for small, closely related groups of articles IMHO; this one could include almost any "anti-XXXX" prejudice unless the specific types of prejudice were to be removed. -Sean Curtin 07:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As much as I respect Setvertigo, I must disagree about having a template or category for as broad an area as persecution. -- BCorr | &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 20:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this is too general and nebulous a topic to label articles in this manner. Bryan 15:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)