While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I'm commenting on this edit: [1]. My reading of the discussion is different than that, so I want to see what other editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for self identification was not mentioned in the closing. If it were, I would have requested a review for two reasons: Onluy a minority support such a criteria and it's not (WP:BLP) policy based anyway. Out of eight commenters, Collect explicitly supports self-identification and Tryptofish less-explicitly supports self-identification. Please correct me if I've miscounted.- MrX 20:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have an open mind about the issue, and I'm also receptive to an intermediate wording. It seemed to me that you were the only editor in the discussion who advocated applying the category to persons who have said that they are not part of the movement, whereas there was wide sentiment that the category should not be applied too widely. I also think that both WP:BLP and the discretionary sanctions from ArbCom mean that we have to be very careful about applying the category when a source says that someone is part of the movement but other sources show the person denying such a relationship. As I said in the discussion, I also take your point about politicians who disingenuously deny association with the movement. I guess it hinges on the quality of sourcing that associates the person with the movement, and I think we need cautious language for this category, so that high quality sources, and not editors here, are what determine whether someone was disingenuous. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "It seemed to me that you were the only editor in the discussion who advocated applying the category to persons who have said that they are not part of the movement,"
I most definitely do not advocate applying the category to persons "who have said that they are not part of the movement". In other words, if someone has denied a TPM affiliation, they should not be categorized as such. On the other hand, if a subject has said nothing about it, but a preponderance of reliable sources have, then the subject is fair game for being included in the category.
I think we actually agree that we should rely on sources, unless a BLP subject publicly denies a TPM affiliation. I also think that would be in accord with the outcome of the Arbcom case. I think we just need to make sure that the wording on the cat page reflects those principles.- MrX 22:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I stand corrected about what you said. Yes, I think that we have plenty to work with here. Let me suggest changing "Therefore, this category should only be applied to pages about persons who have been identified in reliable sources as playing an active role in the movement." to "Therefore, this category should only be applied to pages about persons who have been identified by the preponderance of reliable sources as playing an active role on behalf of the movement." That change does two things. First, it requires a preponderance of sources, so editors should not base the categorization on a single source that is contradicted by other sources. Second, it uses more specific wording than "active role in the movement", because there can be too much subjectivity about the kinds of persons who might also have distanced themselves from the movement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that wording seems fine to me for this category - MrX 00:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)