text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 3

Category:Hilary Duff movies

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we honestly want a category for every movie actor in existence, nor do we want movies to belong to a category for each actor which starred in them. Better served by listing the movies in the Hilary Duff article. See also the CFDs on Category:Movies Rated PG and Category:Diana Ross movies Jdavidb 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - From WP:CG, Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool; thank you for providing me with the appropriate cite from policy. So categories named "Persons named George Herbert Walker Bush" are not useful, huh? :) Jdavidb 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jdavidb. Such list of films starred should be placed in the actor's article. Creating a specialised category will be inappropriate. *drew 02:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jdavidb; Hilary Duff is a fluff! --WindFish 09:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Query. Shouldn't the same standard then be applied to all the other "films by/films of" categories - director, writer, producer, language, culture, country, genre, etc. etc., for the same reasons?  12.73.194.233 13:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We seem to have come to a consensus earlier that grouping films by director was appropriate, but grouping by actor wasn't. -The Tom 23:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That seems to smack of Auteurism, a decidedly POV approach to film. It would appear the most appropriate course is to either not categorize films by any personality, but rather include links to them as lists within the articles on each member of cast or crew; or else, allow categorization by everyone from director to gaffer (with "star-worship" surely a more common basis for film study than "laborer-worship").  In that case, the action here would be to rename to something along the lines of Category:Films of Hilary Duff since a) "movie" is slang and b) "works of foo" is the standard format (n.b., "Films starring Foo" would be incorrect, as Foo may not always be the *star*, and may not even always be acting but rather directing, writing, etc.  Also note, the question of whether "Hilary Duff is a fluff" is not a valid ground for either keeping or deleting anything about her, i.e. that is also POV reasoning. 12.73.198.38 12:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete - Categories are needed to relate a set of articles that have no other easy to make connection. So "Films made in Germany" or "Films made in 1943" would be legitimate categories. But a bunch of films featuring the same person should all be found in a list under that person's article. So "Films featuring Hilary Duff" should be a subsection of the Hilary Duff article, not a category. MK2 03:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Golkar

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Empty category. The political party does not merit a category at the moment. Furthermore, the anon who created it reproduced a notice letter (probably hoax) claiming that some of the party members supported the nomination of a guy as a S. Jakarta mayor for 2007. Delete. *drew 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Iranian ethnic groups to Category:Ethnic groups of Iran

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form Category:Ethnic groups of Iran. (note that there is also category:Iranian peoples for groups in any country which speak a variety of the Persian language. This category is just for groups in the state of Iran.) CalJW 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename. No argument. siafu 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Repressed Wikipedia Users

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a joke category, it only contain one users talk page, wich include a "plea for help" against repression concerning the deletion of one of his joke articles. Delete. --Sherool 21:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; nonsense. -WindFish 09:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. BJAODN. siafu 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:War Criminal

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Empty category. Mis-capitalized. Mis-pluraled (no 's' at the end). And potential POV issues with it even if it was properly named. 4 strikes and it's out? TexasAndroid 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV Ryan Norton T 10:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete mis-titled category. I'm surprised we don't have a Category:Persons convicted of war crimes, though. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedia Users to Category:Wikipedians

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete or merge remaining. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonstandard category name. TexasAndroid 19:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Elitist, and otherwise useless, vanity category(-ies). 12.73.195.79 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm. The second one is the high level category for all other categorization of Wikipedians.  It has an extensive sub-category tree.  To delete it would orphan everything under it, and IMHO is a really bad idea. TexasAndroid 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is, the "Wikipedian" categories are all nothing but trivial vanity pages, and should all be deleted. Just designating people as "Wikipedians" (as vs. non-Wikipedians) is elitist in the extreme and quite POV; some of us who visit/contribute to this site would never presume to classify ourselves as other than contributors and human beings.  If you want a category for article contributors linking to their user pages, so others can check out their credentials, that would make sense.  But even user page content isn't restricted to a didactic documentation of qualifications to write/add to/correct Wikipedia plus a small personal biography; there's tons of fluff and fancruft and self-aggrandizement.  To continue extrapolating outward from that sort of crap only makes Wikipedia (and "Wikipedians") look even more juvenile, frivolous and cliquish than many of the articles (or lack of them) already makes it appear to the average person. 12.73.194.233 13:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Category:Wikipedia Users, nothing worth mering, it only contains the subcats Category:Repressed Wikipedia Users and Category:Jawr256 the first is POV or a joke, and the second is just one guy making a category for all his subpages (I've talked to him about "decomissioning" it). --Sherool 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CalJW 09:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indoor arenas by nationality to Category:indoor arenas by country

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A subcategory of category:categories by country. — Instantnood 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You mean Category:Indoor arenas by country, surely? Hiding talk 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename Since category names can only begin with a capital letter there is no difference. CalJW 00:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename then if you are sure. I just want to make sure correct procedure is followed. Hiding talk 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:sports venue in Foo to category:sport venue in Foo

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As per local usage (like transport/transportation). In Commonwealth English sport is not spelt with the s.

Categories affected: — Instantnood 19:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * category:sports venues in Australia (which is a subcategory of category:Australian sport)
 * category:sports venues in Hong Kong (subcategory of category:Hong Kong sport)
 * category:sports venues in India (subcategory of category:Indian sport)
 * category:sports venues in the Republic of Ireland (subcategory of category:sport in Ireland)
 * category:sports venues in Malaysia (subcategory of category:Malaysian sport)
 * category:sports venues in Malta (subcategory of category:Maltese sport)
 * category:sports venues in New Zealand (subcategory of category:New Zealand sport)
 * category:sports venues in Pakistan (subcategory of category:Pakistani sport)
 * category:sports venues in Scotland (subcategory of category:Scottish sport)
 * category:sports venues in South Africa (subcategory of category:South African sport)
 * category:sports venues in Sri Lanka (subcategory of category:Sri Lankan sport)
 * category:sports venues in the United Kingdom (subcategory of category:British sport)
 * Oppose I'm an advocate of avoiding inappropriate usage of American English, but I don't think this is anything of the kind. While in the UK we certainly say "sport" rather than "sports" for sporting activities generally, we also say "sports venues" (check usage on the BBC site for example) - or occasionally "sporting venues", but I think that is perhaps a little old-fashioned. If there are any countries where this is not the case they can be changed, but is there clear evidence that there are? CalJW 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose in those cases where the correct term is sports venue - such as Australia, India, New Zealand, pakistan, Scotland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom... (don't know about the others, but I advise checking). To be honest, I didn't realise that the US (or anywhere else) used the term "sport venue" which - to me at least - sounds horribly stilted. Grutness...  wha?  01:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The U.S. doesn't. The idea behind this proposal is that these ones should be changed because Commonwealth English does. CalJW 01:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's exactly the opposite. The idea behind all the opposition is that these ones should remain as they are because Commonwealth English does. Grutness...  wha?  07:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you think it through again, you'll find you are the one who is mistaken I think wha?
 * Ah... right. Failed to parse one of my own sentences correctly. Commonwealth English does think it's stilted, and Commonwealth English does use the S. :) Grutness...  wha?  22:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment. I am not too sure if this is really an issue of Commonwealth English usage, but Singapore, a Commonwealth country, tends to say "sports venues". "sport venues" somehow dosent sound grammatically correct.--Huaiwei 12:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we've heard from enough people from enough Commonwealth English-speaking countries to determine that "Sport venue" isn't really standard anywhere. -The Tom 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bhoeble 13:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Comedy books to Category:Humor books

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Reverse merge. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge newly created category:comedy books into pre-existing category:Humor books. Also "comedy books" sounds weird. Book stores have a Humor section, not a Comedy section. MakeRocketGoNow 18:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Reverse merge instead because "comedy" is neutral between British and American English, but humo(u)r isn't. The older category is hardly bursting with content, and almost of much of what little there is, is "humour" as is "humor" CalJW 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As per CalJW, reverse merge, for the reasons stated, although I'd be happy with the neutral "Humorous books" (though that may be a more POV title). Neutral English terms are better where possible. Grutness...  wha?  01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per nominator. Humor is the common name of the genre. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Mightn't "Comedic books" make the best grammatical sense? -The Tom 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge as per Grutness. Bhoeble 13:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians in Kingdom of León

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 05:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Appears to have been created to hold one person. TexasAndroid 17:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Normaly I'm all for Wikipedian categories, even with just one member. However this category doesn't make any sense. The Kingdom of León was a long defunct state, most if it's former lands are within Spain (see Leon (province)). Going by the users userpage it's either a joke, or a political statement (seperatism). Hard to tell sometimes. --Sherool 18:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Could be very educational if presented in the correct way. Mirlin 12:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no longer a Kingdom of León. If there were something worth mentioning on say, List of active autonomist and secessionist movements interested in creating such a state, I might consider it, but there isn't. siafu 02:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians on Break/Holiday

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Empty category. TexasAndroid 17:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; we don't need to see who's on holiday. -WindFish 09:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be useful.  Suppose I was hoping to collaborate on an article with Wikipedian_X and Wikipedian_Y.  This category, properly used, could inform me that one or both were taking a WikiBreak (which I assume was the intended purpose).  -Seth Mahoney 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not useful as a category. Cuñado  [[image:Bahai star.svg|20px]] -  Talk  21:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2100 deaths

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, too far in the future to be a useful category, IMHO. TexasAndroid 16:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. For all we know, the world will end next week and there won't be any deaths in 2100. siafu 18:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per siafu's optimistic comment. BD2412  talk 22:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2240

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Way too far in the future for the category to be useful. The one entry, 2240, is also in Category:Years in the future, which IMHO is sufficient. TexasAndroid 16:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. BD2412  talk 05:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. metropolitan areas to category:Metropolitan areas of the United States

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This was the only abbreviated category in the United States menu and I was going to nominate it for renaming until I discovered that category:Metropolitan areas of the United States already exists. So merge into that instead. CalJW 11:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge -- Rick Block (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Hiding talk 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Airports in Foo

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

A misinformed anon created this category just to ask what it is. Speedy delete. --Huaiwei 09:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should this be moved to speedy? — Instantnood 09:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I suspect this is related to the cfru text applied to the subcats of category:airports. We should probably keep the category around until the category:airports discussion is closed. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; just a mistake/test/nonsense. -WindFish 09:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - the "airports" discussion is now closed, so this can go. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bad popes
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously POV. -- Beland 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is ridiculous.  Is there an applicable speedy criteria?--Pharos 07:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a speedy. CalJW 11:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I have proposed a speedy criterion along these lines if people wish to comment. Hiding  talk 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You have? Which part of the linked page are you referring too exactly? CalJW 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The section "Controversial" people or things, which leads into Speedy category deletion criteria where I talk of making the guidelines at Categorization of people speedy criteria, although the conversation ran out a bit. Specifically here, Use the most neutral and/or generic name, which this most certainly does not do. Hiding  talk 09:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note I have reproposed the criteria on the talk page. Hiding talk 11:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete oh I love this category <3 -WindFish 09:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike Category:Charismatic religious leaders, the name does refer to a POV value judgement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:London shops to category:Shops in London
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This category is not in the standard form for categories of man made places. Rename category:Shops in London. CalJW 06:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Hiding talk 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename LiniShu 01:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Towns in Slovakia to Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that no distinction is made between towns and cities in Slovakia, and this category includes the largest settlements in the country. In these circumstances the standard policy is to use the form Category:Cities and towns in Slovakia.
 * Rename CalJW 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename LiniShu 01:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Charismatic religious leaders
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

By who's measure, reference or citation, the included people in the list are considered "charismatic"? This is contradictory with NPOV. Delete. ZappaZ 02:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Important: Many people are voting based on an incorrect assumption that "charismatic" in the title is intended to convey whether the leader in question "has charisma", in the sense of personal magnetism.  It instead refers to whether the leader's authority meets the sociological definition of charismatic authority, a different thing altogether from personal charisma.  Please make sure you understand what the difference is before you vote.
 * It doesn't make any difference. Academics do not own common English words. The category system is a navigation tool, and the terms used must be as clear as possible. CalJW 07:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "When assigning an article into categories... The topic may be associated with a geographic area, a historical period, an academic subfield..."* Sorry, I'm just not having any luck finding these policies that people seem to be referring to that say categories must be deleted if they use words in their academic senses, or that if there is some perceived problem with a category's name, deletion rather than renaming must be the solution.  Well, then, I guess we'd better delete Category:Type-M stars, since the average Joe doesn't know what that academic distinction means. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete Too vague and too broad. CalJW 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Actually, "Charismatic" can have a rather specific meaning in Christianity, but that is clearly not what is intended here.--Pharos 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep there are several leaders who are explicilty described as charismatic. e.g. rajneesh and Prem Rawat as ideal types in Paul Schnabel's dissertation about new religious movements. This category is based on mainstream, generally accepted scholarship, like dr. Eileen Barker's unlike deleted categories like "founder of religion" that are far more vague. Andries 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Almost every religious leader has charismatic authority; actually I think this itself is far more vague than a "founder of religion" category, as unworkable as that may be.--Pharos 05:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The great majority of religious leaders have no charismatic authority. Examples are almost all priests and imams whose authority is traditional authority. Andries 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The degree may be somewhat lessened, but I think it's still there.  Anyway, who could deny that major traditions like Protestant Sunday preachers have very primarily charismatic authority?--Pharos 17:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV. Is there a "non-charismatic religious leaders" category? Why not just "religious leaders"? --Yodakii 07:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current Pope would probably be considered an excellent example of a non-charismatic religious leader. This is not to say that Pope Benedict XVI is lacking in personal magnetism, but to illustrate that "charismatic authority" and "personal charisma" are two different things that sometimes can intersect but are hardly synonymous.  Pope Benedict gets obeyed partly because he is the Pope, and good Catholics traditionally follow the Pope's orders (traditional authority), and he gets obeyed because he wields power in the hierarchy of the Church (for instance, if you don't obey his orders, the Pope could excommunicate you -- rational-legal authority).  However, very little of Pope Benedict's authority derives from his own perceived characteristics.  Contrast this with Pope John Paul II, who not only had the traditional authority and rational-legal authority of the Pope, but who wielded such charismatic authority that even those who were completely outside of John Paul's actual sphere of power gave his pronouncements attention and respect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pharos. --goethean ॐ 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote based on Anteus Feldspar's comments. Delete. Charismatic religious leaders based on Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority is not notable enough. We don't categorize people based on sociological theories. --goethean ॐ  20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't? How interesting; I was not aware that there was policy excluding sociology from the fields that we cover. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then name your category that and see how far you get. --goethean ॐ  22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally unworkable and POV. For some it will be "how come name XYZ is not included?: and for others will be "how come you are including ABC as one?" (Yodaki: there is already a Category:Religious leaders, this being a sub-category of that) ≈ jossi ≈ 14:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Categorization of people Use the most neutral and/or generic name Hiding talk 09:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This applies to how to select a name when Creating a new category.  It does not apply to whether a category should be created or deleted.    — RDF talk 04:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment So when we are creating a new category, we use the most neutral words possible, and that doesn't apply how? Of course it applies.  Categories should have the mose neutral name, this is not a neutral name.  Are you proposing that once a category has been created this guideline no longer applies? That means it has no value, since one could just disregard it and create any category one chooses and then point out that since it is already in existence the guidleine should not apply.  Of course it applies. Otherwise all guidelines and policies would be so flawed. Hiding talk 12:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Hiding's assertion that this category is not neutral is nonsense. From the article charismatic authority "Note that according to Weber, a charismatic leader does not have to be a positive force; thus, both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler could be reasonably considered charismatic leaders." Andries 20:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is not neutral because it is either an objective distinction or a meaningless one.  Either all leaders have it, at which point it is a meaningless distinction, since we can simply remove the term charismatic from the category title, or only a number of leaders have it, at which point it becomes an objective distinction.  Did Iain Duncan Smith have charisma, to choose an example from the political sphere you also cited.  In religion, did John Knox have charisma?  It's hard to quntify, wouldn't you agree? These distinctions should be made in articles where they can be sourced and both points of view can be presented.  It is my belief that we can not empirically state that someone has charisma, therefore it is wrong to do so. Hiding  talk 12:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't "Religious leaders who have charisma". This is a category for religious leaders whose authority is primarily charismatic in nature.  They are two different things; in fact, just about their only intersection is that personal charisma is one of the possible personal characteristics on which charismatic authority could be founded.  Note, though, that a public figure can have very little charisma and still have charismatic authority. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP There are several religious leaders who are categorized as being charasmatic and the charasmatic movement seems to be growing. May I ask, what is exactly wrong with having categories that are a little more specific. Most categories are so broad. Another idea is those categories you wish to delete, why not atleast consider them for sub-categories? Mirlin 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The category does not refer to the Christian religious movement; it refers to people who have charisma – that is, those who evoke positive emotions in others. I voted to delete the category because it is a highly subjective matter to decide who has charisma and who does not. --goethean ॐ 22:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's completely wrong. The category does not refer to people who have charisma; it refers to leaders whose authority can be classed as charismatic authority.  Please go back and review your vote, since it is based on a misunderstanding of the criteria. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's absolutely no fundamental reason why such a category can't work, if NPOV truly is the objective.  The three types of authority described by Weber are as clear as just about any other sociological classification system. "In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational)." - Tripartite classification of authority. The issue shouldn't be about the category. It should be about the veracity of the evidence to place a potential candidate into the category.  Let the system work on a case-by-case basis.  Otherwise, NPOV is prevented from having even an opportunity to be expressed.    — RDF talk 04:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no objective source or even collection of sources to consult to determine who should or shouldn't be considered "charismatic". NPOV applies, but also (and more directly) No original research. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - for sure. Cuñado  [[image:Bahai star.svg|20px]] -  Talk  21:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, arguments for far more persuasive than arguments against... "for sure". I will admit I didn't know how to vote until I read the other comments for awhile tho. ;) Sam Spade 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination, and many of the votes, seem to be based on a confusion between the sociological meaning of charismatic authority and "charisma" as it is used in common discourse to indicate personal magnetism.  If this category actually was about "religious leaders who have personal magnetism", then I would actually agree with those who say it's based on POV judgements.  But if there's anyone who actually thinks that classifying a particular leader's authority as "charismatic" in the sociological sense of the term is automatically a POV judgement, well, then, I hope they will show consistency and vote to delete all information on sociology from Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Category names should not be based on academic usages of common words. Bhoeble 13:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Closing note users should be careful as to which biographies they place in this category, and have some reference to avoid POV categorization.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  20:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Slovak regions to category:Regions of Slovakia
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to the "of" form, which is standard for subdivisions: category:Regions of Slovakia CalJW 01:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Hiding talk 18:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename LiniShu 01:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Love songs
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Highly nonspecific and non-maintainable. --FuriousFreddy 01:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CalJW 01:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator LiniShu 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and LiniShu -WindFish 09:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sounds like a good category to me, especially since there are SO many of them, and so many different ways to sub-categorize, including love song writing, love song instrumentals, love song artists, ... the variety is quite endless. Mirlin 12:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Hopelessly vague, and really not worth subcategorising. Bhoeble 13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Uniterranism
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Only two articles, one of wich is of somewhat dubious notability. Anyway at first I was going to suggest merging it with Category:Unitarianism (not the biggest of cats either) becuse I thought it was a mis-spelling, but aparently they are two seperate things, this one aparently deals with things related to the Uniterran Church, and currently there seems to be rather few things of note other than the article about the church itself and a 2 year old holiday they "invented". I say delete this category at this time. If more articles about uniterranism appear it can always be recreated at a later date. --Sherool 01:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic just isn't broad enough.  Also, the article about the holiday should probably be merged.--Pharos 07:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. As for the category, well more and more articles WILL be added. Not only by me but others who profess the faith. Starting the category now will ensure they have a place to put them, but if you and others insist upon weeding it out now because it is not large enough yet, then you have that power. How many times will we have to create the category only for you and others to mark it for deletion because you feel there are not enough articles? 10 times? 30 times? 3000 times? I suppose editing 2,800 some odd articles does have a way of making you feel powerful, powerful enough to quash something that perhaps you yourself may not fully agree with, but like I said, that is your power. I can only humbly submit to whatever is decided.Mirlin 08:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.There is only so much that can be written about any religion that is only 3 years old; the situation would be the same, with, say, Christianity at that age. I suggest that you focus on improving the Uniterran Church article, adding all relevant info, and only split stuff off if that becomes inordinately long.  Don't spead yourself too thin.--Pharos 14:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - as mentioned, having an article (Though it is at least a decent article) is borderline to vanity enough; having an entire category just seems to border absurdity. (In a joking fashion, I did laugh that the religion is only three years old, and clergy must apparently undergo a rigorous three-year training session ;) ).   I'd also side with Pharos in suggesting that you focus on making the single article on the faith superb, and not create new sub-par articles for each aspet of the faith.  Readers are likely to read the entire initial article, but are much less likely to actually go read tangents off of it. Sherurcij 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
File:J5-skywriter.jpg

Summary
Skywriter by The Jackson 5

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:J5-skywriter.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed "in Abraham"

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 23:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Blessed "in Abraham"
Dicdef; what's remaining should be part of Abraham or something like that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Abraham. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointless redirect and useless merge. If offers a definition of a religious phrase - but whose definition in it? According to whom? No context and no references. --Doc (?) 23:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would change to merge or redirect if someone can explain why it should be. Stbalbach 01:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * DeleteRich Farmbrough 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no context and apparently unverifiable. If someone adds context (who uses this phrase, when, where, etc.) as well as cites some sources, I could be persuaded to change my vote.--Isotope23 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Randy Schutt

Welcome from Private Butcher
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Private Butcher 23:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon
howdy. you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably: all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.
 * lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
 * section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
 * run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Open Documentary Project
Hello Randy, I am really appreciated for your contribution for wikipedia. I am a member of a professional Creative Commons documentary project, it experiments the "funding and licensing" production model. We were pleased to announce the launch of "then you win" project (http://thenyouwin.yooook.org), documentaries about non-violence movement in India. Our inspiration is from the Gandhi philosophy: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."

We aim to release it with the rights to copy, modify and distribute under Creative Commons licence, we need everybody’s help to achieve that goal. As I can see you are a honour contributor for wikipedia, so we believe that you might interested in our project. Please have a look our website and trailer and let me know if you could help us. Please feel free to contact me anytime if you have any questions. My email is aey@garbure.org. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nijiko (talk • contribs) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
I've finished a rough script per your request; try it and let me know how it works. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot that you might not know how to install user scripts; I've left instructions at the VPT thread. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Documentation page?
Hi, Randy, it's not that big a deal, but please don't write documentation for the scripts in my userspace, especially without telling me. I'm not a fan of that. Thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi Writ Keeper. I'm sorry, I was trying to be helpful, but after I wrote that documentation and posted it, I realized that it was your space and I was probably intruding. I'm still new to this environment and haven't learned the etiquette of how to do these things properly. I guess I should have written a note in your user space to let you know or sent an email. Or now I realize I should have just sent you an email with my suggestion. Again, I am very sorry. Randy Schutt (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Like I said, don't worry about it; it's not a big deal. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Ideological Leanings of the Supreme Court of the United States, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Make cat  05:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Randy, I would like to talk to you about judicial ideologies. Might you email me at NLG64 at mindspring dot com? Thanks --Ngeorgak (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Law clerks, again.
Hi Randy, can you have a quick look at Talk:List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States and thereafter User:The_Original_Filfi/sandbox as this is your work and I can see it was quite involved, I do not want to proceed without at least some agreement Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Randy, as you can tell I give up easily and have trouble following things through, lol I have, I think the best solution so far, will it pass the test? not sure, but here I go.

Your thoughts, this (reformatted to include court no, justice etc.) should meet all requirements, unless I have missed something, if so please advise and we can try to address. Kind regards The Original Filfi (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Please review User:The_Original_Filfi/sandbox for some dummy data, in the wrong format, this can be addressed going forward, and then;
 * 2) Please review User:The_Original_Filfi/sandbox2 for the same dummy data, also in the wrong format, this can be addressed going forward, and then;
 * 3) Please review User:The_Original_Filfi/sandbox3 for transclusions of above, also in the wrong format as this was carried from above.
 * Hi Randy, not sure you will get notified, so a note here to let you know, I answered your post on my talk page, for your review, regards.The Original Filfi (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Largest legit edit ever!
Congratulations, sir! You have made the largest non-vandalism edit on the English Wikipedia!

[+773,881 bytes to List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]

EnigmaLord515 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Number of U.S. Supreme Court Cases Decided by Year has been accepted
 Number of U.S. Supreme Court Cases Decided by Year, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Number_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_Cases_Decided_by_Year help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Slywriter (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Randy Schutt


text:
User talk:HeWhoE

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Orphaned non-free media (File:Inger Nilsson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Inger Nilsson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:CeltX version 2.7.png
Thanks for uploading File:CeltX version 2.7.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

i really liked your pic of libreoffice writer that u put into the article, thanks for that, do u have one of libreoffice calc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No sweat! I can make a screenshot of LibreOffice Calc too. I'll try to remember to upload it tomorrow -- err, later today (it's already kinda tomorrow).HeWhoE (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Trisquel
Thanks for your contribution to this article, but by longstanding consensus operating systems that use the Linux kernel are called "Linux" on Wikipedia. "GNU/Linux" is considered a minority POV term used by the FSF and its supporters. The term is only used to describe distros when the distro itself is called "GNU/Linux" and then only when referring to the distro itself. If you want to change this consensus then the way to go about is not by trying to insert the term GNU/Linux into articles on distributions, such as on Trisquel. You should read Talk:Linux including all the archives of that page, to get the history of the problem as well as Talk:Linux/Name as this is where past consensuses have been formed. You will also want to read GNU/Linux naming controversy and its talk page as background as well. When you have the history of the consensus read then you can present your case at Talk:Linux to try to convince the other editors that all references "Linux" other than to the kernel itself in Wikipedia should be changed to "GNU/Linux". - Ahunt (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/HeWhoE for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. - SudoGhost 05:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 * You're on record for FSF POV edit-warring. Don't start it again. Yworo (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Linux, etc
Please see the discussion at Talk:LibreOffice. The same applies at the GIMP article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war  according to the reverts you have made on GIMP. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Proposed deletion of Travelers 3

The article Travelers 3 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:NBAND, no indication of notability"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

title: User talk:HeWhoE


text:
Betty Stöve

Betty Flippina Stöve (born 24 June 1945) is a Dutch former professional tennis player. She is best remembered for reaching the ladies' singles final, the ladies' doubles final and the mixed doubles final during the same year at Wimbledon in 1977. She also won ten Grand Slam titles in women's doubles and mixed doubles.

Career
Stöve began playing tennis internationally in the mid-1960s. She made her Grand Slam debut at the 1964 Wimbledon. A virus, complicated by a malfunctioning thyroid gland, forced Stöve out of tennis for an 18-month period in the late 1960s. Despite being advised that she should never play tennis again, Stöve recovered to have her best years on the circuit.

Stöve was an accomplished singles player reaching several finals on tour and attaining a singles ranking of number 5. Stöve's best grand slam singles performance was at the 1977 Wimbledon where she reached the final beating fellow doubles partner Martina Navratilova en route in the quarterfinals, and Sue Barker in the semi-finals preventing an all-England final. She lost the final to Virginia Wade: 4–6, 6–3, 6–1. Queen Elizabeth II attended the final. In addition she also reached the final of the women's doubles (with Navratilova) and the final of the mixed doubles with Frew McMillan, unfortunately losing them all. She is notably the last player in any Grand Slam event to earn such a record. Later that year Stöve was also a semifinalist at the 1977 US Open, losing to Chris Evert. This time she won the women's doubles with Navratilova and the mixed doubles with McMillan. In 1978 Stove reached the semi-finals or better at 9 of the singles events she contested reaching 5 finals but failing to win any of them. Notable players she beat in singles include Martina Navratilova, Evonne Goolagong, Sue Barker, Maria Bueno, Virginia Ruzici, Tracy Austin, Kerry Reid, Billie Jean King, and Claudia Kohde-Kilsch. One notable player she was never able to beat was Chris Evert, to whom she lost on every one of the 10 occasions they played.

Stöve had her greatest success in doubles. She won 10 Grand Slam doubles championships, six in women's doubles and four in mixed doubles. She won two women's doubles championships with Billie Jean King and two with Wendy Turnbull. Her other two titles were won with Françoise Dürr and Martina Navratilova. All of her mixed doubles championships were with Frew McMillan. Stöve was the runner-up in 17 Grand Slam doubles tournaments, eight in women's doubles and nine in mixed doubles. She won a total of 75 doubles titles on tour and ranked World No. 1 in doubles.

She competed for the Netherlands Fed Cup team in 1966, 1969, 1970–1972, and 1976–1983.

Post-retirement activity
Stöve coached Hana Mandlíková from 1980 through 1990. She also coached Kristie Boogert.

Stöve is a former member of the ITF Committee of Management, its first female member.

She served three terms as president of WTA Tour Players Association and received the WTA Tour Honorary Membership Award in November 1987.

In 1989, Stöve and Mandlíková wrote Total Tennis, a tennis instruction book. Stöve speaks six languages, and she is an accomplished photographer.

Singles (11)
(*) Note that Tokyo was a non-tour event in 1976, and some events listed above are before the inception of the WTA in June 1973.

Doubles (75)
Grand slam events in boldface.

 * 1971: Monte Carlo (with Katja Ebbinghaus)
 * 1971: Buenos Aires (with Olga Morozova)
 * 1971: Dublin (with Lesley Turner Bowrey)
 * 1971: Hilversum (with Christina Sandberg)
 * 1972: French Open (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1972: Wimbledon (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1972: Newport (with Judy Tegart Dalton)
 * 1972: US Open (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Miami (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Hilton Head Island (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Nashville (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Allaire (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Newport (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1973: Columbus (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1974: Washington, D.C. (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1974: Fort Lauderdale (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1974: St. Petersburg (with Olga Morozova)
 * 1974: Orlando (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1974: Denver (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1974: Phoenix (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Washington, D.C. (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Akron (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Houston (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Dallas (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Philadelphia (with Evonne Goolagong)
 * 1975: Denver (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Phoenix (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Stockholm (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: Paris (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1975: London (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1976: Sarasota (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1976: San Francisco (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1976: Philadelphia (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1976: Phoenix (with Billie Jean King)
 * 1976: London (with Virginia Wade)
 * 1976: Sydney (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1976: Melbourne (with Margaret Court)
 * 1977: Washington, D.C. (with Martina Navratilova)

 * 1977: Hollywood (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Houston (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Detroit (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Dallas (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: New York City, Virginia Slims Champ's (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Tokyo, Bridgestone Doubles (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Charlotte (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: US Open (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Atlanta (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1977: Melbourne (with Evonne Goolagong)
 * 1978: Los Angeles (with Virginia Wade)
 * 1978: Chicago (with Evonne Goolagong)
 * 1978: Eastbourne (with Chris Evert)
 * 1978: Phoenix (with Tracy Austin)
 * 1978: Brighton (with Virginia Wade)
 * 1978: Filderstadt (with Tracy Austin)
 * 1978: Tokyo, Gunze World (with Martina Navratilova)
 * 1979: Hollywood (with Tracy Austin)
 * 1979: Seattle (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1979: Detroit (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Philadelphia (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1979: New York City, Avon Champ's (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1979: Tokyo, Bridgestone Doubles (with Françoise Dürr)
 * 1979: Rome (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: French Open (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Eastbourne (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Richmond (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Mahwah (with Tracy Austin)
 * 1979: US Open (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Atlanta (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Phoenix (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1979: Stockholm (with Wendy Turnbull)
 * 1980: Chichester (with Pam Shriver)
 * 1980: Filderstadt (with Hana Mandlíková)
 * 1980: Amsterdam (with Hana Mandlíková)
 * 1980: Sydney (with Pam Shriver)
 * 1980: Adelaide (with Pam Shriver)

Grand Slam singles tournament timeline
Note: The Australian Open was held twice in 1977, in January and December.

title: Betty Stöve


text:
Talk:Islamic Society of North America

Accusations
These are unfounded allegations. This article by Umbreen Shah is created with bad intentions and full of distortions if not falsehood. --JuanMuslim 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Progressives and others don't like ISNA -- it's not dubious it's an opinion. I think your response to the criticism is warranted.  Others have levelled the same criticism of not really criticizing, or even accepting to an extent, Osama bin Laden.  ISNA's a mix of members and has a variety of sellers from more or less progressives to more or less wahhabbis.  I'm not making a value judgment on ISNA, I'm writing a criticism.  You can't just say it's false, because some aspects of ISNA have been associated with such claims, the question is, "is the problem endemic in ISNA, or marginal and they deal with it".  You can add responses and the claims may be trumped up and political, but they are not dubious in the sense of not being able to be quoted in this article. gren グレン 23:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comments show how much you don't know about ISNA. --JuanMuslim 23:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not offering a longer response. Since you will be writing criticism about ISNA, please offer criticism by various types of Muslims. I think that ISNA get worse criticism from Muslims who don't consider themselves "Progressive." --JuanMuslim 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not sure how my comments show how much I do not know about ISNA but that is neither here nor there. I wrote criticism because I stumbled across that article on MWU! at the same time I found the ISNA page here.  Elements related ISNA have been criticized for September 11 attacks Muslim involvement denial. This article mentions other criticism of ISNA, especially support for Qaradawi whom is controversial.  ISNA is controversial in several ways, the issue is whether you believe those matters are ISNA itself or are just problems in the Muslim community being attached to ISNA because it is so large.  We are not here to decide that for viewers, but to present the controversy.

 * Since you seem to have brought this to a semi-personal-opinions level I will tell you what I think. First and foremost I don't know.  I think because it is so large it has different sides to it and so part of it is being called liberal while part is being called conservative.  It is trying to enfranchise a lot of Muslims with different views and that is hard.  Black Muslims are probably a hard case because how many are Nation of Islam related and should ISNA say that those things are acceptable?  I think that some vendors at ISNNA probably have/do sell material glorifying/accepting acts the US deems as terrorism as lot more than the U.S. government at least would like.  Is this the view of ISNA itself?  I wouldn't really think so -- but still, I don't think everyone int he leadership has the same view.  So, help my try to improve this article, not just mention some silly thing about my comments showing I don't know much about ISNA.  Or convince me of The Truth. ~_~  --gren グレン 23:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the problems is that many groups claim that all Muslim orgs state things like this but then the groups don't offer any proof. That particular article by MuslimWakeup was an opinion piece - a very dubious source - and makes all sorts of claims without offering any proof. It's totally one sided, for example, ISNA, etc all supported Bush in his first election bid. And, soon after 9-11, all these Muslim orgs condemned those responsible for the attacks, etc. And this year, ISNA supported a fatwa against terrorism.

 * From Article:
 * American Muslims Working to Root Out Terror from Within (Illinois): So this year at the [Islamic Society of North America's] annual convention, which starts Friday in Chicago and is expected to draw 40,000 people, organizers will mount a new campaign against terrorism and extremism, with posters and pamphlets designed for use in mosques and Islamic schools. The materials, Dr. Syeed said, will provide a theological rebuttal to Muslim extremists who cite the Koran and Islamic texts to justify violence." --JuanMuslim 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, here are various quotes by various Muslim orgs, primarily CAIR but also by various people associated with ISNA, condemning 9-11, etc. 911statements. Also check out these articles and this one too. --JuanMuslim 05:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record: there is still no evidence to link Osama bin Laden or his group or any Muslims to 9/11. There are speculations, and a few conveniently in tact passports and other documents found at the scene. No proof. In fact, the proof is quite convincing on the contrary. So for any Muslim organisation to deny the link of 9/11 to any Muslims - is perfectly acceptable.

Fair use rationale for Image:INSA small.gif
Image:INSA small.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations/plagiarism
I've removed several paragraphs from this article that were plagiarized from a 2006 Associated Press article (a reprint is available at http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2006Aug28/0,4675,AmericanMuslimsWomen,00.html). The information is encyclopedic and it should be included, however, it must be rewritten and properly sourced. It is NOT acceptable to copy other people's work. GabrielF 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiana
Why is the location of their headquarters in Indiana? Does Indiana have a sizeable Muslims population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiana does not have a large Muslim population, and Plainfield, Indiana (a small town several miles southwest of Indianapolis) had a Muslim population near zero prior to ISNA building there. However, Plainfield was founded by Quakers and has a relatively large body of Quakers today; all the school sports teams are nicknamed "Quakers". The Friends church in the US is dominated by the American Friends Service Committee, which is sympathetic to Communism. IN Plainfield this meant that the Quakers were willing to accommodate the ISNA - a red/green alliance as they call it. This is why the ISNA is headquartered in a bucolic area south of a sleepy all-white Quaker town in the midwest US.

Another red/green alliance in Indiana that involved ISNA is the Peace House, part of the Plowshares Project, which is far left of center. One of the original board members of Plowshares was ISNA’s co-founder, Sayyid Syeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.15.34 (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Investigative Project on Terrorism
I dont think this website/org. should be used as a reference. It is clearly biased, and although some of it might/might not be true, it (references/links) should be removed.

Specious accusations
Most of the accusations that claim ISNA is connected to "terrorism" or "Wahhabiasm" are specious at best, fear-mongering at worst, or the citations are in no way suggesting what the author is claiming. SiberioS (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Moreover, the claimed citations from a book called Infiltration, are themselves unsourced or merely repeating hearsay quotes that ISNA "has been accused of ties to terrorism". Such hearsay attributions are not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, for the obvious reasons. SiberioS (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert, because the citations still aren't properly sources to anything amounting to a first hand source. Or are we going to start posting statements from hearsay all over the place? Maybe we should start recording what "friends" and "anonymous sources" have also stated? SiberioS (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These are properly sourced. You can't delete because of your pov.  It is sourced to RSs.  It is not tantamount to what your friends have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Well there are lot more "specious allegations" here: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-NUsafi_07pro.ART1.State.Edition2.4be96ce.html. Good luck to anyone who has the chutzpah to incorporate that into this article. Bachcell (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I think there's sufficient evidence to the contrary of the general allegation made by Sen. John Kyl at the top of the section "Legal Issues" to erase the validity of this claim. I believe this comment needs to come out.  I believe a general statement, "As the largest organization of Muslims in America, the ISNA has been a frequent and popular target for Conservative commentary and attack." should be put into it's place to make a more general statement about the nature of this criticism.  To that, Senator Kyl's comments and a host of other political figures and pundits can be documented to that statement.  And I certainly believe it's more true than the current (discredited) statement that sits there now.  It's source is Paul Sperry's diatribe "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington", anyway.  A second hand source that is removed from any specific context within the paragraph in which the author presents it, and used to discredit a 3rd party's validity in his attack against them.  I do not believe it merits a place here.  Can we agree to convert this statement to a more general statement on nature of the criticism itself, rather than trying to make it sound like it's a criticism that "stuck" and has factual merit (as in it's detailing a specific criminal conviction or ongoing/pending criminal litigation)?Meurdrac (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive accusations
Half this article is about accusations of collaboration with terrorist or extremist groups. These accusations have never been substantiated. I came to read to an article with a well-rounded picture of ISNA's activities. Most of the content about accusations should be moved to a separate page. This is undue weight. K. the Surveyor (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A review of the literature indicates it reflects the weight of coverage in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is maybe the largest and most mainstream US Muslim group. The US domestic media may often repeat accusations, but unless substantiated, they are secondary to real activities. What has been proven doesn't merit half the article. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not trying them. We don't assess (if they are the largest) what that means.  We don't assess the reporting by the reliable sources.  We simply reflect what the RSs say. That is the very well established approach that wikipedia takes.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't cherry pick sources to play up unsubstantiated accusations. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't. We do reflect what the RSs say.  The RSs are replete with what the article reflects.  If you feel there is more material that should be reflected with regard to ISNA's activities, that is reflected in RSs, please feel free to add it.  Having read a substantial amount of what is out there, I can say this reflects the reporting in the press.  I understand that you dislike what the press has had to say, but that is what we work with -- the press (or, more accurately, the press and books and articles that wikipedia views as being "reliable sources").--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the allegation is not substantiated, the source is not reliable for that piece of information. In fact the source will often admit this. Even a majority can represent cherry picking if it is not a reliable majority. I say some of this unreliable material should be put on a separate page. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What allegations are not substantiated as allegations? They need not be substantiated as fact -- only verifiable as allegations, and reflected as such.  WP is about verifiability, not "truth".  There is no need to move them to another page unless one's goal were to censor the dissemination of information.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section "Alleged link to Hamas" contains a lot of sources that have a clear ax to grind. Center for Security Policy, John Kyl, Fox News, Center for Islamic Pluralism (run by a Muslim neoconservative who opposes Park51) and so on. Expert testimony gets the highest priority, but some of this is not as notable or reliable. Also, I think your characterization of the literature may be outdated at best. Most news articles mentioning ISNA today are about Park51 or about questions of Islam's place in America.
 * I think more information is needed about ISNA's day to day activities and their statements related to Park51. I will try to add this myself at some point. However in lieu of major additions I think most of the above section should be moved. K. the Surveyor (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree; this is entirely unacceptable. For comparison's sake, I went to the Roman Catholic Church page to look at the way criticism is handled there.  In that page, it's not even referred to as "controversy", but as "Contemporary Issues".  Yet from even within the ISNA's title section, the statement "It has been a subject of controversy and criticism" was injected.  I think that demonstrates that contributors to this page are injecting a prejudice against the organization into this page.  I believe this is unacceptable from an editorial standpoint, and a dangerous precedent that could ruin the validity and objectivity contained within Wikipedia's purpose.  it's important not to allow detractors of an organization to hijack a wikipedia page for their personal crusade against it.  The ISNA is certainly an organization that plays an important role in the American Muslim Community, and the cause for detraction should not be so sensationalized and inappropriately scaled within the article in order as to unduly prejudice a reader into believing that it's some kind of sinister society.  The ISNA is certainly no less evil than the Roman Catholic Church is (I don't mean to pick on the Roman Catholics, here, but fairness is my key point).  If we allow this to happen, these short-sighted individuals start to send us down the slippery slope where every group and organization will find themselves vulnerable to heavy handed criticism that will destroy the value of wikipedia to the readership.  If IBM is allowed to do this to the HP page, and vice-versa, there won't be anything that remains in either of those Wikipedia pages that is of value.  I urge those who have engaged in this sort of behavior to recognize the unjustness and the purpose of your criticism.  This discussion is intended to improve this page.  Not provide a soap box for a larger hatred of Islam.  I think this page needs to be held up as an example, and those who have hijacked it's contents need to have their feet "held to the fire" (Inquisition Style would seem to be appropriate) by Wikipedia's staff.  Fair, documented instances of criticism certainly have room in this and any other article, but they do not define the organization and what it is and what it does from an organization and practical standpoint.  They are noted within the article to provide perspective. Meurdrac (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
The following don't seem like reliable sources: Doing a search on the authors did not reveal any information that would qualify them as reliable. As a result I'm removing them. If someone has more information, please feel free to add.VR talk  23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cancer In America: The Enemy Within – The Latent Islamic Invasion Into The New World And Its Adverse Affect On America, by John U. Hanna
 * Leadership Paradigms in Chaplaincy, by Joel Curtis Graves

Sunni or Shia?
Which branches does ISNA represent? Is it inclusive of all branches, or limited to one or the other? --Zfish118 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a Sunni organization. Snuish2 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ISNA Canada
A of this page contained the following paragraph:

"An audit of the separately run but loosely-affiliated ISNA Canada, from 2007–2009, found that only a quarter of the funds donated to the organization went to help the poor. Charity donations were mostly spent on the administration of the center or misdirected to private businesses. On September 21, 2013, the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the registration of ISNA Development Foundation, a defunct-charity that operated out of ISNA Canada's headquarters, due to the disbursement of funds to private businesses, including an organization linked to the Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist group. ISNA Canada was not affected by this move, and still has its charitable status, as can be found on the Canada Revenue Agency's website."

Of the six listed sources, only one mentioned ISNA-US. The Toronto Sun only had this:

"The ISNA’s American parent organization referred the Toronto Sun to a statement released earlier this year, which distances it from the Canadian branch. “There has been no links of authority or responsibility between the United States and Canadian organizations for a few decades, despite similarity of names,” the statement said."

I have removed the paragraph as a result of WP:PROPORTION but added a link to ISNA Canada to the See also section. Snuish2 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islamic Society of North America


text:
Bell v. Wolfish

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of various conditions of confinement of inmates held in federal short-term detention facilities. The Court narrowly found that while treatment of pre-trial detainees is subject to constraint by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,[2] all of the policies challenged in the case passed constitutional scrutiny.

Factual background
Inmates at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) filed a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of several conditions of their confinement. Opened in 1975 in New York City, the MCC served as a federally-operated short-term detention facility mainly for defendants awaiting trial at one of three federal district courts located in the New York City area. Though the MCC was initially constructed to house some 449 inmates, administrators were quickly forced to double-bunk inmates to accommodate the "unprecedented" increase in new detainees. In their complaint, petitioners argued that this practice of double-bunking inmates awaiting trial was unconstitutional. They also made claims against various MCC policies, including the "undue length of confinement, improper searches, inadequate recreational, educational, and employment opportunities, insufficient staff, and objectionable restrictions on the purchase and receipt of personal items and books."

Procedural history
After certifying the case as a class action, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoined the MCC practices challenged by petitioners, holding that inmates could only be deprived of liberty as a matter of "compelling necessity." On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed nearly all of the District Court's rulings, including the due process standard the District Court utilized in enjoining the MCC's practices. The Court of Appeals did not affirm the District Court's Eighth Amendment analysis related to convicted inmates at the MCC awaiting sentencing or transfer, and instead remanded that issue to the District Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on October 2, 1978.

Double-bunking
In its majority opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. First, it noted that the “compelling necessity” standard on which the Court of Appeals relied was not grounded in the Constitution. Rather, the Court held, in order to evaluate whether conditions of pre-trial confinement violate an inmate's guarantee of due process, a court must determine whether those conditions “amount to punishment of the detainee”. Because the MCC's practice of double-bunking did not amount to punishment, the policy did not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.[2][3]

Other challenged practices
The Court also determined that the policy of prohibiting detainee from receiving hard-cover books not mailed directly from the publisher did not violate the First Amendment. In addition, the Court held that the practice of prohibiting detainees from receiving packages from outside the facility was not a due process violation under the Fifth Amendment. Nor, in the Court's opinion, was the practice of performing body cavity searches on detainees after contact visits a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Finally, the Court held that none of these practices constituted punishment within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.

Journal articles

 * Keith A. Hassler, Bell v. Wolfish: The Rights of Pretrial Detainees, 6 New Eng. J. on Prison Law 129 (1979)
 * Dennis D. Cohen, Substantive Due Process Rights of Pretrial Detainees after Bell v. Wolfish, 65 Iowa L. Rev. 818 (1980)
 * Joseph P. Gill, Confused Concepts of Due Process for Pretrial Detainees - the Disturbing Legacy of Bell v. Wolfish, 18 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 469 (1981)
 * James Brian Boyle, Constitutional Law--Pretrial Detention--Due Process--Bell v. Wolfish, 26 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 341 (1981)

Judicial opinions

 * Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015)
 * Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Cty. of Burlington, 566 U.S. 318 (2012)
 * Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
 * Johnson v. Phelan, 69 F.3d 144 (7th Cir. 1995)

title: Bell v. Wolfish