Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< November 17 November 19 >

November 18

edit

Category:Ohio Bishops

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ohio Bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. At a minimum, current name is miscapitalized and unclear. Based on parentage, this category appears to be for bishops from Ohio. However, some articles in it aren't from Ohio, they were bishops of areas that are in Ohio. I don't see the need to classify bishops by the state they are from (altho if so, this ought to be renamed to Category:Bishops from Ohio for clarity), and bishops by the state that their diocese/synod is in doesn't seem like a good idea, given that many of those overlap state boundaries, and Category:Bishops by diocese already exists and is more precise. Mairi 00:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous, better to categorize by diocese. Postdlf 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The "bishops by diocese" structure is better. George J. Bendo 12:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how classifing bishops by U.S. state of origin is useful. Osomec 18:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:2015 games

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2015 games to Category:2015, Inc. games

  • Rename, in order to avoid confusion with the year 2015. GregorB 00:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - The articles themselves (about several video games) are notable and deserve a category. The category should be clearly named to indicate that 2015 is the name of a video game developer and not the year 2015. George J. Bendo 10:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Adam Carolla

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adam Carolla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Wikipedia:Categorization of people states that "In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln.". Adam Carolla may be notable but I don't think he is "a very notable case." Gdo01 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The articles in the category should be linked through the text of the Adam Carolla article, not through categories. George J. Bendo 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Art Fair

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Mairi 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art Fair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Category created only for one article which has 'art fair' in the article name. The Category:Art exhibitions should be the main cat. Clubmarx 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability of the article should be examined - Space hire was £180 per meter. - that feels like a real encyclopedic topic. Pavel Vozenilek 05:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:TV Blackjack

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TV Blackjack to Category:Blackjack television programs

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 section.

Category:Xena Warrior Princess episodes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Xena Warrior Princess episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, underpopulated category with seemingly little prospect of being populated. If not deleted then Rename to Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes for correct punctuation of the show title. Otto4711 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename, many other TV shows have similar categories with articles on episodes. I would have no real objection to "delete without prejudice", but note that this can easily be populated. (Radiant) 22:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - I can easily perceive many fans writing articles for this category. The category would be useful for navigation. George J. Bendo 12:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Radiant and Bendo. Crockspot 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Xena: Warrior Princess episodes --Tlmclain | Talk 03:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Major Leaguers from Cuba

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a repeat of Category:Cuban baseball players Alex 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant cat. At the very least, it should be renamed to Category:Cuban major league baseball players as a subcat of Category:Cuban baseball players, IF there are any notable non-major-league Cuban baseball players. Crockspot 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment--shouldn't these cat noms have been linked? --RCEberwein | Talk 13:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Fictional goths

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional goths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not defining characteristic. Character inclusion is debatable. Is goth just a fashion or does it go with behaviour? It is problematically categorised under fictional characters by belief. Its existence sets precedent for Category:Fictional characters by fashion/social clique/whatever. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Determining whether a character is goth is too POV and may require original research. George J. Bendo 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's vague and not a direction we wish to head in for fear of the creation of Category:Fictional emos if nothing else. If it is intended to hold fictional Goths rather than fictional goths, that's different. But then it should be grouped as an ethnicity category. --tjstrf talk 10:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Female super-villains

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. It is five-four in favour of delete, and the "keep" arguments do not convince me. We are discussing fictional characters here. If the gender-neutrality guideline applies to fictional characters, then, to quote it, "You must be able to write a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) for the category — if this cannot be done, then the category is not valid." I will reconsider my decision if someone convinces me of the need for a well-sourced, encyclopedic article at Fictional female super-villan. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female super-villains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
You should not separate fictional characters by gender, and precedent set at fictional demonesses and similar categories. ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleta. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This violates Wikipedia's gender-neutral policy. Besides, where would Mystique be categorized? George J. Bendo 22:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a long and documented history and legacy of sexism in superhero comics such that the male/female divide is notable and significant, and, more importantly, something that is actively studied by scholars of the field. (I say this as an academic working in part on superhero comics, to be clear.) This is one of only a handful of distinctions we make on such articles (as opposed to junk like "has super strength" or "can fly") that actually has real, out-of-universe import, and it would be severely detrimental to our coverage of this area. Phil Sandifer 14:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a real issue, then it should be written up as a Wikipedia article (like women in science), where a discussion on the topic can have more impact. George J. Bendo 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like List of supervillainesses? : ) - jc37 23:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of an article that has some substance (discussing the positive and negative aspects of how women are portrayed as supervillans, discussing how the portrayal has changed over time) rather than a list of stuff. Can't people do more than make lists? George J. Bendo 23:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Err, my main problem with this category is that it means a lot of characters (e.g. Adrienne Frost) are being categorised too strongly. She may be an X-Men villain, but wouldn't supervillain imply the sort of grandeur and fame of say... Green Goblin, Magento or Doctor Doom? Create "Women in comics" or "Women in superhero fiction" but this category is evil. If by some chance a million users were to say keep and change consensus, I would still opt to rename it to the correct spelling. ~ZytheTalk to me! 16:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming seems fine to me. But to my mind a supervillain would constitute, basically, a costumed or powered foe of a superhero. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy violation. Doczilla 02:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no Wikipedia policy about strict gender neutrality. Instead we have articles on the academic field academic field of Women's studies and several categories dealing with women across history. I think we need to first list characters for inclusion before anyone goes on to write detailed articles on the subject. As for the particular subject of women in comics has anybody read our article on Women in Refrigerators User:Dimadick
  • Keep Considering the large number of articles on female supervillains a category of this nature is justified and helpful. Best, --24.154.173.243 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep About as worthy of categorization as any other comic book category. Females have traditionally been underused as super-villains (in fact it's often said there are no good super-villains who are female in at least one major comic I am familiar with, Spider-Man). As such, it's an interesting category about a "minority group" in one area of comic books, so to speak Mad Jack 08:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per several things in the discussion above. Also, I would disagree that there are "no good super-villains who are female". It is not uncommon for a male superhero to have their version of Catwoman. There is also the fairly common dominatrix-style villainess as well. - jc37 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom — J Greb 17:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Anglican Bishops

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correct case to match other categories—Chidom talk  17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both "Bishop of Liverpool" (for example) is a specific office and a proper noun. Hawkestone 13:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to [[:Category:Bishops of <foo>]] to match the rest of the categories in Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in England. (Radiant) 07:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do other denominations have bishops for Liverpool and Dorchester? If so, the use of the word "Anglican" is justified. If not, then the word "Anglican" can be removed from the category names. George J. Bendo 15:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. Even if the only bishops of Liverpool and Dorchester are Anglican, it is still important to stipulate this in the title, to differentiate from other religions' "Bishops" articles, and to ensure consistancy with other "Anglican Bishops" categories. --INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 01:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both to Category:Anglican Bishops of Foo. There is certainly a Roman Catholic Bishop of Liverpool (or possibly an Archbishop, which only shows more strongly that clarity is needed). Osomec 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both (i.e. use Category:Anglican Bishops of Foo) - The word "Anglican" is needed for disambiguation, and "bishop" is a proper noun in these cases. George J. Bendo 18:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Protestant Churches

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was category was empty, delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Diablolike Computer Games

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Diablolike computer games, Delete, or suggest a better name. -- ProveIt (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivia. Diablo itself is a Gauntlet-spinoff, which was in turn based upon Dungeons & Dragons. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The degree to which a game is "Diablo-like" is debatable, and could cause problems with categorization. Most games in this category probably fall under some kind of role-playing game category, which should be sufficient. Also, I would like to note that Diablo also owes part of its heritage to rogue-like games. (And does anyone else think it's strange that this discussion follows discussions on Anglican Bishops and Protestant Churches?) George J. Bendo 22:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Art portals

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art portals to Category:Arts portals

  • Rename, This is in the proper place, Category:Arts, but should be inclusive of all arts. Art now redirects to Visual art. Clubmarx 17:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:War of Independence of 1857

edit

Category:Battles of the Indian Mutiny

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. While the article name has been debated, and there is a section about the controversy in the article, there has been no formal request for its renaming. If and when the article is renamed, a nomination to rename the categories accordingly should not meet with much resistance. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War of Independence of 1857 to Category:Indian Rebellion of 1857
Category:Battles of the Indian Mutiny to Category:Battles of the Indian Rebellion of 1857

  • Rename, The current names are both POV though in opposite directions, and should be changed to match the title of the main article, Indian Rebellion of 1857. Piccadilly 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see how "Indian Rebellion" is desirable. It's a better name, but still seems POV... -Amarkov blahedits 19:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Rebellion" is the most neutral term available that doesn't sound awkward. Osomec 18:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The name of the underlying article has recently been the subject of dispute. See Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857. I cannot tell if that dispute has been resolved. Maybe this category renaming is premature? Hmains 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom for consistency. "Mutiny" is taken by Indians as belittling the event, "War of Independence" is retrospective nationalism, but it was certainly a "rebellion", whether one thinks it was just or not. Olborne 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Hmains 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • reman as per the article it represents--Jackyd101 15:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming The name of the underlying article has recently been the subject of dispute.The category renaming is premature? Shyamsunder 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Rajasthani Indian independence activists

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rajasthani Indian independence activists into both Category:Indian independence activists and Category:People from Rajasthan

  • Merge, I have started a category for Category:Indian independence activists as I was suprised it did not exist already. This subcategory did exist, but it seems to make little sense to divide the members of a national movement into regional sections. Piccadilly 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom and because its an unwieldy cat on its own.Bakaman Bakatalk 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Fictional heroines

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category has become so overbroad as to be useless. No clear reason to distinguish between heroines and heroes, and no clear definition of heroine is in place - it appears to include any sympathetic female character to appear in the credits of a science fiction or fantasy television show, for instance. The judgment of heroine thus becomes POV (Is Cordelia Chase a heroine, or a supporting character? Is Hot Lips from M*A*S*H* a heroine?) beyond the point of usefulness. The bulk of the entries are superheroines - these characters should be spun off into a superheroines category that compliments the existing superheroes. (As gender distinctions in comics are a very, very active and important issue - see Women in Refrigerators and the work of Trina Robbins for examples of commentary that indicates the significance of a gender divide.) Phil Sandifer 16:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Piccadilly 16:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not meaningfully defined. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am going to avoid the gender divide issues and just say that the terms "heroine" and "hero" are overly broad, suffer POV problems, and therefore should not be used for Wikipedia categories. George J. Bendo 22:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Irk(talk) 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also delete Category:Fictional heroes for same reasons. NOTE - an unregistered user has recently been vandalising the category page to hide the CFD nomination box in an undisguised attempt to retain the category. I have already restored it once and am about to request protection to prevent further vandalism EdJogg 12:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check category history page for further instances of vandalism. EdJogg 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category page has now been semi-protected. EdJogg 15:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Gwernol 13:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of this characters are meant to be portrayed as "sympathetic" or "heroic" to begin with. Remember that we have the article on Hero to discuss what the term has ment through history and we need examples. When categories become "overbroad" as you say, the usual method is to subcategorize rather than delete. User:Dimadick
  • Keep because valid and useful category for anyone doing general research on heroines in fiction. --24.154.173.243 20:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Preceding 'Keep' comment (by 24.154.173.243) was added by the user who has repeatedly deleted the CFD banner from the category page. -- EdJogg 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hmrox 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Valid catagory, very useful in research. D2K 16:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom! Totally useless category. ~ZytheTalk to me! 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Stephen Colbert

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stephen Colbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, I know that Colbert has become quite the phenomenon but this category is an obvious cruft category with no purpose other than to unify all of the shows Colbert has been on (even those he hardly had any part in). This could be better shown on a list or table within the Colbert article not a category. Gdo01 14:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I like Colbert as much as the next guy, but it's pointless to have a category dedicated to him. What makes his projects so important to justify this over, say, anyone else listed on IMDb? -- Tim D 14:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Articles related to Colbert should be linked through the text of his article, not linked through categories. George J. Bendo 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are 11 articles besides the main article. That seems like a substantial enough number that a category can be kept and maintained. Clubmarx 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whether or not a category can be populated is not justification for keeping a category. We could create a category named "People named George" and fill it with 100 articles, but it would not be very meaningful for organizational or navigational purposes. George J. Bendo 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just found this as a precedent for deletion of this category:Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_19#Category:World_of_Stephen_Colbert. Gdo01 18:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as noted by this archive, Wikipedia:Categorization of people states that "In certain very notable cases, people are being categorized by the name of the person itself, for example Category:Abraham Lincoln." Colbert may be a media sensation but he is not notable enough for his own category. Gdo01 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about Adam Carolla not that many people know him but he has his own category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.181.208.231 (talk • contribs) .
      • And I have just put up that category for deletion also. Gdo01 22:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like people who are helpful like this. George J. Bendo 10:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I love the man and his work, but this is unnecessary. Postdlf 01:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A list of articles would be much more useful than a category. Viewtyjoe 23:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Doczilla 02:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed. -- Selmo (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. All articles in the category are linked to from Stephen Colbert, anyway. -- Bailey(talk) 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Hotel Management Companies

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was category was empty: delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Hospitality companies, duplicate. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that there is only one company and it fits into the merge target this looks okay, but the two things are not the same at all. Hotel management is just one specialism in the hospitality industry. Piccadilly 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only entry was also included in Category:Hospitality companies of the United States so I removed the Category:Hotel Management Companies one. The only question is should there be a cat redirect? I don't think we need it at this time. Vegaswikian 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we need it, at least not at the moment. But Hotel management companies is certainly reasnonable, someday. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Jigsaw's first three victims

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Mairi 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jigsaw's first three victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only three articles, two of which I've nominated for deletion. CyberGhostface 13:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 section.

Category:Chilean human rights victim

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated for speedy renaming to Category:Chilean human rights victims by Bearcat at 07:01 on 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Victims of Human rights are not that difficut to write about. Just like an accident victim. Thanaks RaveenS 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer this to be renamed as category:Chilean victims of human rights abuses Again if a victim can be cited properly with neutral source as a victim of HR abuses (again that is defined) then place them in the above mentioned category by country is straight forward. No controversy in this.ThanksRaveenS 02:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hawkestone. I fail to see the relevance of RaveenS's comment as almost every category that gets deleted concerns matters which "are not that difficut to write about" It is the category that is up for deletion, not any article(s). Olborne 14:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Subcategories of Category:Novels by author

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Sorry, everyone: there's a backlog of CFDs and to reduce pressure here slightly I have started a more wide-ranging discussion here about this matter. The aim is to get the obviously desirable widespread support for conventions that can hereafter become guidelines, and be added as acceptable criteria for speedy category renames. The change suggested in this CFD discussion and the others mentioned seems to me to require so many categories to change that this consensus, and the previous ones linked to below, are not sufficiently well supported to be implemented. If there had been unanimous agreement for "XY novels" I would have implemented it. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these follow one convention, e.g.:

And some of them follow another convention, e.g.:

And some of them are completely different, e.g. :

I don't care which naming convention is used as long as they all follow the same pattern in the end, so let's decide something. —freak(talk) 13:39, Nov. 18, 2006 (UTC)

  • First choice: "XY novels"; second choice "novels by". Note that not all of George Orwell's books were novels, and indeed many novelists published books of other kinds so care should be taken about blanket renaming. Piccadilly 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it could be easily argued that the more general "books" categories should not be part of the parent "novels" category at all. Changing them all to "books" rather than "novels" might be the most manageable option, and in the long run, and perfectly accurate as far as I'm concerned.
As for the position of the author's name in categories of creative works, there are, unfortunately, parallel examples on both sides:
  1. Albums by artist is author first, e.g. Category:Don Henley albums
  2. Films by director is author last, e.g. Category:Films directed by Brian De Palma
I began asking myself this question, as it relates to books when I realized I was about to create a category for a certain author, yet I had no idea how to name it. —freak(talk) 00:37, Nov. 19, 2006 (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 section.

Category:Blue plaques

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, but there is significant support for making a list. the wub "?!" 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Blue plaques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Buildings with blue plaques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:People commemorated by blue plaques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete & Listify, I like the idea behind the creation of this category. But, as a category creation it doesn't link the former occupant/s to the relevant house, and resultantly loses all relevant information for an encyclopedia by splitting the two key pieces of information. Secondly, the occupant/s due to the selection reasons chosen by English Heritage are already likely to be on Wikipedia, so its the addition of another category to a (probably already) well categorised/over categorised person. Thirdly, the same person can have more than one plaque - people do move you know! Fourthly, not all Blue Plaques are Blue, and the scheme only applies under an agreed set of criteria in England/London - we in Wales have a more open set of criteria. If we followed up all the currently listed people alone on the Blue Plaque scheme, then there would be over 3000 entries - doubled, as we don't link the place with the occupant. I recommend that the information is extract to a list, defined by individuals rather than buildings, which links the relevant people/buildings. Rgds, - Trident13 11:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and make a list. Good call Trident. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Listify per nom. Tlmclain | Talk 20:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deliste (hm, is that a useful neologism? :) ) (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – for both buildings and people. Buildings can be notable, either because of whom they once housed, or for a totally different reason, perhaps they are a famous theatre, or a historic factory. I am not sure whether your list would be colour specific. The term blue plaque seems to be the generally accepted term even for plaques which are not blue. I take it to mean a circular monument of any colour. This seems to be how bodies such as English Heritage and those linked externally in the Blue plaques article define them. Despite the main text of the Blue plaque article the awarding bodies are not just English Heritage and the London councils. They are all over England, I have found (and added to category) one in Wales, I don't know whether there are more, and they exist in Northern Ireland [1]. I would favour keeping the categories. I find categories useful for browsing related articles and exploring unrelated people or buildings with something in common. The fact that a category does not link a person to a building does not reduce this usefulness. The article itself should describe the relationship. Perhaps a list for people and a list for buildings as well as these categories. My current interest is with architecture and history of buildings so I would appreciate indexing from that direction as well. I vote Strong Keep on the assumption that the recording of historical memorials is not frivolous. I realise that blue plaques in parts of the UK may not be of world-wide interest, but they are a very visible and characteristic sight to tourists. The fact that they have been awarded for 140 years suggests that they are not trivial. Oosoom Talk to me 23:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - all your points are correct, and I am not suggesting we remove the information that the two categories include - I do think the information is encyclopedic. What I am saying is that the value of the information of the Blue Plaque is lost if the building and the person it gained the plaque for is seperated. I am not nomally a great supporter of Lists, but in this case its an obvious solution to gaining the information into the wiki encyclopdia - as a category, its almost lost. - Trident13 23:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a great fan of lists. I suspect such a list would not easily be found unless specifically looked for. Categories, even if not totally specific in how A relates to B are another means of accessing articles, at a peer level, and also by drilling down from a root level such as People, History, or Architecture. Oosoom Talk to me 11:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - so, your issue is publicity (use of a category) versus factual content (use of a list)? Just a thought, but aren't we an encyclopedia, not a marketing organisation. The list could easily be found if the articles were written in the right way, rather than the easy way of just creating another category. And as for "not totally specific in how "A"relates to "B" - the point of the Blue Plaque is to relate a famous dead person to a building associated with them. Rgds, - Trident13 10:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not talking about publicity but about ease of browsing and exploring across the hierarchy. Categories are an additional mechanism. A blue plaque relates a person to a building, and a building to a person. In fact some buildings have plaques for more than one person. Perhaps you are a person person. I am often a building person and explore local history the other way around (sometimes). :) Oosoom Talk to me 10:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice to Administrators: Should the proposal to delete these categories be successful please note the proposer's intention to replace the category entries with one or more lists. Please do not delete the categories until this has been done (who does this?), otherwise information will be lost. Thanks. Oosoom Talk to me 12:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — this is a very important part of cultural heritage in England and the UK. There are other more local awarding bodies as well as English Heritage (e.g., the Oxfordshire Blue Plaques Board chaired by Hugo Brunner. I see no reason why categories and lists cannot exist side by side. Both have their advantages and disadvantages., Let's have the best of both worlds if someone is willing to start a list. I agree with the comment above that individual articles should link the person and the place in articles for one or both of these if they exist. — Jonathan Bowen 18:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 but not the category for buildings, as this is not a defining characteristic of a building. Osomec 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would say that a blue plaque is a defining characteristic of a building. It is very distictive, it is part of the building (mortared into the structure for the life of the building, not screwed on for a while), and marks the building out as more significant than others around it. In fact it puts the label notable on the building. Oosoom Talk to me 08:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment — I agree with the comment above, it is a very important defining character of a building, making it more notable. — Jonathan Bowen 23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I note that a list, keyed by individual, pointing to buildings will not be a complete enumeration, as it misses out on blue plaques that are in "commemoration of sites of special historical interest" English Heritage, so two lists will be required, one of buildings with People associated, one without. As part of the reason for this deletion is to remove the percieved duplication, the end result will instead be two lists that have no overlap. This, indeed removed duplication, but prevents any discovery of one list from the other. It will be far better to categorise all Persons who have (one or two) plaques associated with them and all Buildings that have a plaque associated with them (Compare Frederick_Lanchester and Lanchester_Motor_Company -- He has a plaque at his home, and the motor company factory building /itself/ has a plaque). That way the two sets of data are not totally disassociated. (do you have to be registered to vote? Meh, who cares...) 62.49.94.185 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think that inclusion is ambiguous (which would mean needing references). Though I think this should be listified as well. - jc37 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Comic strip formats

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic strip formats

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 section.

Category:Maltese actors by medium

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Maltese actors by medium into Category:Maltese actors

  • Upmerge, The X actors by medium categories are a bit problematical as they are don't serve to hold articles and the categories they hold should be descendants of Actors by medium via the Film actors, Stage actors, etc, categories. The only useful propose I see tem possibly performing is tah because that same lack of direct articles it can be somehat easier to navigate th subcategories. However in this case Maltese actors has one child Maltese actors by medium which itself has one child Maltese film actors which has all of 1 articles at the moment. If anyone else wishes to tirn this into a blanket nomination for all 15 nation actors by medium categories, I'll support it, but this one is really redundant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By no means is it redundant. With these categories a Maltese actor can be found by the same route as an American actor in the same field, and that consistency is a good thing. Hawkestone 11:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The only thing the by medium category adds is a slight bit of ease of navigation in some circumstances, but frankly I think this would be better handled by adding links in the boilerplate text for the current parents than by these by medium categories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' There is no minimum category size. Let's think forward please, the category system needs to be built for the future. Osomec 18:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Agreed that there is no minimum size in general, but the X actors by medium categories aren't normal catgories that hold articles, but metacategories that only have other categories for purposes of navigation. Unless the parent category (in this case X actors) is so large as to require more than one page to list all of its members, metacategories actually complicate rather than simplify the job of navigation. Even then there may be better alternatives than meta catgories. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:State terrorism

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. I have read over the arguments made here, finding merit on both sides, and I cannot find a consensus to delete, neither do I hear an unqualified "keep". The category will no doubt attract articles about acts whose status as "state terrorism" is either unsubstantiated or controversial; from this point the best outcome is for interested Wikipedians to ensure that only articles that incontrovertibly belong under the category title are included. I urge fellow Wikipedians to remember that the category's title is "state terrorism", and not the subtly different and possibly pov "acts of state terrorism". --RobertG ♬ talk 11:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:State terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This category is inherently POV. This category was deleted about a year ago for the same reason (discussion). It was recreated about half a year ago. As it has been around for a while and contains quite some articles, I think it wouldn't be proper to speedily delete the category under WP:CSD#G4, but I do think it should be deleted. Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that under WP:CSD#G4 "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy" this article should be deleted. Have you seen the old deleted category? I notice that Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_12#Category:State_terrorism you did not actually comment on the deletion. If you have never seen the original category, how can you now say that this article is a "substantially identical copy"?
The only mention of POV on the Category rules is this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Neutrality,
"Use gender-neutral category names"
"Always try to use the most generic neutral name. Some categories can be used in a stigmatizing way."
How you can this article be NPOV when it meets all of the basic requirements of a Category? RaveenS
I didn't state that the category should be deleted under CSD#G4, I said that I thought it wouldn't be proper to delete under CSD#G4. That's quite the opposite.
The guideline that I'm following is Wikipedia:Categorization, which says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." My point is that in the vast majority of cases, it won't be self-evident and uncontroversial that a certain article belongs to the category. I already mentioned this to you, but you moved this remark to the talk page. Hence I moved it back. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The crucial part of guidelines which RaveenS quotes is to "try to use the most generic neutral name". State terrorism does not have a consensus neutral definition. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There cannot be any more neutral term for terrorism committed by states and proxies on civilian populations than State terrorism ? The is still debate over what Terrorism and War crimes are but those terms are not considered to be not neutralRaveenS 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop defining state terrorism by using a word that has no definition, which is terrorism, you are defining into a void. Since terrorism is not a NPOV word and is specifically on the list of words to avoid, the only stipualtion being when its attributed to someone and fully cited, which cant happen in a category, this category would fall right into what is not allowed when using the word terrorism. YOu need to be more specific then saying German gribblflits are gribblflits from Germany, it still makes little sense after you turn the words around. --NuclearZer0 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason that I believe Category:Terrorists should be deleted. At least, the terrorists category tries to use a rather objective criterion for inclusion, which this one does not have. But in any case, the category consists of loosely associated topics and is not helpful since it groups incidents that don't have much in common except a rather ill-defined, inherently political label of "state terrorism". Pascal.Tesson 05:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cleaned up the request of above user. RaveenS 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a useful category based on the articles contained therein. The concept of state terrorism is well-established, as can be seen from the article collection. Hmains 07:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the debate last year summed this one up for me: inherently POV, badly defeined criteria. Rgds, - Trident13 13:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - As per inherently POV category guidleines. It would need extensive sourcing to have any credibility at all which is not possible in a cat. It should be noted that the creator of the category User:RaveenS has been active on a number of articles concerning this subject. On each occasion I believe he/she is misreading WP:NOR and WP:V.--Zleitzen 16:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AGF Please assume good faith. Please WP:NPA, focus on the article, not the editors. Is Wikipedia is incapable of categorizing complex and controversial topics? How do you categorize war crimes, pogroms, and genocide in Wikipedia as each one is controversial. RaveenS 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for naming you RaveenS. However I believe that there is a serious issue presently surrounding the term "state terrorism" on wikipedia and a rapid conscious push for this term to gain currency on your part. I am yet to be convinced that you have fully embraced the policies best discussed in WP:ATT - but found in WP:V and WP:NOR. I feel it may be best to make yourself and other editors aware that many of your ideas on this subject need examination.--Zleitzen 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, please assume good faith. IMHO, State terrorism as a subject matter and category proceeds me in Wikipedia by many years. Please WP:NPA, focus on the article, not the editors. Hundreds of editors have contributed to these articles, defining the term terorism itself to articles such as Dirty War and Bosnian Genocide just to name a few. If these articles don’t belong in Cat State terrorism where else do they blong? RaveenS 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't use loaded words in cat names. (Radiant) 21:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please expalin Genocide, Pogrom and War crimes as Cat or hould they be also deleted ? RaveenS 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"War crimes" is objectively defined. I would not be averse to renaming (not deleting!) categories relating to genocide or pogrom; but these are still better definable than "terrorism" for one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (Radiant) 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what is the policy behind this: "don't use loaded words in cat names" I am reading Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#General_naming_conventions rules, and there is no mention of "don't use loaded words in cat names"
State terrorism is a neutral title, like "war crimes" is a neutral title. The title of this category is not state terrorism of country x. Your argument is incorrect, war crimes is not also objectively defined, and their is also debate about what is and what isn't a war crime. The Armenian Genocide and Katyń massacre are excellent examples where wikieditors argue constantly about what is and what is not a war crime. Your explanations about the differences between the categories is not convincing, and your policy arguments are not based on wikipolicy. RaveenS
I have to disagree, "war crimes" as a category should only contain items and people who have been tried or investigated for "war crimes" and what those crimes were, like Milosovic I believe is being tried for "war crimes." However state terrorism is condemning countries that have had no trial, so if we are to apply a label of "state terrorism" then when do we stop, anytime anyone calls it that does it apply? So celebrity X stands up and says "country Z commits acts of state terrorism" and now we throw it in the cat? Do you see the problem with that? Its completely one sided. I would honeslty argue that "war crimes" should be deleted as well or renamed to "people found guilty of war crimes" and "wars / battles in which people were tried for war crimes" etc. So as to make sure that we define if people were put on trial, found guilty, or associated in depth, therefore avoiding the blanket condemnation of entire group, or event. --NuclearZer0 01:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey still debates within itself as well as with rest of the world that one of its past regimes did not commit the Armenian genocide. But the rest of the world has come to terms with that. Also no one or Turkey is ever going to tried for Armenian genocide. Still that does not prevent any encyclopedia from calling it a genocide how ever one sided it may seem for a proponent of the current Turkish political point of view. RaveenS
You just proved why this shouldnt be a category "the rest of the world", the majority or rest of the world has not defined terrorism, hence state terrorism being defined as terrorism of the state, makes no sense. I am glad you are seeing that some world concensus is rather important, and the lack of such a concensus on the issue of the word terrorism. I hope you stop defining into the void. --NuclearZer0 13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why, users are required to explain why they want to delete a category. RaveenS
  • Delete, category prone to POV, and verifiability abuses. Crockspot 19:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this being recreated by a completely different editor, it shows a need for this category. State terrorism is an encyclopedic subject as already Britanica has an entry under it as well as Wikipedia. It is very easy to write articles about State terrorism as long as it fits within the definition and follow WP rules. The term itself is accusatory such as Genocide, Holocaust and Pogroms. IF a category like Pogrom, Genocide and War crimes can be in Wikipedia why not State terrorism and Terrorism ? RaveenS 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. State terrorism has a set criteria and definition and I don't see how its prone to POV and verifiability abuses, when its labeled so from respectable neutral sources. It has definition in established encyclopedias and therefore doesn't break new territory. Elalan 01:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant to say that Britanica has somewhat clear definition of state terrorism in its entry. The definition on wikipedia doesn't count, since it can't be guaranteed to be the same or consistent tomorrow. Elalan 03:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for some discussion that was deemed off topic.
So, what are the set criteria and definition for state terrorism? That article explains that there is no definition that people agree on. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking see State_terrorism#Confines_and_definition That is a good starting point. Lack of so called clarity in Terrorism and Counter Terrorism has not prevented Wikipedia categories on them. I am going clean up the Category (I have already started) as I had in mind. I hope you will reserve your judgement till I am done within few day. ThanksRaveenS
I just cleaned as much as possible. This is pretty much how it should look. If Terrorism can be a cat, and if Counter terrorism be a sub cat why cant State terrorism be a sub cat of Terrorism ? ThanksRaveenS 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See talk page for some discussion that was deemed off topic.
(Replying to Raveen S) The first sentence of State_terrorism#Confines_and_definition states that there is no generally accepted definition. That means that it will never be "self-evident and uncontroversial" whether an act is state terrorism, and this is why the category should be deleted (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Categories are simply not the correct medium. If you want a list of instances of state terrorism, you should assemble them in an article where you can cite sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jitse, thanks for your kind wordsRaveenS 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)</>[reply]
I think that a list would be by far the most appropriate way to handle this concept, because a list could be annotated to note the range of POVs in each case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there already is such a list: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state. It might need more work, but it seems in outline to be very much what I suggested above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As discussed earlier in another similar TfD for this template, my verdict is def'ly to have it. All articles in the template and the template in itself is completely NPOV and more importantly everything is completely verifiable. Admins can go through the template to find out that it conforms completely to WP:5P This is only a concern being raised by Sri Lankan wikipedians and SL govt supporters to defend their country being mentioned as a country sponsoring State terrorism, but quite understandeably - The truth is always bitter. All articles point to the single, apparent truth about state sponsored terrorism and selective killings of Tamil politicians and Tamilians with ethnic cleansing motives. Before we proceed with voting, it is to be noted that another discussion in the TfD page for discussion had almost 10-11 sockpuppets participating. It was started by sockpuppets and virtually run by one user User:Lahiru_k. So before deciding anything at all, I kindly request the admins to do a checkuser. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 09:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You write "This is only a concern being raised by Sri Lankan wikipedians and SL govt supporters". I'm neither, but I'm the most concerned that these various state terrorism pages - cats - templates created by RaveenS recently do not meet WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. I'll ask the same question I asked on another page. Are there any groups that would consider that the acts linked were not cases of "state terrorism"? When I asked the question before, eventually I received the obvious answer from Elalan that yes - "government supporters would disagree that these were cases of state terrorism". Ergo, the template was inherently POV as it ignored one POV - the POV of a government and its supporters. Not rocket science. This category is also inherently POV for the same reason. To describe an act as "terrorism" is to define an act, to describe something as "State terrorism" is to attribute an act to a government, who obviously would not describe their acts as "state terrorism". Therefore it can never be a universally agreed point of view, it will always be contentious. Therefore it should be deleted without question and quickly. As it was before. As it will be again if it is recreated yet again. --Zleitzen 10:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sudharsansn, you seem to be thinking that this discussion is about some template; it is not, it is about Category:State terrorism. I also don't see why you link this with Sri Lanka. In fact, I was made aware of this category because Srebrenica massacre was added to it.
I have no idea why you think that sockpuppets are present here. However, just so that you are aware of the procedure: Requests for check user should go at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, following the procedure outlined there. There are a couple of administrators taking part in this discussion here, but none of them can do a checkuser; there are very few people that have this privilege. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have looked through this debate (?), the article and the category, and it seems the only articles/s with agreement of state terrorism are those around the Holocuast - and even that's debated (and it seems to make up about two thirds of the current article content with the existing category). You state State terrorism has a set criteria and definition - well, one of those to me seems to be time to create that "beyond reasonanble doubt" conclusion for the majority, which results in both legal cases as well in most of these cases other evidence coming to light. The other question on how its defined to me is - was it local, or was it sponsored from the top? Some of the cases in the post-troubles Northern Irish debate show this issue clearly. At least with a list, some of the current status articles that are presently included/subject to heavy debate could be included with status debate at present note/s. Rgds, - Trident13 13:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as discussed above with another wikiuser:
State terrorism is a neutral title, like "war crimes" is a neutral title. The title of this category is not state terrorism of country x. Your argument is incorrect, war crimes is also not objectively defined, and their is also debate about what is and what isn't a war crime. The Armenian Genocide and Katyń massacre are excellent examples where wikieditors argue constantly about what is and what is not a war crime. Your explanations about the differences between the categories is not convincing. Please lets stay on topic, User:Zleitzen, this is not the forum to discuss other wikipages. RaveenS
The difference is that "war crimes" has a legal definition, see Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and Geneva Protocol. This does not resolve the issue of whether a particular act is a war crime, but it gives a framework in which we can work. "State terrorism" has no such definition, it is an ill-defined concept and the category should not be used to collect acts of state terrorism. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please updated version of the Category description. Let me knowRaveenS 20:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to ask the supporters of this category whether they would place the cat on the Cubana Flight 455 page. It has been described as "state terrorism" by numerous sources, including a government (google it). If so why? If not why? --Zleitzen 23:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zleitzen, regarding, Cubana Flight 455. That is an issue you can discuss on Cubana Flight 455, please let's us keep other wikipage debates to where they belong. This page is for deletion of Category:State terrorism, not the merits or weaknesses of Cubana Flight 455.
User:Jitse Niesen: The difference is that "war crimes" has a legal definition
Legal defintion: "state terrorism" when a state participates or promotes [terrorism] during periods of time when there is no internationally recognized belligerency. --Legal responses to international terrorism: U.S. Procedural Aspects By M. Cherif Bassiouni.
I won't argue the defition of State terrorism on this page further, because this argument should be argued on State terrorism, when it is argued here, it is Wikipedia:WikiLawyering, which is discouraged.
Lets say though there was no "legal defintion" of "state terrorsim", as you incorrectly claim.
Simply because the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and Geneva Protocol defined war crimes, does not mean that the defintion of war crimes is settled. The title of this category is not state terrorism of country x. Even today their is also strong debate about what is and what isn't a war crime. The Armenian Genocide and Katyń massacre are excellent examples where wikieditors argue constantly about what is and what is not a war crime. If the definition of what a war crime has not been settled, and may never be settled completly, should wikipedians not be allowed to create controversial categories, such as Category:War crimes ? Please argue the definiton of State terrorism on the State terrorism page, not here.
Was their war crimes before the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) and Geneva Protocol? Of course.
Again, as I said to User:Zleitzen, I have to remind you that this page is for the deletion of Category:State terrorism, not the definition of state terrorism. The definition of state terrorism can be debated on State terrorism, not here.
There is still a fierce legal debate about what a war crime is, and torture is, and porgoms are. Even today, the Bush administration has legal arguments arguing for what happened in Abu Ghraib. Since the word "torture" is also controversial, should the Category:Torture also be deleted?
Because of these reasons, this article should be speedy kept. RaveenS 14:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make something clear, everyday there is a debate over what murder is in court, that doesnt negate the definitions existence. Also war crimes are defined and terrorism is not, so to say state terrorism is defined is not a view of the world, actually the UN ha snever even defined terrorism, so state terrorism cannot be defined except into a vaccuum. As for torture, while the Bush administration can argue till they are blue in the face, the Geneva Convention states what torture is, so do other UN resolutions. --NuclearZer0 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearUmpf: Just to make something clear, everyday there is a debate over what murder is in court, that doesnt negate the definitions existence. Lets change the sentence: Just to make something clear, everyday there is a debate over what state terrorism is...that doesnt negate the definitions existence.
I just listed a defintion of state terrorism above. State terrorism is a controversial term indeed, just as war crimes is a controversial term, and torture is a controversial term. Is an incident only a war crime or state terrorism if there has been a formal trial? Is an incident only a war crime or state terrorism if the UN or the Geneva Convention has defined it as a war crime or state terrorism? Obviously, Bush's interpretation of the Geneva convention is different than other countries, since controversy exists should categories relating to war crimes also be deleted too? You state Category:War crimes should be deleted too.
You wrote: I would honeslty (sic) argue that "war crimes" should be deleted as well Why haven't you put this category up for deletion? There will be a strong backlash which will result.
Wikipedia:WikiLawyering states: "Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." If we follow your argument to its conclusion, what controvesial categories will still exist? Will like minded editors delete most controversial articles and categories which do not meet your "technical interpretation" of "Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines"? RaveenS
You cant use the word, in its own definition. I get it we dont have a definition for terrorism, but its when states do terrorism, yeah thats makes perfect sense. I am not sure if you are America, but usually in America in grade school you are taught you cannot use the word your are defining in its own definition. So saying states doing terrorism is "state terrorism" when terrorism has no definition agreed on by the international community is pointless. The difference you seem to purposely ignore at this point is that "war crimes" is more then controversial, it has a definition that legally gets worked off of, people can be tried for war crimes etc. As for your Wikilawyering comment sits a pretty poor step to fall on when you run out of arguements I guess, NPOV is pretty important and if you think someone telling you that you are violating it is wikilawyering, then you need to sit back and understanding some of the more important aspects of this site and this project.
Also the thing you keep missing and I hope its not a game of pleading ignorant in some WP:POINT manner is that no matter what Bush ignores, does not negate the definition all of a sudden. --NuclearZer0 02:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:State terrorism (cont.)
edit
  • Comment The government of Sri Lanka and its supporters disagree that these acts are state terrorism. In the case of Syria, the article is mistitled and actually refers to accusations of state-sponsored terrorism, not state terrorism. These are examples of occasions where to label something "state terrorism" without sources attributing this view, and only giving one view priority is inherently POV or original research, or worse very misleading. To simply label an event in a way that takes no account of the conflicting causes and views is not our job, nor is it helpful. It is what one would except to read in a low-brow, sensationalist newspaper.--Zleitzen 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zleitzen, User:Seabhcan, regarding, State terrorism in Sri Lanka. That is an issue we can discuss on State terrorism in Sri Lanka, please let's us keep other wikipage debates to where they belong. This page is for deletion of Category:State terrorism, not the any other wikipages. RaveenS
  • Delete A category that only expresses one side of the arguement, stating that something is factually an act of terrorism by a certain government, is inherently POV and cannot be anything but. The category labels the incidents as state terrorism regardless of what content may then be inside of the article. Almost as if we added the Holocaust to a category on hoaxes, well some people feel it was, the article would say otherwise and express another view, but the category condemns the action as a hoax, which is not appropriate. --NuclearZer0 01:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A category shouldn't express any arguement, but simply group together similar articles. We now have multiple articles with the phrase "state terrorism" in the title. Why shouldn't these articles have a category? The task of presenting both sides of the arguement, is a task for the articles, not the category.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are on the same page, however you seem to fail to understand that putting something ni the category of state terrorism is labeling it an act of state terrorism. Therefore the category can never be POV, it accusatory by its very nature. If I made a category called "stupid wikipedians" would it be ok for me to put whoever I want in it and argue that they can dispute the labeling on their talk page? Of course not, cause accusations are not appropriate, especially when the other side cannot have a defense. --NuclearZer0 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zer0faults: category that only expresses one side of the arguement, stating that something is factually an act of terrorism by a certain government, is inherently POV and cannot be anything but. What wikipolicy about categories are you you stating? Category:State terrorism does not condem anything. It is simply two words, with articles included in its category. Again, please let's us keep other wikipage debates to where they belong. This page is for deletion of Category:State terrorism. RaveenS
WP:NPOV, please read it, if you are honestly asking this then you are purposely ignoring half the arguement on this page. You will be better off defending this point if you feel otherwise then closing your eyes and hoping the admin somehow completely misses your lack of defense of the main point, you cant have categories that themselves fail WP:NPOV. --NuclearZer0 02:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:NuclearUmpf: closing your eyes, WP:NPOV, please read it, you are purposely ignoring half the arguement on this page. Wikipedia:No personal attacks Please comment on the content, not on the contributor.
I am familiar with WP:NPOV, thank you. The only mention of POV on the Category rules is this: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Neutrality, which this category meets.
Again, what wikipedia policy are you stating in regards to categories?
Please lets stay on topic, and avoid Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Please continue to WP:Assume Good Faith, thank you. RaveenS
NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOVNPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV NPOV =), Continue to ignore the arguement doesnt make it go away. --NuclearZer0 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "State Terrorism" is a topic that is often used in legal debates, UN discourse, by sociologists and by international security experts. Saying that it is "inherently POV" is like saying "Use of the word "enemy" is inherently POV". Yeah, right -- "enemy" is a POV word, so it shouldn't be included in a dictionary? The idea behind an encyclopedia is that it gives people a place to start investigating difficult or unpopular concepts; eliminating concepts from the encyclopedia because they are unpopular or difficult to manage thus seems rather contrary to an encyclopedia's purpose, no? "State Terrorism" is an idea that is hotly debated in many different disciplines, and is central to the problems that have arisen in an attempt to define and criminalize "terrorism"; anyone who is looking for more information on something as simple as, say, why there is no international definition of "terrorism" will undoubtedly come across it. The encyclopedia should be there to help them.
In addition, by including a Category page where "State Terrorism" may be subdivided according to recognized states makes the most sense; it makes it much more difficult for people of one nation -- say, the United States, or Sri Lanka -- to complain that the accusations listed on their page are unfairly skewed by POV if one can point to another page and say that the sources were adequate there, and so should be valid here. Stone put to sky 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite your comments, "Enemy" is inherintly POV, therefore cannot be a category. "State Terrorism" is an idea that is hotly debated as you rightly say, therefore should not be a category as that does not allow for the debate. Rather it only shows one side of the debate via the category. That a party has commited "State terrorism" is a point of view, regardless of how valid that point of view may seem. Categories should be for linking topics, not points of view, as that makes the category unworkable. We may as well have a category for "Cheats" "Idiots" and "Losers", all verifiable points of view to many subjects of articles. But all inherently POV and unworkable as a category. --Zleitzen 05:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zleitzen, Enemy is POV, so is "Cheats" "Idiots" and "Losers" see: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Neutrality.
You say: "Categories should be for linking topics, not points of view, as that makes the category unworkable." What policy are you quoting? The only policy on Neutrality, is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Neutrality.
This policy states as an example: '"Prostitutes" is a better name for a category than "whores".' For example "Enemies" could be changed to Category:Axis Powers or better yet Category:World War II politics.
Again, State terrorism is a legal term, just as War Crimes is a legal term. The arguments about what is and what is not State terrorism should be debated on the particular wikipages, as particular wikipages that are listed on Category:War Crimes are argued on the particular wikipages. RaveenS
State terrorism isn't a legal term, RaveenS. No court has ever found a government guilty of "state terrorism". This is where it differs from "war crimes". That governments have committed State terrorism is a POV allegation made by analysts, political opponents, writers etc without international consensus or due process. These allegations should be covered by wikipedia, but not tacitly confirmed as fact by the virtue of the category. You dismiss my question about Cubana Flight 455 without answering whether it would be labelled by your category. That leads me to believe that you have no clear objective as to what would get labelled by your category and what wouldn't. Unless you can answer that straightforward question; "what should be in the category?" - then the debate is moot.--Zleitzen 20:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zleitzen: State terrorism isn't a legal term, RaveenS.
I already wrote this above, I will repeat it again here for the third time:
Legal defintion: "state terrorism" when a state participates or promotes [terrorism] during periods of time when there is no internationally recognized belligerency. --Legal responses to international terrorism: U.S. Procedural Aspects By M. Cherif Bassiouni.
Several legal scholars talk about the legal definition of state terrorism. Would you like more sources?
Zleitzen: "No court has ever found a government guilty of "state terrorism".
Again: State terrorism is a controversial term indeed, just as war crimes is a controversial term, and torture is a controversial term. Is an incident only a war crime or state terrorism if there has been a formal trial? Is an incident only a war crime or state terrorism if the UN or the Geneva Convention has defined it as a war crime or state terrorism? Was there any war crimes before their were court trials for war crimes? Do war crimes only exist if their has been a trial?
Zleitzen: "That governments have committed State terrorism is a POV allegation made by analysts, political opponents, writers etc without international consensus or due process."
Is the Armenian Genocide or the Katyń massacre not a war crime because their has been no trial? Can there be state terrorism or war crimes without a trial? There are cases were the ICC has prosecuted countries and made them pay war reperations for acts of state terrorism. One example is the ICC prosecution of Iran after the 1979 American embassy hostage crisis. I won't argue about the ICC Iran case or other cases, because this category is about state terrorism in general, not whether Cubana Flight 455 or other acts are state terrorism or not state terrorism. These state acts can be argued about on their individual wikipages, whether they are or are not state terrorism, not on the Cagegory:State terrorism page.
Zleitzen: That leads me to believe that you have no clear objective as to what would get labelled by your category and what wouldn't. Unless you can answer that straightforward question; "what should be in the category?" - then the debate is moot.
What is in or not in Cagegory:State terrorism is not going to be decided by either of us, Zleitzen, it will be decided by the wikicommunity. I can't answer your question definitively, so by your own conclusion, I guess this debate is moot. RaveenS
You are defining into a void everytime you define "state terrorism" with the word terrorism. Since terrorism isnt defined by any international body, UN, NATO, EU, etc. you arent really giving a definition. Its like if I said I want to make a category for "German gribbleflets", and said the definition is gribbleflets that are German ... --NuclearZer0 22:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong delete. This is an important subject, and it's important that wikipedia has an article on it, but the absence of anything approaching a consensus on the definition of 'state terrorism' makes it impossible to use it in an NPOV way as a category. The POV comes either in the category's definition of state terrorism, or (if the definition is vague enough), in its application. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RaveenS, the main promoter of this category has rebutted any serious questions about what pages would fall under this category, by replying "this is not the place to discuss other pages". If one were to work in academia, a library or as an archivist, or especially as an encyclopedia writer such questions are obviously paramount. Why is this question off limits here?--Zleitzen 20:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Seems like desperate measures if there's going to be a vote on this every week. The article, at least to me, Is neutral and favors neither sides of the conflict. The article itself is quiet well done and is intergral to the documentation of the conflict. Deleting this article will create inherent bias on Wikipedia, not only against the Tamil Tigers and the Eelam movement but also will be counter-active to all documentation of what is essentially a state mechanism built on terror. This article has come under scrutiny before, and though this not and should not limit your atempts to make a valid arguement against the article, the same arguements against it are being raised, arguements that were voted down last time. --Sharz 21:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is CfD not AfD, this is not about an article. --NuclearZer0 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Seabhcan --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 00:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a useful category. The concept of state terrorism is well-established. Seems like the major issue is whether or not a few individual states should be listed. This is no reason to axe the category. - F.A.A.F.A. 07:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again. Nobody in support of this category has addressed any of the issues. What is the "well established" definition of "state terrorism"? I've been reading about state terrorism for perhaps 15 years or so, and I am still unsure. And which pages would be labelled by this category? I'll ask the same question I have asked above. Would the page Cubana Flight 455, an act described as "state terrorism" by notable sources,[2] be categorised as state terrorism? No one has answered this key question. If supporters of this category are unable to answer this basic question, then it should be clear that they have no idea how this category could possibly work in practice.--Zleitzen 08:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Zleitzen's comment above: the supporters of this category all seem to be avoiding the core issue, which is that the article State terrorism#Confines_and_definition says "State terrorism, like terrorism, is controversial and there is no generally accepted definition". How can a category be NPOV when it is controversial, and how can its usage be NPOV when there is "no accepted definition"?
I don't envy the admin who closes this debate, because which there are quite a few recommendations to keep, I see no answers to those questions.
Yes, the concept of state terrorism exists, yes it is widely discussed. Personally, I would apply it quite widely: I think that the many "Western" states are guilty of systematic state terrorism, but that is my POV in a highly controversail area, and there is a widespread and well-argued view to the contrary. Without a clear and concise NPOV definition of what the term means, its usage will always be NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Inherently POV. I can't understand why people think it is acceptable to editorialise and blanketly label things like this?-Localzuk(talk) 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:State terrorism in a neutral term just like Terrorism, War Crimes and Torture, a Wikipedia category on Terrorism without a sub category on State terrorism will be incomplete and will breach NPOV as it will completely ignore terrorism by states and their proxies on civilian populations. State terrorism is an essential academic, legal and political component of the subject of terrorism thus needing encyclopedic documentation and categorization. We simply cannot ignore it. RaveenS 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
then such an "essential academic, legal and political component" would be easy to define and categorise. But what is the agreed definition? And which acts are "self-evident and uncontroversial" enough to go in a category? (see Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines) I have yet to read an answer to this.--Zleitzen 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia you are wrong, as Terrorism isnt a neutral term Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism. If you see point one where a citation is required to do it and further a context, meaning person X says Y, then you can clearly see that the requirement cannot be met in a category, no citations nor ability to attribute the accusation. --NuclearZer0 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the sake of NPOV, accuracy and simplicity, I propose we use Chomsky & Zinn as our guidelines as to what may or may not constitute state terrorism. Everyone agree?..... Good! Glad we got that settled. - F.A.A.F.A. 04:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per User:RaveenS.Travb (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:State terrorism (cont. 2)
edit
  • Strong keep. (changed to delete further down the page) I think it is ridiculous that this should even be considered for deletion. It is a perfectly valid concept. From the comments here, it certainly appears to me that the only people who has problem with it are those who has problem with specific articles appearing on the list. If you have a problem with an article appearing on a category, your target should be the article itself - not the category. If there is contention about the incident, then use the word allegations in the category and present both sides of the debate in the article itself. If the category is not as good as it should be, then improve it. There is no reason whatsoever to delete the category itself. --Anarchodin 05:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You write : "It is a perfectly valid concept". What is the concept? You write "those who have a problem with specific articles appearing on the list". Which articles? What list? You write "If there is contention about the incident, then use the word allegations in the category". You are justifying opening the cat system to definitions like "alleged anti-semites", "alleged Communist sympathisers", "alleged homosexuals", "alleged terrorists". Which appears to fly in the face of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Categorization, which say "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."--Zleitzen 06:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a few different points so allow me to deal with them individually.
1. State terrorism is a concept that has been around for over a century. Sure, there are debates about it but there are also debates about Christianity and Islam and many other concepts. People have disagreements as to what Christianity is and what Islam is and what fascism is and what anarchism is and so on and so forth but these are all perfectly valid concepts. They exist and the existence of disagreements over these concepts should not deter nor hide that fact. It's not as if some wikipedian decided to create a fictional concept and named it state terrorism. This is not original research clearly.
2. Is there something wrong with recognising that certain specific events in history have been alleged and described by commentators as state terrorism? This is not trivia. This is the sort of information that should appear in an encyclopedia and they do. Even here on wikipedia, we have articles on specific events that mention a description of it as state terrorism. We are not talking about the opinion of some unknown person on the street but of known and recognized academics, scholars and professors. People who study this concept of state terrorism. We are not talking about some random event that nobody has heard about. We are talking of a fairly small number of incidents that have been studied in great detail by numerous people. It's not as if every single incident in history by every single person can fit onto this category. Yes, I'm sure that there will be wikipedians who will add stuff here and elsewhere that really should not have been added - but that's the nature of this website. You can always choose to edit and improve the category, question the inclusion of any event or article, demand verification and citations and so forth.
3. I mentioned allegations because it is fairly obvious that most of these events - not all, but most - are controversial incidents in which one side denies the description of the incident as that of terrorism. But this should not be taken to mean that we have to delete and get rid of every single thing on wikipedia that is controversial. Abortion is controversial. Islam is controversial. Terrorism is controversial. People disagree. Work around it. I voted for the deletion of the Anti-Semitic People category because it is too vague. The name of the category itself does not differentiate between Adolf Hitler and Mel Gibson. I suggested a rename to something more exclusive - antisemites who have done more than merely harbor or express antisemitic prejudice. I think it is alright to have a category specifically for the Houston Stewart Chamberlains and Arthur de Gobineaus and Adolf Hitlers in history. State terrorism? I think it is exclusive enough. Not every single incident that every single state has done is going to appear on that list. It is specific enough.
4. I am aware of the wikipedia policies on categories and fully agree with it. Articles should not appear on a category page unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial - but that's not the issue. The problem here is that the category we are talking about is self-evidently controversial. It is not the only concept around that is by its very nature controversial. Many other controversial concepts exist - and many of them have categories right here on wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Full of scholarly, academic stuff. Stuff that can be verified. But out there in the scholarly, academic world is a field full of debates and disagreements. Encyclopedias should reflect that and not deny a concept merely because it is controversial. Race is a controversial subject - not everyone agree that the concept of race even exist just as not everyone agree that the concept of State Terrorism exist. Many people do not believe in the existence of an Aryan race but that does not mean it has no place on a category of race on wikipedia. Yes, people disagree on events and incidents that are labelled State Terrorism. People also disagree on music genres and all sorts of petty things. So what? State terrorism exist as a concept. It can be found in hundreds of books and other written material dating from the 19th century to our contemporary time. So what if there are disputes and disagreements about it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is supposed to reflect what is out there and state terrorism as a concept is evidently out there in the real world. So what if the category page can be abused and misused by scores of wikipedians who do not quite comprehend the concept of original research and verifiable information? The category might well not be perfect but if that is the case, improve it - not delete it. --Anarchodin 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A number of people have mentioned that there is no consensus on what State Terrorism is and by that alone, we should not have a category devoted to the subject. There is no consensus on what Fascism is either. On wikipedia, there is the main article on Fascism, another article devoted to just Definitions of fascism and yet another article on Fascism and ideology. Huge disagreements on what fascism is. Some of these definitions are clearly contradictory to one another. Yet I do not see anyone suggesting that we get rid of the many wikipedia categories related to fascism. --Anarchodin 08:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You write "Encyclopedias should not deny a concept merely because it is controversial." No one is denying the concept. I have written three article sections on different state terrorism pages so far on wikipedia. But each of my sections have each been cited, attributed and presented according to policies of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOR. A category cannot fulfil any of those fundamental neccessities. It implies guilt without any discussion, it labels a target without attributing who has made the accusation, and worse in my book, it circumvents any neutral discussion of structural causes that may (or should) take place on an article. It reduces complex dialogue to a buzzword. You are opening the door to articles being linked by increasingly dubious means. Close it quickly before it blows up in everyone's faces and we end up with "anti-americanism" appearing as a category on every article that features a nation, group or individual that disagrees with U.S. policy. By your rationale, that would seem to be legitimate.--Zleitzen 09:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a category not able to fulfil any of those fundamental necessities? What exactly is so hard about removing articles from the category that does not belong there? Surely disputes and disagreements can be discussed at the talk page? --Anarchodin 09:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your other point, I do not think the concept of anti-americanism is of the same quality as state terrorism - has it been around for over a century? Is it the subject matter of hundreds of academic, scholarly peer-reviewed books and essays? They might both be subjective concepts (what isn't?) but I do feel that state terrorism has a much more legitimate validity as a category on wikipedia than anti-americanism. You are of course free to disagree.
I know full well the category of state terrorism as it exists today looks awful. Compare this to categories on fascist individuals and fascist parties - we do not see all sorts of nonsense being added on either list. We know that there are people who think George Bush is a fascist but neither his name nor his republican party would be accepted on the fascist categories. Even though there is no consensus whatsoever on fascism. If that can be done on the categories on fascism, why can't that be done on the category on state terrorism? Why not work towards some sort of guideline on what articles and events would be acceptable on the category page instead of just deleting it flat out? --Anarchodin 09:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have asked numerous times what would go in the category - what guidelines would be workable. And haven't received any reply. The reason for that is because there can be no workable guidelines. Because "state terrorism" has no categorisable definition. No one on this page or any other has defined it clearly. I've been reading about it for years and I couldn't give you a clear definition. The state terrorism page admits it can't give a definition. Some bright spark started a "State terrorism in Syria" page. Without taking into account that every citation referred to State sponsored terrorism not state terrorism by name. So now there are two pages carrying the same allegations about Syria, a typical target of the kind of demonisation that will result from this category. I been watching this problem grow over the last few weeks, due to the zeal of one or two editors with no clear purpose, or a political rather than organisational purpose, and it is becoming a mess on numerous pages and issues. Just to reiterate yet again, categories appear without annotations. Therefore they do not meet requirements of WP:V. It is an allegation without verification. --Zleitzen 11:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, certainly. State sponsored terrorism not quite the same concept as state terrorism, yes. Other concepts such as terrorism and fascism have a similar lack of consensus as to its definition but categories on wikipedia exist - with some guidelines. I still think that it is possible to come up with some guideline on what can be included as state terrorism and what cannot. I just took at the state terrorism page here on wikipedia and I know I probably should have done that earlier. It is a quite pathetic page. Not much information there. There is a great deal of stuff about state terrorism that can be and should be added onto the main article - before we even create a category for the concept. As it stands now, I guess you are right that the category page as it exist today should probably be deleted then and I suppose it should probably stay dead until or unless someone improves the main article for state terrorism. I might well do that myself but I will need to brush up my knowledge on the subject. Kudos for having this civil discussion with me, Zleitzen. --Anarchodin 12:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking further, a list would also be much more appropriate than a category for this subject of state terrorism. One could mention and elaborate on disputes and disagreements on a list but not a category page. I'm changing my vote from strong keep to delete. --Anarchodin 12:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have to have a create a line through the grey area of NPOV articles about POV subjects. For me that is the difference between Category:Racism which we keep and Category:Racists which we don't keep and other similar pairs. This is similar to the debate now underway about Category:Anti-Semitic people which I and others think should be deleted, and Category:Anti-Semitism which nobody has proposed for deletion. The difference is that an article that discusses possible state terrorism, like one about charges that the U.S. is guilty of being a state terrorist, can be put in Category:State terrorism without there being a determination of the veracity of the charges, and is thus NPOV. Putting the same article in Category:State terrorists would be a POV decision. So the problem for me is not the category, but how it is defined. There is no problem with the category if it is clearly labeled as a receptacle for articles which discuss the topic, and inclusion in the category does not mean that the mentioned state is guilty of being a state terrorist. -- Samuel Wantman 20:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your comparisons aren't well chosen. This isn't the same as Category:Anti-Semitism or Category:Racism. Would you support a category that read Category:Hollywood anti-semitism or Category:Corporate Racism? --Zleitzen 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:L'Engle Characters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:L'Engle Characters to Category:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle works

  • Rename to conform with other sub-cats. Her Pegship 01:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. --tjstrf talk 06:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.

Category:Unofficial golf tournaments

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was I'll relist here in the hope of generating further discussion. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unofficial golf tournaments to Category:Unofficial money golf tournaments

  • Rename Most of these events are sanctioned by one of the professional golf tours that sanction the "official" events. The distinction is that the prize money does not count towards the relevant tour's official money list or order of merit. Hoylake 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but there's got to be a more elegant alternative than unofficial money golf tournaments. My first reaction to the proposed title was "What the hell is unofficial money?". Maybe I'm just dense! Pascal.Tesson 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_18&oldid=1223924019"