Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 24 July 26 >

July 25[edit]

Category:Foreign relations of the United States by country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename before John Bolton gets wind of this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Foreign relations of the United States by country to Category:Bilateral relations of the United States
Nominator's rationale: After a massive cleanup of the 600 articles which were in Category:Bilateral relations all articles have been placed into categories in the format of Bilateral relations of Foo; this category being the only hold out. The category should be renamed to Category:Bilateral relations of the United States; there is no need for the by country as this is assumed by the term Bilateral relations. Россавиа Диалог 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom -- Though I was tempted to say something like, "I didn't know the US had Bilateral relations like other countries do -- aren't they all unilateral?" And of course, it would also be ever so appropriate symbolically for the US categories to be the only holdout (kinda like the real world :). Cgingold (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Unqualified "Terrorism"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep all. While there are good arguments on both sides, it seems as though these categories are not beyond some salvage. There are several alternatives pointed out throughout this discussion. Some suggested a rename of the categories - there were some concerns suggested about the proposed "political violence", but a longer discussion on the category talk pages could help smooth that out. If that doesn't work out, or even if it does, most of the criticism against these categories was based against the unspecific definitions of the categories, or the lack of reliable sourcing to support the categorization of various people. Looking at Category:Terrorists, there seems to be a rather definitive definition there, as well as a strong reminder to cite all inclusions. A tightening of these definitions, and some dedicated work into finding sources, can clean these categories up in comparatively little time. Looking at the number of people involved in this discussion, it seems there won't be any lack of people willing to do this. To sum up, a lack of neutrality is not, in itself, a reason to delete, it is a reason to improve the article/category. Granted, WP:BLP concerns can lead to deletions, however they also are not beyond rescue. I would encourage everyone here to seek some alternative to deleting these categories. Work out a better title for some, work on better definitions for others, and work on patrolling the articles better. Articles placed in these categories are likely to be POV battlefields anyway, simply due to their nature. Deleting these categories won't change that at all; however improving them could certainly help. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This situation has gone on long enough. There are way too many problems with these categories:
  1. They rely on various definitions of terrorism, none of which are universally accepted. Category:Terrorists‎ has the clearest definition, but it's still our own definition, which is POV and OR. Others use the definition from Category:Terrorism ("events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc.") which is so open as to easily allow for libel. Anyone ever referred to as a terrorist?! Yet these categories have not been applied widely to anyone ever referred to as terrorist, but rather, quite selectively, creating a glaring POV slant to the categories.
  2. Classifying any person/organization as terrorist is clearly one point of view. Because of this, WP:WTA suggests it "should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article" but since such qualifications are not specifically mentioned in the category (unlike ":Category: Organizations designated as terrorist by Government X") all of the above categories effectively DO use the term "terrorism" without qualification/attribution. It's my understanding that this is why "Category:Terrorist organizations" was deleted, yet we've allowed these other categories to circumvent that decision.
  3. Again, "Terrorist Organizations" has been removed, but incidents, victims of, etc, have remained, which is totally ridiculous. "Incidents/Victims/Counter-actions of Terrorism" all clearly state that the originators/perpetrators/targets are terrorist. You can't avoid libel by describing someone's actions as fraudulent instead of describing them as a fraud.
  4. Terrorists is problematic for reasons of libel. I don't believe we categorize people based on crimes they've been accused of, when they have neither publicly admitted it nor been found guilty. TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, following Themightyquill's comments above. Moreover, the word terrorist has become so widened in meaning, but is still so overwhelmingly negative, that it is more than likely to be misleading to a reader outside of a sourced, direct quotation. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too broad category, like Category:Dictators which was deleted a long time ago. - Darwinek (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Themightyquill gave most arguments. The terrorist of one is the freedom fighter of the other. So, these categories cannot respect NPoV in giving all point of views. An alternative would be to merge all of them in a category named activism or better political violence. Ceedjee (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well-written nom and Ceedjee's "terrorist vs freedom fighter". --Kbdank71 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, categories are POV magnets. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely you can't be serious (and don't call me Shirley)...Russian aircraft bombings of August 2004 was political violence? Or how about September 11, 2001 attacks, that was activism? To call these acts anything but terrorism is not keeping NPOV, but sheer...ummm....you don't want to know the rest. And this coming from me, one who is often regarded as a terrorist tree-hugger. The solution is not a mass deletion of categories, but attacking the issue individually on articles if and when needed. --РоссавиаДиалог 20:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. From my point of view, 9.11 was -of course- terrorism. And the invasion of Afghanistan was a normal answer to this terrorism. But for the Talibans and for most of the people who support(ed) them, it was a act of war in an asymmetric warfare against an enemy they don't have the power to fight. I would add that both terrorism and fight for freedom are examples of political violences : both use violence (whether legitimate or not) to realize a political aim (whether against good or against evil). Ceedjee (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. In fact, I would even propose a bot that alerts whenever a "terrorist" category is created. Hours of arguing over those categories would be saved. -- Nudve (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to things with "political violence", as Ceedjee more or less suggested. Ucucha 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Political and social science do necessarily include an amount of opinion. This lies in their very nature, as they are not mathematical sciences. Nevertheless, they are scientific disciplines; they form in scientific dialogue, discourse and sometimes consensus. Now while there may be some who argue that there is no such thing as terrorism, this can hardly be considered a consensus. Claiming that the mere description of existing terrorism would be "original research" and thereby invalid seems outrightly ludicrous to me. If this holds, we can move on to delete each and every topic of society and politics, as no point on any of these matters is accepted by absolutely everybody; there will always someone who claims that e.g. blowing up 3000 people is no terrorism, because blah blah blah whatever. I think it would be really destructive to push this, claiming to enforce a "neutral point of view". We arrived at a point here where alledged neutrality turns into neutralizing facts, for the sake of a misunderstood concept of political correctness. -- 790 ♫ 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone here say there is no such thing as terrorism? If they did, I missed it. Moreover, while political and social science may deal with scientific method now and then (mostly through statistical analysis), they are heavily muddled with narrative. Meanwhile, all Wikipedia categories are not overwhelmingly negative, politically charged, polarizing and yet so wide in meaning as to have little or none at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that statistical analysis was the only "scientific method" in the social sciences. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that there are perfectly valid scientific methods outside number crunching, that is: descriptive methods, and that social science without those is little more than administrative accountancy. Now, you claim above that the term "terrorist" was "so negatively charged" that it would be "misleading" to a reader. Could you give an example for that? Because if there is terrorism, as we agreed, I don't see why it shouldn't be called and categorized as such. -- 790 ♫ 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can disagree on how deeply the scientific method threads into the social sciences. The categories themselves are flawed and misleading because in encyclopedic terms the word has little or no meaning other than politically-driven threats of violence and murder (the dicdef). With sources like the ones found in Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States, if not for Wikipedia's widely acknowledged systemic bias, these categories could carry most criminal, politically militant and government organizations worldwide. The pith being, whatever you or I or anyone else might think of such an outcome, either way it's hopelessly PoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Not even close to all of the subcategories have been tagged as of this timestamp. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC) The tagging is done, so I've made a different vote below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did make a request for help on the talk page. Is there not a way to do this without me tagging them all manually? Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, unless someone has a bot that can tag categories effectively. Creating these categories would have been a lot of work so it's really only fair that it will be a lot of work to have them deleted. We can't do it without tagging them, which might take a lot of brute work. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number more and made a bot request for more help. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No response from anyone yet. I don't get it - are these all removed manually when a proposed deletion is defeated? There must be an easier way. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manually removed if defeated. You could look at AWB to assist you. Some admins might use AWB. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll install AWB, though User:Maelgwn was kind enough to complete the task with a bot. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because this tagging has taken so long, I'd like to suggest the debate be held open for a longer than usual for the sake of fairness. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - BLP landmine. Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no valid reason provided for deletion of the these listed categories, the unlisted categories with 'terrorism' in their name, the articles with terrorism in their name (categories are based on article content) or the word terrorism in the article content. Why is there no valid reason? Because terrorism is historical fact and no number of deletion attempts will stand up to 'are you kidding me?' test. Do some of the category names need improvement? Then come up with valid and thoughtful alternatives to contain the article content. Hmains (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How do you feel about the "political violence" idea suggested above? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term "violence" is also a subjective term, as some consider property destruction violent, while others don't, some consider self-defense violent, others don't. You could put every war ever waged in a category called "political violence", but plenty of people would argue against it. Murderbike (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, all words are subjective at some level, but terrorist is far more commonly disputed. "Violence" certainly isn't included on WP:Words to Avoid, while "terrorism" has its own section. TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is the word 'terrorism' that appears nearly daily in the news, not 'political violence'. When I see the term 'political violence', it is involved with violence perpetuated at political rallies, at elections, even killing your opponents. Political violence may rise to the level of terrorism, but only if a population of people feel a great deal of fear: they are 'terrorized'. The point of terrorism is to instill that great fear so its proponents can achieve their ends. Hmains (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Lots of terms that are not value neutral are used in newspapers -- people are described as "monsters" -- and I have no problem with referenced, attributed usage of the word terrorism. If Newspaper X says group Y is a terrorist organization, that should definitely be included in the article. Also, I haven't proposed deleting "orgs designated as terrorist by gov't X"... but the above categories don't attribute the accusation to anyone, so present a clear slant to the article. One side says "terrorist" and the other side says "freedom fighter" but neither should be a category. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be anxious to see any example of the term "monster" being used by a generic AP or Reuters story. Maybe someone might toss it out on the editorial page in a column or letter to the editor, but that's very different than something appearing in a news story. The term "terrorist" and "terrorism" appear in news stories all the time. "Monster" doesn't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, "monster" was an exaggerated example, (though it seems Reuters entertainment reporters can still call idi amin a "murderous monster") Better examples would be newspapers regularly using the terms "brutal dictatorship" or "totalitarian regime" to describe various governments, particularly past governments... but we certainly don't have Category:Brutal dictatorships or Category:Former totalitarian regimes... in fact, even the questionable word "regime" is not really used in wikipedia categories. Admittedly, these terms isn't used in newspapers as often as "terrorism," as "terrorism" is (understandably) of more interest lately, but the point remains the same. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:Vichy regime, but now I'm just quibbling. I do get your point, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the principles of WP:TERRORIST. That said, all these categories are not exactly the same. The Category:Terrorists, with all its subcats, should be speedily deleted per obvious pov/blp issues. category:Counter-Terrorism should theoretically be a legit cat, but i can see that in that case too there are obvious pov inclusion problems, probably best to delete that one as well. --Soman (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is legitimate subject for a category. I appreciate that there is a POV issue as one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but (if at all) that is a reason for renaming to something NPOV (if such can be found), not for deleting. Nevertheless, I think you could find a way of defining terrorist in NPOV terms, probably as a participant in non-conventional warfare, mainly attacking civilians (whether or not intentionally). This will probably exclude some groups that others would categorise as terrorists, but include certain WWII resistance fighters (probably controversially). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How do you feel about the "political violence" idea suggested above? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • With regards to Biographies of Living People, I don't see how this category renaming will help. If we say that someone is into political violence rather than terrorism without citing reliable sources, is that any less defamatory (or could it be even more defamatory, if genocide is also a form of "political violence")? Can TheMightyQuill give any examples of how this change will help with BLP?
Absolutely: Reliable sources in footnotes are important but so is inclusion of attribution to the accusation. According to WP:WTA, "Y says X is a terrorist" is preferable to "X is a terrorist" even if they both have footnotes. Usually there are two sides to such a label, but a category like "terrorist" is value-laden and and doesn't attribute the accusation. "Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by X" is better. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about the term "political violence" not helping with BLP, not about organizations designated as terrorirst by X (though I have concerns about the latter - if we go from citing neutral third-party sources about who is a terrorist to solely keeping track of who has been designated a terrorist by governments, what does this do BLP-wise to people described as terrorists by tin-pot regimes but not described as terrorists by neutral third-party sources?). Andjam (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will help because political violence is clearly provable. If someone admits using violence for political reasons, they can't deny that they've perpetrated political violence, but they can still deny being a terrorist because it is negative. With designations/accusations by tin-pot regimes, it still matters - it still has ramifications - even if the charges are ridiculous. If the Dalai Lama is designated a terrorist by China (I don't think he has been yet) it will more clearly affect his ability/willingness to visit Tibet. It also helps define what kind of definitions of "terrorism" a country is using - these categories actually reflect on the country doing the designating as well, whereas the above categories only reflect on the person being labelled a terrorist. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the Dalai Lama and Osama bin Laden being in the same categories be problematic BLP-wise? Andjam (talk)
    • With regards to "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter", I know that NPOV is an important policy, but it doesn't trump RS. For example, Wikipedia describes the Armenian genocide as a genocide, even though many Turks say that the "political violence" was not a genocide. That isn't POV-pushing or taking the Armenians' side, but citing reliable sources. Similarly, just because some people don't like something being described as terrorism doesn't mean we shouldn't do so. If NPOV reliable sources say that X is a terrorist group, we should also say that X is a terrorist group.
The difference between genocide vs non-genocide is a factual difference. Either it is, or it isn't genocide (although that's often difficult/impossible to prove). Some turks may deny that there was an intent to wipe out Armenians in Turkey while others insist there was. But people labelling a group terrorist or non-terrorist will generally agree on the facts of what happened, and (broadly) the intention of the actions. The only major difference of opinion is whether or not the actions were noble. That's POV, not fact. -TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral third-party sources are good at determining who is or isn't a terrorist - it's only when people start to lobby the media that their standards drop. Andjam (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my whole point: no, they aren't. The term is not neutral, so it isn't used by a neutral third party. Those who support an group are likely to call them freedom fighters, and those who oppose them call them terrorists. As an example, look at the various groups that the American government called "freedom fighters" in the past, but that they now declare "terrorists" without any change in behaviour. (Not to mention the difficulty in finding a "neutral third party" when most of the English speaking world is directly involved in a "War on Terror.") - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral third parties do use the word terrorism (by which I mean news organisations, not western governments). I did a random survey of news sources (using google news) for the word terrorism, and found that the majority of them were news pieces using the word unqualified, with most of the rest being opinion pieces. If neutral third party sources didn't use the term, I would have seen mainly attributed uses of the phrase. Andjam (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or simply, there is no real third parties. Else, would you please list them ? You said news : which of both these are neutral sources Fox News or New York Times ? And did you check Al Jazeera about Hezbollah terrorism ? Ceedjee (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On one hand, even if there's good-faith disagreement about the term terrorism, is "political violence" any better? The wikipedia article on politically motivated violence is a two-paragraph stub with weasel words and no references. What does the term cover? Terrorism, assasination, pogroms, genocide, political purges, international war, civil war, blockades, sanctions? Wouldn't this be too broad a category?
It wasn't my suggestion, but I think it's worth talking about. As for assassination, you'll note that many "(Nationality) Assassins" categories are now sub-categories of "(Nationality) terrorists" categories - de facto terrorist designation for assassins. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, I fear that changing terrorism to another term may involve getting onto the Euphemism treadmill, where something generally regarded as loathsome is given another name, until that term is also loathsome, in which it gets given another name, and so on. Andjam (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind, this is a discussion about deleting the categories altogether, not deleting the word terrorist from sourced text in an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean by "sourced text" text that cites reliable sources, or quotations of what other people have said? Andjam (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here is an article where a wp:rs secondary source draws some parallel between political violence and terrorism : List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s. Ceedjee (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citation doesn't even include a title! Andjam (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't write this article but it is easy to find : Political Parties and Terrorist Groups ,Routledge Studies in Extremism and Democracy), 2003. Ceedjee (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Andjam: Political violence is indeed broader. But on the other side, if we want to respect NPoV, we have to have -nearly?- at each time 2 categories for each article : terrorism (on one side) and Category:National liberation movements on the other side... Factually : both terrorists and freedom fighters use violence (often kill) because they are on the right side (from their point of view).
Genocide is something better defined : Genocides in history than terrorism. Ceedjee (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does NPoV mean to you? That if A says X, and B says Y, we regard each claim as equally valid? Andjam (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We give each of them their due weight.
I wrote 5 FA articles directly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and many others). I know what WP:NPoV means in theory and in practice. Ceedjee (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that "political violence" would have some advantages, but how to seperate it from violence perpetrated by a state? We don't want to include fullscale war here, do we? And would we include what some may call "state terrorism", but others rather see as legal action to maintain (some) order? Or just another example: when somebody is held in a facilty for illegal immigrants for a prolonged time, wouldn't that be "political violence", too? Or another example: would we put "Camp X-Ray" in the same Category as Al Quaida? The bottom line is that substituting the terrorism categories could resolve some problems, but would certainly create new ones, and I'm not sure if I like them better. -- 790 ♫ 10:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-state political violence? Not so difficult. I don't know what to do about state terrorism. I don't totally understand the term. I've been trying to start discussion on these categories for a long time with no success... basically no response. We definitely won't solve our problems by leaving them as is. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am not sure to understand :
We can have category:Political violence with different sub-categories such as state-owned political violence, activist groups political violence, Israeli political violence, political violence under Stalin, Hamas political violence, ... Ceedjee (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is written in this discussion that : "The WP definition of terrorism is the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal." It is not the case anymore but it seems interesting to point out. Ceedjee (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but it has the same inherent problems as the current definition at Category:Terrorist - our definition is our own, making it original research and POV. As an illustration, consider than there are numerous organizations which might be designated by governments as terrorists, or even criminally convicted on terrorism charges, which do not meet the current criteria. Does it make sense that groups targeting civilians in Iraq (where there is a state of war) should be excluded from Category:Terrorist, even though they are ostensibly the enemy in the War on Terror? What about groups like the Squamish Five which did not target civilians, but private property, but were charged with terrorism? Our definition is too narrow to fit common usage, yet to broaden it to fit common usage (eg. the def at Category:Terrorism allows inclusion of groups are not commonly labelled terrorists. It's impossible to apply a clear definition to common usage because the term, as commonly used, is derogatory not informative. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like the article "terrorist", it is a matter of individual debate which groups/incidents/people will be included on such a category - but it certainly demands to exist. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a matter of endless debate, because the categories have no legitimate restrictions. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to political violence or similar. The selective use of the term for years has rendered it almost meaningless except as a pejorative. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename - there is no definition of terrorism that will prevent massive edit-warring over these categories. Sarah777 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Coercive political violence" might be better than "political violence", as it restricts the field sufficiently to exclude acts that are not intended to have a psychological effect. However, it would encompass internal oppression by a government as well, which may or may not be desirable. Abramul (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - acts not intended to have a psychological effect illustrates the difficulties with the notion of "terrorism"; try getting the invasion of Iraq (remember "shock and awe") classed as terrorism! It is hard to argue that any violent act isn't intended to have some psychological effect. Sarah777 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It is interesting. In the category political violence we could have sub:categories with coercive political violence but also torture, restriction of freedom, ... We could go up to jailing or death sentence (which are some sorts of political violence in democracies) but let's take care of wp:or : I think the suggestion is really interesting and my comment is just a perspective for brainstorming. Ceedjee (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, with the exception of "counter-terrorism", which appears valid since groups and organizations self-identify as "counter-terrorist", few groups self-identify as "terrorist". Rockpocket 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I'd agree with that Rock. After all every side thinks they are the "anti-terrorists".
  • Delete per well articulated nom and arguments above. I also agree with RockPocket above that "counter-terrorism" appears to be an exception since these groups often apply the label to themselves, and are designate as anti-terrorist by Governments, etc. In a way, similar to the ":Category: Organizations designated as terrorist by Government X") category mentioned above. --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can certainly sympathize with concerns over Category:Counter-terrorism. I wasn't sure whether to add it or not. That said, please actually look at the articles included in that category, and those in Category:Anti-terrorism policy of the United States, Category:Counter-terrorism in Sri Lanka, and Category:Counter-terrorism in Singapore. If these categories are not deleted/renamed, or restricted in some way, they will be an odd exception to this batch of deletions. TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the better of two imperfect choices. I can't agree with the equating of the word "terrorism" with "political violence". Some terrorism is apolitical, in fact, its only purpose being to instill terror. Granted, it's a definite minority of cases, but the lack of a perfect overlap is problematic in my opinion. "Political violence" is also definitely not understood or interpreted in the same way the word "terrorism" is. The use of "terrorism" is imperfect, but I really think it's the best we have right now for the situations in question — any definitional issues should be sorted out by crafting good definitions for the categories, not by completely changing the term to something that's not quite the same thing in all cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What example of a-political or a-ideological terrorism do you have in mind ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing specific in particular, but the article Terrorism talks about six different "types" of terrorism that were described in 1975, and the list has become classic in the study of terrorism. The six types are (1) civil disorders; (2) political terrorism; (3) non-political terrorism; (4) quasi-terrorism; (5) limited political terrorism; (6) state terrorism. The classic example always given for (3) is that of a fleeing felon who takes hostages or hijacks an airplane as means to facilitate his escape only, but I'm not sure if that's quite on point, since it's easily classifiable as a non-terroristic crime. Perhaps better — you can imagine a situation where someone plants bombs, just because he's a dick and he likes to freak people out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of any examples of this kind of person, aside from maybe some James Bond villains? =) Preferably ones already in one of the listed categories? It hardly seems reasonable to accept what you acknowledge is POV for the sake of a few psychopaths who would probably be better categorized elsewhere. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something such as the killings performed by desequilibrated student(s) in some schools are an example of terrorism without any political context but I don't think we would look for these events in the category terrorism. More, let's not forget political violence is not intended to replace at 100% terrorism. The issue is that a terrorism category cannot respect NPoV (and in fact has no real sense in some cases). Ceedjee (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2001 anthrax attacks are an obvious example, but it springs to mind only because the suspected perpetrator just committed suicide and it has been in the news. To me, it was fairly clearly a case of terrorism. Without terrorism categories, what do we classify this as? A politically-motivated case of violence? Hardly—that would be making unwarranted assumptions about motivation. A garden-variety criminal incident? Hm—again, that's retroactively changing the reality as how this was seen and classified by almost all media in the world. From what is known now, the guy who did it was probably just a dick and liked scaring people. As I said, it's not perfect, but it's better than the alternative, which is worse. It's easy to find problems with it, but deletion is not the answer. Careful definitions and application of the category is better. Of course, that takes more effort that just deleting stuff, so people tend to shy away from it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming to "political violence" - In a basic sense, these categories are useful for editors and readers, though it is undeniable that they can be extremely problematic. However, renaming "terrorism" to "political violence" is not a viable solution. While doing so would make these categories less controversial, it would be no less problematic vis-a-vis WP:OR (it still requires interpretation as to the purpose of violence) and it would become virtually all-inclusive and therefore useless. The United States Navy and the Red Army Faction are both "perpetrators of political violence", the Third Battle of Ypres and the 7 July 2005 London bombings are both "incidents of political violence", and Nick Berg and Gnaeus Servilius Geminus are both "victims of political violence", but none of the pairs should not be categorised together. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actions of both the United States Navy and the Red Army Faction can be and have been terrorism. Yet there is no prospect of getting the latter truth included in en:Wiki. Thus for the sake of WP:NPOV we should remove the categories. Sarah777 (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make a blanket statement like that is POV in itself. The attacks would could be "terrorism" or "freedom fighting", depends on which side you're on. --Kbdank71 13:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though there is an objectively neutral definition of terrorism--the phenomenon of violence directed against civilians by actors other than states for political purposes, such violence being in contravention of the law of nations and/or the law of war (the state-directed equivalent being crimes against humanity, and arguably more severe an offense), I believe that the categories of "terrorism" just serve to provide opportunities for irresponsible editors--especially those without accounts--to mark incidents or individuals as "terrorists" that really aren't; the term terrorist has become a complete pejorative spouted by anyone attempting to discredit someone they don't like in politics..."terrorist fist jab" comes to mind, or the way "fascist" is (occasionally) misused by people of the reverse ideology of those who misuse "terrorist". These categories seem to be "feeding the trolls" when no such food is needed; they're already quite fat enough.Katana0182 (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't regard that as an objectively neutral definition. It isn't generally accepted. Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suggestion: we only keep the categories of "Persons convicted of acts of terrorism", or "Persons who describe themselves as terrorists" (there were some, back in the 1880s-1920s), and "Organizations declared Terrorist by X" where X could be the US, or X could be the Taliban. On a lighter note, if we decide to keep the "Acts of Terrorism" category (at the low standard where it is at right now, with ANC bombings of Apartheid South African military targets categorized as "terrorism"), that must mean I get to put the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT into the "Acts of Fascism in the United States" category, right?Katana0182 (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The best argument against all those who want to hide terrorism from WP is found in the terrorism article: terrorism exists, regardless of these editors, and needs to be as fully doucmented as war and crime are in WP. These categories contribute to that end. Hmains (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no "hiding"; just avoidance of POV "branding". All acts you regard as "terrorism" will be covered "as war and crime" if they are what you think they are. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody would delete your last comment, you would consider this as vandalism (a form of terrorism if accompagnied by treaths). I would consider this as a normal reaction due to what I see as a personal attack vs "those who [allegedly] want to hide terrorism from wp"... And on the other way, my own comment to you could be perceived as agression (a form of terrorism) while I feel this as a clever comment dedicated to make you understand the complexity of the issue. Same actions, different perceptions ;-) Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The arbitration committee has the task of judging what edits are legimate and what are illegitimate. Post-modernism only goes so far. Andjam (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Today on this planet, justice of God is far more feared and respected than ArbCom. The only problem is to find which one. Yours ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it should be documented. But the term "terrorism" is POV, and if we can't come up with a NPOV version of it, it needs to be removed. --Kbdank71 13:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't understand how I can be accused of wanting to hide the term terrorism. I just want it to be attributed, rather than used in narrative text. What's wrong with that? That's what WP:TERRORIST says should be done, and no one in this conversation has criticized that guideline yet. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is a rather sweeping deletion suggestion on a simple question of whether terrorism is an appropriate word to use in their construction. Whether these incidents etc. were the result of terrorism or not, it is important that the categories exist in some form so that people are able to find similarly themed articles grouped together. Rename from terrist/ism etc. if needed (although I personally oppose this on NPOV grounds; if the sources say that something is terrorist then it is) but don't delete categories that effect thousands of articles simply because some people might not like one of the words in the title.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fine in theory; but in practice the Wiki-editor demographic will ensure that the swath of media outlets in Iran, Arabia and beyond which describe the US/Israel as "terrorist" will never get a look in. Wiki is simply unable to maintain any rules or standards of NPOV when issues touch the core of certain sensitivities. Look at the article on 911 and see that there, every rule is simply ignored because US editors are numerically preponderant and are emotionally involved. We are either serious about the credibility of EN:Wiki or we are not. Personally, I suspect the majority are not. Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You opinion is all very well, and of course en:wikipedia inevitably has an Anglophone bias in some respects, but nothing you've said above is a valid argument to delete these categories.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will revise my vote if a new category scheme is suggested: I understand the argument about the definition of terrorism being to wide, but what will replace the categories removed from the article? If we have no better idea, the category should remain. Please let me know on my talk if an alternative scheme has been proposed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A base category of Category:Political violence has been suggested. If that was chosen, a lot (though not all) of the current content of Category:Terrorism would probably fall under something like "Non-state political violence." Criticisms of this idea have been mentioned above. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish Peronists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; without prejudice to future creation of Category:Peronists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish Peronists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant and dubious category. Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OCAT, even if there were more than 1. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Overcategorisation. - Darwinek (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. What is relevant in the fact a Peronist would -additionnaly- be Jewish ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first I figured this one was a real "eye-roller", but it piqued my interest. And it turns out that there actually was a rather interesting link between Juan Peron and Argentine Jews, as I learned by reading this section of the Juan Peron article. I also added another person to the category. But in the end, I have to say Delete this category -- if only because, amazingly enough, the obvious parent cat, Category:Peronists (or Category:Peronistas), doesn't even exist! Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Peronists? I would have thought there were several. Occuli (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you'd think so. I tried to find some, but didn't have any success -- mostly because the article on Peronism is on the short side. There might be a couple of names somewhere in the Juan Peron article, which is rather lengthy. Then again, there's always Juan himself, and of course, Evita. Cgingold (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Law enforcement workers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename, with thanks to Vegaswikian for sorting articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Law enforcement workers to Category:Law enforcement occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Everything related to a career specialisation is now categorised under Occupations. It seems that no category relating to employment and specialisations has the word "worker" in it; the exceptions are Category:Sex workers and the nominee. "Workers" stands out, and ought to be renamed to follow this very large category's naming convention. It essentially means the same thing but sounds more formal and structured. — Skittleys (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. No objections so why not? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. This is a subcat of Category:Protective service occupations and the rename makes sense. Hmains (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will note that the category actually included both workers and occupations. I have split out the workers so that this rename will not be an issue. In doing this I found that several of the categories and articles were not really law enforcement and they were recategorized into appropriate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Scientific and engineering occupations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scientific and engineering occupations to Category:Science and engineering occupations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Science" is broader than "Scientific". With the rename, social science-related occupations can be moved here. This is actually part of a proposal to restructure the science-related occupations so that they are all encompassed in one category instead of being distributed throughout Category:Occupations. Please see both the proposal and a relevant CfM for more details. — Skittleys (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's another current CFD that might be related: Types of scientist by nationality. --Orlady (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Students of composers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 15:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Students of Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Students of Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete Both (see added comment below) - As in the CFD for Category:Students of F. F. Bruce (not yet closed, but clearly supporting deletion), these are at best a dubious form of categorization (even in the case of J.S. Bach). However, I'd say both of these categories would make excellent Navigational templates. Notified both creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify both per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify (if necessary) then delete. The fact that some one was a student of JS Bach, will (if relevant) be stated in the article, providing a link. Navigation to the list (if separate) will not then be difficult. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do think this info is significant, and I would not want to see it lost to readers. I don't really think listification is a fully adequate solution, which is why I suggested converting both categories into nav templates -- which can then be place on each of the articles. I just wasn't sure I could specify that as a condition for deletion. (This is exactly what just took place in the CFD for Category:Lehman family, where I changed my !vote after a nav template was created.) Cgingold (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per precedent of the Brecht and Bruce categories, overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Turkcell Super League[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. Category:Turkish Super League is also a reasonable alternative but matching to main article should probably take precedence in this case. Efforts to change to the English name would best be focused on getting the article name changed first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Turkcell Super League to Category:Süper Lig
Nominator's rationale: Other related categories do not include the sponsor's name, eg it is Category:Premier League not Category:Barclays Premier League. Also, as Turkcell did not sponsor the league until 2007, it is inaccurate to classify many of the entries as relating to the "Turkcell Super League" specifically. Also, renaming the category now would prevent it having to be renamed in the future every time the sponsor changes, as it is bound to do over time...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Categories should match main articles. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Could it not be called something like Category:Turkish football league level 1 as it contains First Division articles, followed by Süper Lig ones? ('TFF First League is the second level of the Turkish football league system'. Turkey seems to have followed the England example - it will be the Championship in a few years.) Occuli (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The league was renamed in 2001, so those articles are in the correct category, and I think we should stick with the current name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the same league, just under an earlier name. There's no need to separate out pre-2001 articles and post-2001 articles into separate cats when it is the same league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is different - the Premier League was a new entity. The Super Lig was merely a rename of the existing first division. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, rename per nom - I am convinced. Occuli (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Turkish Super League. I am now convinced that this is merely a rename of the previous Level 1 divisions, but prefer the English wording 'Super League', prefaced by Turkish to distinguish it from other Super Leagues. Occuli (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Invertebrates of South America[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Invertebrates of South America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: With all subcategories with "invertebrate" in it - if needed, I will also tag them.

"Invertebrate" is not a term used in any scientific classification and it should be avoided. This categorization should be deleted and replaced with a consistent categorization based on phyla. Ucucha 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: added all other "invertebrates of" categories. Ucucha 09:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Using that logic the category dinosaur should also be avoided because it is paraphyletic (it excludes the birds). Like the dinosaurs the Invertebrates is a well acepted term in the scientific comunity, althought it is paraphyletic is still used because of the lack of other practical categories. Dentren | Talk 10:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Korean Guatemalans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Korean Guatemalans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, until we actually have articles for any notable Korean Guatemalans. The article Korean Guatemalan is already sufficiently categorized. PC78 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mammals in Colombia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Mammals in Colombia to Category:Mammals of Colombia
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Mammals of Colombia: duplicate, nomenclature with "of" is standard. Ucucha 07:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People executed by British India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People executed by British India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming Category:People executed by British India to Category:People executed by the British Raj
Nominator's rationale: In Indian context, the British rule is called British Raj, not British India. Hence Category:People executed by the British Raj will be more appropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are doing good job in these article and I understand your rationale behind this category. However this term is not used in India, this term is used throughout the world among the academia. Britannica uses this term [1], this term is the correct term, we should not avoid technically correct information only because some layman are ignorant about this. Those who do not know much about this can learn by reading the relevant subjects. This is an encyclopedia, not layman's guide. These people were executed by the government, and the government was Raj. Now general English speakers may not be familiar with the term Raj, but that is not a reason for avoiding factually accurate information. Finally I am again saying the term "Raj" is used in the academia and in scholarly sources, not only in India, but throughout the world, because it is factually accurate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing it would still make it inconsistent with all the other categories. That was my main rationale for choosing it — the accessibility and commonality of the term (which gets about 3 times as many google hits as "British Raj" (... although some of these are for a musical group called "British India")) is a nice side-benefit. And incidentally, I thought an encyclopedia was a guide for laymen. If someone is an expert in a topic, they wouldn't be consulting a general encyclopedia, but a layman certainly would. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Brown Greater Galago (oops, I mean Otolemur crassicaudatus :) - Given the 14 other sub-cats that all use "British India" rather than "the British Raj", are you thinking about proposing a rename for those cats, too, for consistency? (Btw, it's generally best to wait for the outcome of a CFD discussion before creating the new category.) Cgingold (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge is I think was Good Ol’factory is really suggesting. The two appear duplicate categories, and we do not need both. My only quibble is with the word "by": would not "in" be better? In any event, is this the best place to discuss the merits of British India v British Raj? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By" vs. "in": This category categorizes people by what authority they were executed, not by the location of their execution. Thus "by", not "in", is appropriate. It's not so important "where" people were executed — it's more important under what authority it was done. The Third Reich executed thousands (millions?) of people "in" Poland, but it would probably be more useful to say these people were executed "by" the Third Reich rather than "in" Poland. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Category:People executed by British India but delete Category:People executed by the British Raj. This matches the naming convention in WP for such categories. Change ONLY if all such categories were changed, which is not being proposed. Hmains (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:People executed by British India but delete the recently created Category:People executed by the British Raj (or make it a redirect). British India is much clearer to a general global audience. Occuli (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wynonna songs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wynonna songs to Category:Wynonna Judd songs
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Wynonna Judd (even though I think it should be Wynonna — all of her albums credit her as such, but that's another story). Note that her albums are categorized as Category:Wynonna Judd albums, so this category should match as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to match article and albums cat. Occuli (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. And no, the article should not be moved to "Wynonna" only. Yes, there are cases where a first name alone can, due to its unusualness, be safely presumed to refer to a specific person. In some cases the last name is widely known and used, even if it doesn't appear on the album cover for example most of Elvis' later releases did not say "Presley"). In this respect, Wynonna Judd is more comparable to Elvis Presley (than to say Prince Rogers Nelson or Madonna Louise Ciccone whose surnames are less known and rarely used). — CharlotteWebb 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_25&oldid=1136463360"