Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3 June 5 >

June 4

American soccer players by State

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. - and was withdrawn by the nominator over a month ago. The Bushranger One ping only 06:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unlike Baseball players, American football players, Basketball players or Hockey players, American soccer players should remain in the main category American soccer players. If listing a players under both the main category and one of the subcats violates the categorization guidelines, then Category:American soccer players by state and its subcats need to go. – Michael ( talk) 21:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 21:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding the upmerge, I think the nominator's concern is - and one shared by me - is that these categories are being used by some editors to replace (and not complement) Category:American soccer players. In football/soccer, a player being from a certain state is completely unimportant, only nationality counts. Players do not represent their state, they represent their country (if they are good enough!) Therefore it is vital that all applicable articles remain in Category:American soccer players (and every other nationality category!) Giant Snowman 13:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • You get consensus from one discussion, then use that around the rest of the site. What point is there in wasting time & effort nominating dozens of these sets of categories - hundreds in total - for deletion if you don't know whether or not consensus exists to delete them? It also makes sense to have the discussion in one place rather than spread out over numerous threads. Giant Snowman 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All The parent category is rather large and breaking this down by state provides a rather clear defining characteristic that is an effective aid to navigation within the structure of soccer players and of people by state. Of course we can have an essentialist debate as to "what does it mean to be from a state?", "what does it mean to play soccer?" or "what if it depends on what is means?" Of course how do we define what it means to be from a country would necessarily loom over us if we were to delete these categories. Hoe exactly do we deal with this supposed BLP nightmare for all of the other categories that are broken down by state and other sub-national locations? Alansohn ( talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • No, for football fans/editors, navigation by state makes zero sense whatsoever. Your argument is incredibly weak; of course we can verify if someone is a soccer player. Of course we can verify if a player is American or not - you either hold nationality or don't. But if a player was born in Texas, and spent 5 years each in Oregon, Idaho and Alaska, what category do you put him in - all four? There is no "supposed" BLP nightmare, it is a reality - you are imposing categories on living people that are a) not supported by reliable sources and b) probably incorrect. The size of the parent category doesn't matter, diffusing based on a made-up geographical 'fromness' does nobody any favours. Giant Snowman 19:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, being American is more complex than you imply. One does not "hold nationality", one holds citizenship, but in actual use we do not limit American categories to citizens. Plus, lots of people hold dual citizenship. We categorize people by the state they are from, and even more specifically. We subdivide people by state into very specific categories. If you are going to upmerge these people not only should it be to Category:American soccer players but also to Category:People from Michigan and the other states involved, but we need to make sure that they do not already fall in other applicable sub-cats, so I think we would be much better to leave things as is. With the amount of soccer players and the amount of people we have from each state these are workable and useful subdivisions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:23, 6 June 2013 (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.

History of Upper Volta

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. I will note that the point was raised about the results of {{estcatCountry|xxx|x|country name}} being used. If that template is not appropriate for any category it does not have to be used, so bad parent categories created by that category should not hold back otherwise proper changes. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename, and sub-cats should follow. This started as a speedy (see below) for Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta, which does not match others of the period in Category:Establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta by year, since they use "the Republic of". Rather than harmonising that one, the Speedy discussion pointed to a discussion on using the short name. The point of using " Republic of Upper Volta" is to disambiguate it from the French colonial period which in Wikipedia is called French Upper Volta, see Category:Establishments in French Upper Volta by year. However, in both those periods it was actually known simply as "Upper Volta", and the split does not help navigation. (Since 1984 it is Burkina Faso.)
Alternative: If this proposal is rejected, then I suggest that the original speedy proposal for renaming Category:1960 establishments in Upper Volta to Category:1960 establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta should be approved instead. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy discussion on 1960 establishments in Upper Volta
Question 1: Is it necessary to tag all the sub-categories, or can they be speedied if this is agreed? – Fayenatic L ondon 19:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
For example, the 1910 category includes Grand Theatre, Poznań, which was clearly established in Germany, even if where it was established is now in Poland. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
How is that relevant when we are not dealing with an entity whose borders changed at all? We are not faced at all with problems of "where was it then" vs. "where is it now"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2013 (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:Video games based on retired National Hockey League players

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 to Category:National Hockey League video games. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:00, 4 June 2013 (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:Motley's Crew

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 (it has already been emptied by its creator).
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article and unfree media. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 18:59, 4 June 2013 (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:1989 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

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. Fell free to add other parent categories and redirects as needed. The higher level can be a new nomination or wait and see if the RFC provides any guidance. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
John assumes that all our readers are not "geographically challenged" I do support this however given he is entirely correct. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I did not see that mess, because I was only looking at the establishments cats, and I only found one by year in the relevant setting. We generally categorize things by the applicable historical name, so I see no reason to ignore Zaire, when we have Dahomey and Upper Volta categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, the "we generally categorize things by the applicable historical name" is a fairly recent trend, and on balance it's not applied more than the alternative. Personally, I see no problem in referring to current names in the historical context. Users would (rightly) assume that that refers to things that went on within the current borders of that state in the year XXXX. Especially when there are no territorial changes to consider—Zaire→DRC was just a name change—I don't think it's a big deal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Not sure the trend is that recent, see for example Category:Years in the Thirteen Colonies which has been around since 2007, and Category:Years in Great Britain (as opposed to United Kingdom) since 2006. I think just its just cropped up at CFD a lot recently due to the establishments by country and year being created and populated. Tim! ( talk) 06:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
All contents of Category:1770 establishments by country are either using 1770 names, sub-cats of things using 1770 names, or in the case of Ireland reflecting a unity of country that no longer exists (we have Category:1936 establishments in Northern Ireland, while at the same time Category:1936 establishments in Ireland does not have any sub-cats). We clearly use the boundaries of the time. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm not talking about instances in which boundaries have changed. The boundaries of the DRC did not change when it was renamed Zaire or when it was renamed back to DRC. There are plenty of examples where we use the current name when nothing changed but the name of the country. See, eg, Category:Years of the 20th century in Belarus. Belarus was the Byelorussian SSR for many of those years, but the boundaries have not changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Additionally look at the categorization of Haus der Technik, which clearly shows we are applying Category:1925 establishments in Germany to reflect its 1925 boundaries.
Actually, if you want to get technical, your examples kind of prove my overall point. By WP naming convention, "Germany" was the German Empire in 1910 and the Weimar Republic in 1925, but we don't use "German Empire" or "Weimar Republic" in the name of the categories. But anyway, I'm not referring to issues of boundary changes at all; it is an irrelevant issue to this rename, since the boundaries of Zaire were identical to the boundaries of the DRC. Shifting German boundaries are an entirely different matter. Not sure why exactly the 1770 categories are relevant at all; this one is from 1989. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
However at all times the generally used name was "Germany". Germany was the understood and used name of the place in 1925. In 1989 Zaire was the understood and used name of the place. You are confusing names used to distinguish articles that cover specific periods of time with names used to refer to the country. A 1925 Encyclopedia would have the article at "Germany". My 1990 Britannica has the article at Zaire. To use any other identifier for the country in that year is just plain incorrect. It is so Zaire, that the map of Africa on that page can say "Congo" alone on the country to the West. I would not advocate renaming to using Congo, because Congo is way to ambiguous, but when we have an article Zaire it makes much more sense to reflect the reality of 1989 and use that name. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, now you're just freewheeling and mixing outside, common usage with Wikipedia usage. If you want to play that game there's almost nothing that can't be demonstrated. I can find sources that refer to this country during the Zaire years as "Congo (Kinshasa)" and even "DR Congo". "Germany" was commonly used pre-1871 as well, but you're on record of not accepting that approach either, so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Rename this and other categories listed above: Zaire→DRC was not "just a name change". The government was overthrown and replaced. groupuscule ( talk) 22:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • When I referred to "just a name change", I was referring to the fact that there were no changes to the territorial boundaries of the state. Of course, there are always internal changes which precipitate name changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Well, you have said "the boundaries of the DRC did not change when it was renamed Zaire or when it was renamed back to DRC". But these two events are quite different. The Congo was named "Zaire" by Mobutu in 1971, after he had already held power for six years. So I think there's a good case to be made that the government did not change, and that Zaire under Mobutu is a state dating from 1965 to 1997. On the flip side, the territorial boundaries of the USA have changed many times with no regime change. On another flip side, regime change doesn't always change the name of a country... as reflected by its Wikipedia article. For example there is continuity within Category:Establishments in Iran by year (and the Wikipedia article about Iran is called Iran) although the state was renamed to "The Islamic Republic of Iran". But in this case, one can't say " Congo" ... in conclusion, I'm going to Slowly Back Away from this discussion because I think we need need to replace the "Category" system and I'm not sufficiently invested to try and "fix" it for this case. :-) Good luck, groupuscule ( talk) 01:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. If the other similar categories are not going to be nominated in tandem, I would change my !vote to a straight "oppose". I see no benefit of changing one category our of 15-odd that exhibit the same issue. I liked your conclusion, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support nominator - we should use the historically accurate name of the country. If we keep the category at '1989 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo' then it should have a population of zero as there was no country called 'the Democratic Republic of the Congo' in 1989. Giant Snowman 09:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Support nom -- Categories should use the contemprary name for the country. It will need a follow-up per Good Ol’factory. We should be using Belgian Congo to 1960; Congo (Leopoldville) 1960-66; Congo (Kinshasa); 1966-71; Zaire 1971-1997; and DRC from 1997. This is simialkr to the case made for Upper Volta above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The above calling on Germany is a classic example of bait and switch. What was the common named of Germany in 1910, 1925 or 1942. Germany. What was the name people used to refer to the country under discussion here in 1989? Zaire. To call it anything else is to incorrectly represent what the actual name at the time was. Germany was Germany in 1925, Zaire was the name of the country in 1989. Additionally the boundary change issue is not the one that was brought up above. We have on multiple occasions decided to rename things to reflect the name at the time involved, such as using Dahomey. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This was the only sub-category of Category:Establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by year specifically from the time frame when Zaire was the name used for the country. Thus it is clearly a specific case calling for specifically answering its specific issues. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
In March of last year we had a CfD where we decided to rename various by year in Benin to by year in the Republic of Dahomey categories. That seems like a strong precedent for this action. That name change also did not involve any boundary change. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have now made a motion for renaming all the year in categories effected by this as well. As I said there, both my 1994 Oxford World Atlas and my 1989 Times Atlas of the World refer to the country as Zaire. The sources I have found are all clear that Zaire is the name of the place at that time. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The principal firs off in such categories is "what was the place called at the time", and only look to other ideas when that does not work. Using Zaire for the years Zaire existed is a perfectly workable solution, so we should adopt it. In the same way in 1925 the country was known as Germany. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to [[ Category:1989 establishments and Category:Establishments in Zaire, and Category:Establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This comment ignores the fact that these are just establishment by place and year of founding cats. Some of the contents that appear in these categories are things that later were moved to other places. We are saying the thing was established in a given place in a give year, not that it was always in that place. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you mean that there are cases where subjects were established in, 2000 in country A (which is now still country A), and that they operated from there for 5 years, and then they move their base (headquarters) to country B (which was country B in 20##, and is still country B) .. so such a subject would be classified as Category:2000 establishments in B?? And now mix in that the exact location of founding is in an area and in a time where country borders are redefined every so many years .. These categories become less correct the more examples are being brought forward ... -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Although things that move from one base to a new base in a different polity have rarely been placed in a second establishments category, but even a short look at Category:Companies established in 1998 will show things that were established in one place and are now headquartered in a different one. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:02, 18 June 2013 (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:Celebrity-endorsed video games

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Trivial association--being endorsed by a celebrity is not a type of video game. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete Why was it even created? Frankenstein had an excuse at least. Darkness Shines ( talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: Why? That's a good question... See the category-"creator's" talk page (archives) and you will know what I'm talking about... He's a pain. Yet he still insists on creating these useless pages/categories, making Wikipedia a confusing/lame place. And he doest not stop. He has been warned many times by different editors, yet he keeps doing the same kind of edits. -- 31.22.164.142 ( talk) 17:55, 4 June 2013 (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:Disney videos and DVDs

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 to Category:Disney films. Consensus was actually for a delete, but that would have left some articles without a parent in the Disney or film tree. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is this? Just things that have been released on VHS, Betamax, or DVD by Disney? And why is it named "videos and DVDS"--are those contradictory? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:58, 4 June 2013 (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:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

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. As was pointed out, the main article was deleted for violation of NPOV. It has been deleted 6 times. So if the article title has POV issues, then that would apply to the category also. If the existence of the article can be fixed, then we can review the appropriateness of a category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This Category is not required at all, we have multiple categories like "Persecution of Muslims", "Riots and civil disorder in India" ,"Religious violence in India" to cover the same thing. The articles covered in this category are not even pogroms sarvajna ( talk) 07:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
They have been described as pogrom by a handful of people, For example you added Paul Brass's view, they are not considered as pogroms in general.- sarvajna ( talk) 08:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry no, Gujarat 02 is commonly defined as a pogrom and there are thousands of academic sources which say that the most recent being Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Nellie, "Undoubtedly, the Nellie massacre is one of the single largest and severest pogroms that the post-World War II history has witnessed." The Fleeing People of South Asia: Selections from Refugee Watch Forced migration in the South Asian region: displacement, human rights and conflict resolution calls it a pogrom, Peace Studies: An Introduction To the Concept, Scope, and Themes calls it a pogrom and with good cause when 5000 mostly women and children are butchered. Every article in the cat can be backed be plenty of sources which call those barbarities pogroms, as that is what they are. Darkness Shines ( talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok, let us consider Nellie, a political party A was in power when the violence occured, a different party B(it was not really a political party before violence) was accused of being party to violence(too many party).Now the party B comes to power after violence, so was this is pogrom? What is the general term or view, it is not pogrom for sure. Of course you can find sources but they are not enough to call these incidents as pogroms. I don't think we should discuss these things here as they are best suited for the article talk page. Unless it is proven that these were pogroms they are not suitable for this Category and Category itself is not required as there are no proven cases.- sarvajna ( talk) 11:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Let us invoke common name. None of the riots or incidents added to this category are commonly referred to as "pogroms" by general media.
I would also like to direct uninvolved users to read this, where DS wanted to move the article about 2002 Gujarat violence Google HITS to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 Google HITS. It didn't happen so he created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources that suit his cause while omitting other-sides of the argument like the cause and the steps Government took in the aftermath of the riots mentioned there. Then the category was created and here we are. "Pogrom" has different connotations from the words "violence" or "riot". Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Darkness Shines makes it seem the Gujarat violence was a "pogrom"-thing as of now. The trigger cause of the violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. Post-2002 Gujarat violence a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, the perpetrators weren't acting with impunity. How come, after all this, Gujarat ′02 violence is still a pogrom? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 15:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Funny. Because I use academic sources over newspapers you say the MSM do not refer to these as pograms? Let us check that claim, The Hindu 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom Asian Tribune Five years after 2002 Gujarat pogrom: While the victims languish, the perpetrators go unpunished Daily Times Periodic anti-Muslim riots and pogroms The Hindu again the 2002 Gujarat communal violence and anti-Muslim pogrom The Milli Gazette a massive anti-Muslim pogrom was unleashed in Nellie in 1983 And all the others can also be sourced vis the MSM. Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a soap box, Darkness Shines. Your cause is great but go take it up somewhere else. You are cherry-picking sources.
Also http://www.dailytimes.com.pk ← is a Pakistani website. We have seen more often than not that Pakistani websites are not neutral when comes to reporting about anything related to India, let alone a violent incident between Hindu-Muslims. Without irrefutable proof usage of the word "pogrom" is inherently a matter of opinion. None of the listed incidents are commonly labelled as "Pogroms". No matter how hard one may try to change that fact it is not going to change. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Really? The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" Darkness Shines ( talk) 07:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Then, let's take the biggest story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
Google returns 478,000 hits for " 2002 Gujarat violence"
Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for " Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002".

DS, you're cherry-picking sources to suit your conclusion that is patently tendentious editing. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply

See WP:ILIKEIT. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
We already have Persecution of Muslims and Religious violence in India. - sarvajna ( talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Mar4d, did you miss the following portions of the page WP:CAT where it said, "Standard article naming conventions apply" or "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view", or "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (italicized in original) or that "editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles"? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Naming is not the only issue, the issue is that the category is redundant. There are already several categories for the same thing. How would it result in hiding the facts if this category is deleted?- sarvajna ( talk) 15:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
John, the article is also something to be considered. Almost all of the various incidents covered in that particular article are NOT considered as "pogroms". Isn't it? Shovon ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Every source in the article of the same name? Or the sources I presented above? Darkness Shines ( talk) 06:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
That won't be enough actually because these are not "pogroms". The use of the word "pogrom" is in itself an innuendo. For instance, the vast majority of the sources don't refer to 2002 Gujarat violence as "2002 Gujarat pogrom". Same goes for 1989 Bhagalpur violence, Nellie massacre which are not pogroms. These are very controversial articles and must not be categorized without solid proof (by proof I mean a successful conviction, not mere accusations) that authorities officially instigated it while being the ruling side and police sat by and watched idly. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 06:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As soon as I saw that Mr T, among others, write that he thinks Pakistani websites are not neutral because they're not Indian is when alarm bells started to ring - from what I've read above, there is persistent drama or drama-to-be arriving here from this user. News websites are news websites. They are always somewhat partisan. And neutrality cannot be determined from merely saying they are Pakistani alone. Besides this, I'm with Darkness Shines on this one for the issue at hand - he argues a good case for inclusion, whereas others are putting forward a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The definition of pogrom stands; they bear striking similarity to those that were seen in Russia and in other nations in days past. Cut the drama, quit the word-play, this is not a war of words. It's more than obvious, and frankly quite a little ridiculous, the word "pogrom" is bringing such emotion to some people that they're beginning to become wikilawyers for the sake of a mere word. Pogroms happened. Deal with it. NarSakSasLee ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
"there is persistent drama or drama-to-be arriving here from this user." - KINDLY FOCUS ON THE CONTENT, not the editor. Since you've questioned my intentions here allow me to place an observation, the vehement support you display for the use of the label "pogrom" while describing the Hindu-Muslim acts of Inter-faith violence in India, including '02 Gujarat riot which was triggered by the slaughter of 59 Hindu pilgrims and included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court, gives away your neutral inclinations.
I have produced enough evidence that the common label for referring to the haphazardly enlisted incidents is not "pogrom".
"News websites are news websites. They are always somewhat partisan." — says NarSakSasLee. Besides, some are more partisan than others when it comes of violent incidents between Hindus-Muslims in India. Not everything is equally reliable. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 07:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
And what makes you believe that Category:Persecution of Muslims cannot have a subcategory that is exclusively India-specific? Mar4d ( talk) 16:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@Mar4d: after all this what could possibly make you think that "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India" is an acceptable option? Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 16:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@Mar4d: Category:National presidents gets subcategorised as Category:Presidents of Pakistan and not as Category:Presidents of Pakistan who detest Hindus. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 17:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Still don't understand what point you're trying to make. I think what I stated is quite simple, that there needs to be an India-specific category on Persecution of Muslims and we have a number of relevant articles that can be categorised in it. The category's name can be proposed to be changed, but outright deletion is not the way to go. This seems to be an attempt of censorship. Mar4d ( talk) 04:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Persecution of Muslims doesn't mean pogroms against Muslims, Dharmadhyaksha gave a perfect example.- sarvajna ( talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
@Mar4d: If you mean this category should be renamed to Category:Persecution of Muslims in India, that will be rolled under Category:Persecution of Muslims by country. And what else will this main category have other than India? Being host to only one country, it will be CfDed and very likely be deleted and then "in India" will stand just as a separate category without any sense. Check how Category:The Holocaust by country has 29 subcats per country. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Simple, Category:Persecution of Muslims in India will be a subcategory of Category:Persecution of Muslims. There is no need for CFDs or any more drama. Mar4d ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Why do you need to have this specific focus on India? I mean, why single India out? What, you really believe Muslims are not facing violence, discrimination anywhere else? Do you know how Ahmadis and Shiites are treated in Pakistan itself? You claim to be from Pakistan you should know better. Mr T (Talk?) (New thread?) 12:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Questions:
  • What is a pogrom? Why does our article say that pogroms are mostly targeted against Jews? Why doesn't our article include/discuss violence against indigenous and Black Americans?
  • Are there words besides "pogrom" that would describe these events more fairly?
  • Is there anti-Muslim violence in India that does not manifest as "pogroms"?
  • If Pakistani news media are unreliable on this topic, what nation's news media would be reliable? Should we exclude US and Israel news media from discussions of Palestine? Why is there so little discussion of Israeli violence against Palestinians? Why is state-sanctioned anti-Palestinian mob violence never described by Wikipedia as a pogrom? (Try a web search for "Acre pogrom"; see what Wikipedia says about this event at Acre, Israel.) What about Israeli violence against others?
  • Peace? groupuscule ( talk) 18:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Why has my comment been flagged as off-topic? I am challenging editors to define "pogrom" and to articulate the rules by which events are classified as such on Wikipedia. I believe this discussion is completely germane to the question of "anti-Muslim pogroms"—and, indeed, that we cannot answer the question posed here without engaging in this deeper discussion. Thanks, groupuscule ( talk) 13:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Pogrom has come to have a wider meaning. It is widely used to refer to the attacks on Armenians in Azerbaijan in the early-1990s for example. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
This is an issue I have addressed in greater depth above... but my comment has been censored. Would someone kindly remove the "off topic" label and restore my comment to the general discussion? Thank you. groupuscule ( talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
You comment was flagged because it brought up the not at all related issue of Israel. We are talking about India here, not Israel. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The fact that not everyone calls it a pogrom does not mean that is not the accepted way to refer to it. I think the wide and dispersed sources referring to it as a pogrom make clear that it is within the accepted definition of the term. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:01, 10 June 2013 (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:Modern military vehicles

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
merge to Category:21st-century military vehicles. DexDor ( talk) 15:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary as we have Category:Military vehicles of the post–Cold War period and Category:21st-century military vehicles. The word "modern" is highly ambiguous and does not have a constant meaning. DexDor ( talk) 05:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The M970 article shouldn't go into Category:21st-century military vehicles. I haven't found an RS with a date of entry into service, but this [4] indicates they were being made in 1993. DexDor ( talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC) (I've removed that article from the category as M970 goes back to 1980s at least). DexDor ( talk) 15:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Military periodisation should use military history periods used by military historians and standard periods, so merge to both categories (post-Cold War and 21st century) -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 06:11, 9 June 2013 (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:Host cities of the Olympic Games

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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Having hosted the Olympic Games (or eany other sporting event) is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about a city. This is an event category (which fails WP:OC#VENUES) and/or an award recipients category (which fails WP:OC#AWARD). We don't categorize cities by things like whether a city has an underground (metro) system or whether it has ever been beseiged which (IMO) are much longer-lasting and significant characteristic (although also not strictly a WP:DEFINING characteristic). These categories are not part of a wider "Host cities" category tree. It doesn't make sense to put an article like London under Category:Sports; it's not under similar categories for religion, science, art, warfare etc. Also, articles like Örnsköldsvik, Stoke Mandeville and Geilo shouldn't be under Category:Cities. For info: Previous CFDs of host cities categories include this and this. There are lists at Summer_Olympic_Games, Winter_Olympic_Games and List of Paralympic Games host cities. DexDor ( talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I assume the links to the lists is for information only as lists and categories covering the same subject is common.
    Question: Is London in officially considered to be category:sports because a category it is in eventually "reaches" this category?
    I'll admit the categories nominated fail WP:OC#Venues (as would e.g. Category:Olympic athletics venues, though that clearly is a defining characteristic). As Academy Awards can be exceptions to WP:OC#AWARDS, it conceivable it would be reasonable for the Olympics to be an exception to the venue rule. In order to conclude I reviewed the categories currently on London, Beijing and New York City. My view is that "Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games" doesn't look out of place at London and Beijing, but that "Category:Summer Paralympic Games host cities" looked out of place for Beijing (if kept it certainly shouldn't be first) and New York City. My concusion is that I think the Olympic ones should be retained as the Olympic status is memorable, and (though not "defining" in most cases) widely used and remembered, whereas the Paralympic ones can be deleted as, in modern cases the city also hosted the Olympics, or in older cases the city is not widely remembered as a Paralympic host. 85.167.109.26 ( talk) 23:28, 4 June 2013 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_4&oldid=1139196017"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE