Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15

Category:BBC television channels in the UK to Category:BBC television channels in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename UK --> United Kingdom as per Wikipedia:Category renaming#Criteria (no. 5) --Daniel Lawrence 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed Honbicot 12:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Drug lords

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a new name, and feel the category might have an inherent POV, so I bring it here to get a community decision. User:Hiding talk 20:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call, but I agree the current name is bad. R adiant _>|< 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - but also coming up blank having just wasted 5 minutes of my life trying to think of a better name Sherurcij 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being oversensitive here. We're trying to think a of a new name because we recognize the obvious value of the category. While another more PC anme may be preferable, if we can't think of one, we should not delete merely because it might offends....who knows. Not good enough reason. Keep or rename. Don't delete.Gator (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category:Drug dealers Bhoeble 13:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Criminals

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In light of other renaming nominations, I'm nominating the rest of Category:Criminals for which I can see a suitable rename, so as to avoid any POV leanings. User:Hiding talk 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified rename all, with the exception of the last category. This rename would certainly clean up a lot of repeated POV debates we've had here in the past, and on that note is sorely needed. I'd rather not deal with the last category here, though... first, wordingwise it should be "...convicted of espionage," but that aside, the overwhelming majority of known spies haven't been arrested and convicted; they've generally outed themselves or been outed after completing their mission. I'm also mildly leery of keeping Spies as a subcategory of Criminals; I appreciate that espionage is a crime in virtually every state, but they aren't regarded as such to their home states (in which they tend to be well known), and besides somehow I can't picture James Bond in horizontal black and white stripes. Finally, I have a mild degree of unease about how these categories might apply to those who were wrongfully convicted. David Milgaard is not in Category:Murderers at present, but should he go in Category:People convicted of murder if the rename goes ahead? Is ~~Albert Dreyfus~~Alfred Dreyfus one of our Category:People convicted of spying but not one of our Category:Spies? The Tom 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per David Milgaard, as I understand legal proceedings, he has never been convicted of murder, his conviction having been quashed. He has however, been wrongfully convicted. So no, he should not be placed in Category:People convicted of murder. If your conviction is quashed or overturned or whatever the phrase is, it is deemed to be expunged from the record. One should not be in both categories, and perhaps a notice to that effect could well be a good idea. However, until such a conviction was quashed he would have been correctly categorised there.

Per spying, yes, espionage is correct, my fault. Maybe it is best to leave that one as is, remove it from Category:Criminals, and if neccessary, create Category:People convicted of espionage as a subcat of the two categorys. Note however that not all spies are heroes in their home country, Earl Edwin Pitts being an example. I'm unaware of who Albert Dreyfus is I'm afraid. Hiding talk 14:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred. Brainfart. I'm okay with your explanation re:Milgaard, in any case. The Tom 19:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cool. Hiding talk 19:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Against, needlessly confusing and wordy, when there are suspicions about whether somebody was guilty, they also get tagged to categories denoting "suspected cases of misjustice" or "wrongful convictions", etc. But what's next, claiming that "Pilots" should be thought to be "People who are commonly thought of as pilots, even though they preferred to simply be called Bob" ? It's like naming the 19 hijackers as "Participants in September 11 attacks", we make a judgment call on each article...if somebody disputes a specific article, we discuss it in relation to *that article*, not the entire category.Sherurcij 02:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sherurcij, please read up on the slippery slope fallacy. There are many people that are publically thought to be, say, rapists even when this has no basis in evidence (i.e. isn't verifiable). We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. R adiant _>|< 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all except Category:Spies as per The Tom. Valiantis 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with reference in particular to Category:Bank robbers; many of these individuals were never formally convicted, at least not for bank robbery. Kirill Lokshin 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So then what level of verifiability do we apply to the categorisation system? Hiding talk 19:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The same level we use for article text. If the article on John Doe contains "John was a murderer", he is placed in Category:Murderers; if the text is "Some allege John was a murderer", he is placed in Category:Alleged murderers. Adding the categories is then equivalent to adding the text into the article in terms of the level of proof required. Obviously, this means the determination must be made on a per-article basis rather than a per-category one; but it allows keeping uncontested assertions (e.g. "Blackbeard was a pirate") that aren't necessarily backed by legal proceedings. Kirill Lokshin 20:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you have with that is that it can quite reasonably be argued that someone is only an alleged murderer unless they have actually been convicted of murder. Hence the proposed renaming. For example, the article on John Doe can only allege he was a murderer unless it has been proven in a court of law that he murdered someone. That's the definition of murder, it is a crime, and you can only be said to have committed a crime once you have been convicted. Any other reference to murder is only alleged, and is usually couched as such for legal purposes, although once the John Doe is dead the law is less restrictive, and as a consequence people are bolder. That does not mean the need for certainty is removed in an encyclopedia. The renaming is essentially to clarify the purpose of the category and prevent any point of view pushing, confusion or possibility of a mistake that could lead to serious consequences. As to pirates, that's not actually here for renaming, so perhaps we can leave that one aside? Hiding talk 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was using pirates as an easy example, but we can leave them aside. A more concrete case related to the proposal above: Butch Cassidy. He was never convicted of robbing banks (although he was convicted of other crimes). At the same time, I don't think there's any real dispute that he was a bank robber; claiming that the robberies were only "alleged" falls, in my opinion, under the "extremely small minority" provision of the NPOV policy. This will, incidentally, also be the case for any criminals killed during the commission of their crimes—they obviously wouldn't qualify as "convicted". Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Agree with the nominator. /Slarre 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object, this change would make these categories useless for the large portion of human history where formal judicial systems were not in place. - SimonP 01:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looking through Category:Arsonists and such, you'll notice that it really is solely focused on people who *are* known as arsonists, just as Satam al-Suqami is known as a 9/11 hijacker. Nobody can *prove* undoubtedly that it's true, just like you can't *prove* that Abraham Lincoln was ever President of the United States - it's an impossibility, you can only rely on history, commonly accepted 'facts' and such else. In the event that somebody tags Adolf Hitler in Category:Murderers, that's a good reason to go debate that tag on his talk page. I mentioned earlier that I did the same here (I have to argue that Category:Wrongfully convicted people is a poor category for Joan of Arc, since it consists solely of modern examples of national judicial courts (separate from any church) who have found people like David Milgaard or the Birmingham Six guilty. Joan is a much different example, having been a combatant against the country. It could be argued that many saints fit the mould for 'wrongfully convicted', but I think we should leave that category unstained by arguments of which religion's martyrs were or weren't examples of wrongfully convicted people. Sherurcij 07:26, 3 October 2005). So far as I can tell, that is the proper way to deal with controversy over whether or not somebody Adolf Hitler should actually be tagged as a "Murderer", rather than saying the entire category should be called into question. What would you do for people like Charles Whitman where they undoubtedly killed people (killed 17 people, the sniper on the UT tower) but were never prosecuted because they were also killed? I think it's foolish to have to start breaking down categories even further into wordy and unhelpful choices like "convicted of arson", what if I don't think Iranian convictions should be considered real? what if I complain that Al Capone shouldn't be under Category:American murderers since he wasnt convicted on charges of murder? So I very strongly encourage that we keep the categories as they are, and simply rely on common sense to argue about whether or not to include specific people on certain lists if controversy arises Sherurcij 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Instead, any articles where guilt is not the accepted truth should be removed from the category. —Cleared as filed. 04:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ignores pre-modern realities and that there are many people whose guilt is not in reasonable doubt but weren't convicted for one reason or another, eg they died first. And the dead ones can't sue. Carina22 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the simpler format Category:Convicted xxx would be less wordy. Eclecticology 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per nom. Trödel|talk 13:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

More categories of lakes in states

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the preceding empty, redundant, misnamed categories of lakes. (See Category:Lakes of the United States for the proper categories.) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would a cat redir be useful? R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A cat redir for these would probably not be useful. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:New York State Musicians to Category:New York musicians

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usual rule is to add the qualifier of City/State only to New York categories about the City and not the State. Also usual rule to not capitalize the occupation of musicians. Caerwine 16:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I know it makes sense to Americans that way round, but I believe that to non-Americans an unqualified "New York" nearly always brings to mind the city rather than the state. It would be better to include both "City" and "State" in all relevant categories. So rename Category:New York State musicians. CalJW 23:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
support. I wouldn t worry about non-Americans (I m one) not getting it - simply give a blurb of an explanation at the head of the cat to clarify and keep the name simplified and as per nom. -Mayumashu 14:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominator. We don't use 'state' in any other categories (see Category:New York. For categories pertaining to the city, we use 'New York City' (see Category:New York City). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nominator. --Vizcarra 12:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Traitors to Category:People convicted of treason

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

The result of the debate was both found deleted --Kbdank71 15:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying people by their crime is not only problematic but highly judgmental. Saying that someone is a "person who was convicted of treason" sounds far less accusatory and POV than saying someone is a "traitor" (which universalizes the accusation). I think this goes along the lines of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories): "Some categories can be used in a stigmatizing way; always try to find the most neutral or generic name." Since the category description page specifies that this is only for people convicted of treason, I think the new name is both just as fitting as well as endlessly less problematic. People can doubt whether these people are "traitors" (with all of its moral implications), but they can't doubt whether they were "convicted of treason" (a relatively simply socio-legal designation). Fastfission 13:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've speedy deleted Category:Traitors. It has been CfDed and deleted twice already in the past. Even Category:People convicted of treason runs into problems, as a great many people today regarded as heroic, e.g. Charles de Gaulle, were convicted of treason. - SimonP 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Simon. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this one is a seperate issue since "traitor" is much like "terrorist" and open to interpretation - whereas Treason has a fairly well-defined parameter, especially if it's only referring to those convicted Sherurcij 04:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:People executed for treason? GCarty 15:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Austrian wars to Category:Wars of Austria et al.

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wars by country is inconsistent, we have "wars of xxxx" and "xxxx wars", judging from the Wars of Ecuador discussion below the former is preferable, although I think "Wars involving xxx" sounds better and is more accurate. A problem category would possibly be Category:Roman wars, possibly "Wars of the Roman Kingdom". <font color=darkgreen>'''''Martin'''''</font> 11:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistency with Category:Battles by country. Note that Category:Roman wars would need to be renamed to Category:Wars of Rome (and then split into Category:Wars of the Roman Empire and Category:Wars of the Roman Republic as desired). Kirill Lokshin 13:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Joshbaumgartner 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, with one proviso. Convention has been to use the construction "Ancient Rome" to refer the Republic/Empire in the context of a list of countries. So Category:Roman wars to Category:Wars of Ancient Rome — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tom (talk • contribs)
- In that case, you might want to propose renaming Category:Battles of Rome → Category:Battles of Ancient Rome. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedians that don't exist

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ridiculous as a category --Gurubrahma 07:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense, oxymoronic and/or vanity. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no more nonsense, oxymoronic or vanity than any of the other Wikipedian Categories, and at least it's good for a laugh. 12.73.194.62 19:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Martin 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as stated Sherurcij 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a category about Wikipedians that do not exist should not, by itself, exist. Tito xd^(?!?) 04:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see this being used as a parent category for Sockpuppets and Robots so it isn't totally rediculous. Caerwine 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious DeleteGator (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Palaces of India to Category:Palaces in India

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 15:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to the standard "in" form for man-made objects to match the other subcategories of Category:Palaces. Rename Category:Palaces in India. CalJW 07:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and add to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) as the convention for subcats of Category:Palaces. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buildings and structures in Montreal

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some categories which are not in the standard "in" form for man-made objects:

Rename all CalJW 07:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Osomec 15:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Buildings and structures by city

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 out of 32 that are not in the "in" form

Rename all CalJW 07:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Salt Lake City is the only city in that category that has a state/province/county ending as part of the category title. While there's something to be said for matching city article titles, this isn't the case for all the current denizens of that category, either. The Tom 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've amended the proposal. CalJW 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as proposed. Osomec 15:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Admin en to Category:Wikipedia administrators

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two categories have identical scopes, and one should be merged into the other one. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, though I'm not sure it matters which goes into which. Alternatively, Admin_en could become a subcategory of Wikipedia administrators, and we could theoretically have Admin_es, etc. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Wikipedia administrators" since that's the more comprehensive name. I'm not sure if we need cats for people who happen to be admins on another language wiki. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Wikipedia administrators" as the other one is weird. Osomec 15:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Overseas Japanese groups to Category:Overseas Japanese

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This subcategory is largely redundant, merge for easier maintenance and keep the shorter one. Mkill 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "overseas Japanese"? Please rename to something clearer than that. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category is about Japanese people and Japanese communities outside of Japan. We also have Category:Overseas Filipinos and Category:Overseas Chinese, so I assumed this was standard. Basicly, the category is about Japanese emigrants and foreign-born Japanese. If we use one of these we have to create two categories, so thats not a good option. -- Mkill 20:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Japan is also literally overseas as Japan is a bunch of islands. 132.205.44.134 05:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Plotting

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been moved to the Category:Charts category, this category wasn't linked properly to the article plotting anyway... it's barely a stub, and all of the plotting information is under charts. This cat is now empty. Sbwoodside 02:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#How_to_use_this_page III (3) are wrong... (weird)
- How are they wrong? Radiant_>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - probably not at all, I forgot to include "text = " which probably explains why it didn't work for me. Sbwoodside 19:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Final Fantasy summoned creatures

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Final Fantasy creatures. No need to subcategorize like this, and note that some creatures can be both summoned and regular, further blurring the distinction. R adiant _>|< 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that the two encapsulate fundamentally different concepts, and I also worry that the merger would result in a single category of unwieldy size. – Seancdaug 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a reasonable subcategory, with room for expansion. Christopher Parham [[User_talk:Christopherparham|(talk)]] 01:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Summoned creatures and regular creatures in the FF games are vastly different, they should not be merged together.--Banana! 01:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Banana! Osomec 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Iraq liberation opposition

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. I'm sure the Iraqis don't see it as a "liberation". The title of the actual article is even at 2003 Invasion of Iraq! This category is POV and should either be deleted or renamed. --Hottentot 02:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV title, and as even the POV text allows, those listed have little in common. Warofdreams talk 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons stated above.--Banana! 02:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why should this category be deleted when other inherently POV categories such as LGBT "rights" opposition are being kept? Can somebody explain the difference? /Slarre 02:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Real simple. In the months before Iraq was invaded, the debate was not about whether to liberate Iraq, the debate was whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and if they did how best to deal with that situation. People like Moore and Galloway did not oppose the liberation of Iraq, they opposed the idea that Iraq was a direct threat and the only way to deal with that threat was invasion. The idea that we were liberating Iraq only appeared after we invaded and couldn't find any weapons of mass destruction. AlistairMcMillan 04:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The motives behind the liberation/invasion has got nothing to do with this. Fact is that the only way to remove Saddam Hussein from power was with military force. Anyone who does not see the removal of Saddam Hussein from power as a liberation is nothing but a cryptofascist. Your description of Galloway is laughable, that guy was Saddam's best friend. /Slarre 13:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I not aware that I've ever described Galloway anywhere publicly, so I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. AlistairMcMillan 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You said that "Galloway did not oppose the liberation of Iraq", which is simply horseshit. Does this fine quote seem familiar: "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs... Where are the Arab armies?" ?
  - Re "Saddam's best friend": George Galloway was a founding member of the "Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq" in the 1970s and spoke against Saddam Hussein (while he was supported by the US and UK against Iran). Rwendland 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - He has also made several personal visits to Saddam and talked very friendly about him. What about this fine quote: "Sir: I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds [until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem]." [1] As if that wasn't enough, he also spent Christmas in 1999 in Iraq with Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister. To quote Ben Bradshaw; "(Galloway) had ... made a career of being not just an apologist, but a mouthpiece, for the Iraqi regime over many years." /Slarre 15:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does this have to do with a badly named cat? AlistairMcMillan 15:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I was just replying to another offtopic question. /Slarre 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- How simple do you need this to be explained? We did not go into Iraq to liberate it. We went into Iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. The people you are attaching to this cat did not oppose the "liberation of Iraq" because liberation wasn't our reason for going into that country. AlistairMcMillan 15:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again: The motives has nothing to do with this. The goal was nevertheless to overthrow Saddam Hussein which in fact led to the liberation of Iraq. It's simplte. /Slarre 16:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly POV. - SimonP 02:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely POV. AlistairMcMillan 03:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incendiary and overly simplistic topic headingcsloat 06:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV and incendiary. Rwendland 14:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this flagrantly non-NPOV category. —Lifeisunfair 15:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV title. Badagnani 15:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has yet answered my question: What's the difference (in case of NPOV) between this category and e.g. "LGBT rights opposition"? Why do people react this strong about this category, but not on the others? Wikipedia is clearly left-wing biased. /Slarre 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The people you are adding to this cat did not oppose the liberation of Iraq. Liberating Iraq is not the reason we invaded. Removing Saddam from power is not the reason we invaded. We invaded because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction. "Liberation" is only given as a reason now, because everyone knows know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. People are opposing this cat because it is badly named and implies that the attached people have opinions that they, as far as I know, have never opined. AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was not an answer to my question. /Slarre 16:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. One last time. No one that you added to this category opposed the "liberation of Iraq". This is where your cat differs from the LGBT rights cat, because the people on that cat DID oppose LGBT rights. Do you see the difference? AlistairMcMillan 16:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting. How do you define "LGBT rights" then? /Slarre 16:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. LGBT rights is an existing phenomenon that is clearly defined and people support or oppose. Liberation of Iraq is an event that hasn't actually happened, and is used as a euphemism for a war of which the legality is disputed. R adiant _>|< 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Opponents of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. It seems to me that there is potential for a valid category here; it is primarily the name that is POV (and the description within the cat!). I can't comment on the articles included in this cat as it appears to have been emptied... Valiantis 12:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename' per Valiantis.Gator (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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