Nominator's rationale: This category is extremely POV. A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic... Jeancey (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
|
"A category containing only allegations of terrorism could allow for any country to be added, simply because someone once said that they were being terroristic"
- that seems to me like you're point to a content dispute, and if that happens you'll be urged first to revise the content neutrally. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Allegations, however, is very very broad,"
- Yes, so what? Wikipedia is not here to appease anybody. Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. One may easily de-categorise an irrelevant article or discuss on its talk page. It's not a violation of any Wiki-policies. Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.
There are categories with the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (e.g. Category:Islamic terrorism in India, Category:Islamist terrorism in the United States, etc) now we could also quibble about what does "Islam" means and who gives someone the right to label anybody as "terrorists" as opposed to "freedom fighter" or "martyrs".
Please, understand that as long as something is not a direct violation of Wiki-policy it can be on Wikipedia even if it unknowingly offends somebody. There is no deadline, nor there is a limit on the size of categories. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Who will clarify the difference between state terrorism and mere authoritarian governments?"- that's why we have something called de-categorization, Categorization of an article is not an irreversible step.
"And your proposed rationale contradicts your actions: you categorized Human rights abuses in Kashmir in here" — then just de-categorize according to your best judgement. Assume good faith and think it was an honest mistake. That's not a ground for deleting the whole category.
Wait a second, you asserted that categorizing Human rights abuses in Kashmir in this category was inappropriate. Both India and Pakistan have accused each other of sponsoring terrorism there and you are saying that it's inappropriate? WOW! Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)“Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.”
And because Standard article naming conventions apply to categories as well, when naming a category, it's perfectly okay to include the word allege as long as the article explicitly alleges what the category alleges. Cheers! Mrt3366 (Talk page?) (New section?) 04:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)“Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally”
Delete per WP:POVTITLE. This POV pushing needs to end in this topic area. --SMS Talk 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
|