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 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:New England Marching Bands
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as an arbitrary and unnecessary grouping: arbitrary because
marching bands are neither a distinctive characteristic of
New England culture nor generally differentiable by any geographic region in the U.S.; unnecessary as all articles are already tagged in
Category:University marching bands and other useful categories. If retained, "Marching Bands" should be in lowercase.
- choster (
talk)
17:26, 10 October 2009 (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:Country songs by songwriter
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.
Nominator's rationale: The kernal of my argument is that the difference in genre is about arrangement, not songwriting. Many songs have been recorded with different arrangements in more than one genre, and therefore this category is purely a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore fails
WP:NPOV. A number of supportive points are raised below.
Songwriter reads "A songwriter is someone who writes the lyrics, as well as the musical composition or melody to songs." This means that a songwriter does not necessarily write the arrangement.
Country music includes the following, "Country music has produced two of the top selling solo artists of all time.
Elvis Presley, ..." this suggests that major songwriter contributors to Presley's career should be included as "country music songwriters" such as
Aaron Schroeder and
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.
The country music article also goes on to say " ...and "
The Rolling Stones also got into the act with songs like "
Honky Tonk Women" and "
Dead Flowers". Jagger/Richards are country writers?
And here's my favourite, which perfectly illustrates my argument. The category I created
Category:Songs written by John D. Loudermilk was originally place by me in the Country song by songwriter category and removed by another editor. The
John D. Loudermilk article describes him as country, he is a member of Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, but his most famous songs crossed over to pop with recordings by
Don Fardon,
Nashville Teens, and
Norah Jones.
About 10 years ago there was a promo CD being passed round Nashville of
Cole Porter songs recorded in a "country-style." If a noteable hit had come from it, would Cole Porter have to be re-classified as a "country songwriter?"
There are a still a bunch of songwriters who could be subjectively included in "Country songs by songwriter" i.e. Johnny Cash, Travis Tritt, the aforesaid John D. Loudermilk and many others.
Support merge. This appears to be the only genre subcategory for
Category:Songs by songwriter. There aren't others such as "Pop songs by songwriter" or "Folk songs by songwriter", and if there were, it would quickly show the difficulties pointed out in the nomination. --
RL0919 (
talk)
15:56, 11 October 2009 (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:Alleged holocaust perpetrators
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.
A long line of past decisions mean that there is generally limited sympathy for 'alleged' categorisations, for a variety of good and policy-based reasons. Any issues raised here are basically a disagreement between those who wish to delete as per general consensus and those who believe that this category, by virtue of its subject matter, is a special case.
Unlike 'murderer', 'rapist', or 'thief', the description 'holocaust perpetrator' does not have any formal legal basis. This at once complicates matters and, at the same time, affords editors a degree of flexibility. Unlike any of the above crimes, the label of 'holocaust perpetrator' can be applied outwith any judicial process; it may be applied to those convicted of holocaust-related murders, administrators who organised the forced expulsions and transportation, or simply to those who gave the instructions for all this to be accomplished.
Categorisations deal with defining characteristics, things which should be as objective and factual as possible. Given the wide embrace of
Category:Holocaust perpetrators I am not persuaded that there is any need for an exception to the general avoidance of 'alleged' categorisations. Whether by virtue of Nuremberg tribunal (or similar), criminal conviction, or simply by widespread notoriety and repute (eg Hitler, Himmler, Mengele) - any of these could justify inclusion within
Category:Holocaust perpetrators. If the evidence is so slight or unproven that an individual cannot meet this standard then, according to general principles, such information is outwith the limited ambit of categorisation and more properly belongs in the article itself, not within an 'alleged' category.
Delete As per the nom, alleged in category names is not a good thing, otherwise we could have categories such as "Alleged paedophiles", "Alleged rapists", "Alleged horse masturbators" (OK, not long ago finished watching
Freddy Got Fingered). Whilst some of the people within the current category have received a large proportion of their notability as a result of being accused of killing Jews during WWII, a category for them is not warranted under
WP:BLP as do no harm. However, I do wonder out aloud why
Category:Nazi collaborators couldn't be used if this is an established fact, rather than an allegation? --
RussaviaDialogue16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
If the claim is alleged but unmistakably high-profile and key to some living person's notability, then BLP shouldn't be a concern, since we're prefacing the category title by "Alleged." (The reader is being explicitly informed of the dispute.) People do become notable simply for being alleged Holocaust perpetrators – they do not become notable by being "alleged pedophiles"/"alleged rapists"/"alleged horse masturbators" as in your counteraxample. Of course,
Category:Nazi collaborators should be used where it's established fact, as you correctly note. But not all collaborators were Holocaust perpetrators.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. You are missing the point of the objection. If it is "alleged" then it is not proven, if it is not proven, then it is not fact, if it is not fact then it has no place in an encyclopedia. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that if the allegation is made by high-quality sources (like international isntitutions), the claim is notable. The concern above (very fairly raised) was
WP:BLP, and I don't believe that a category that describes certain people as "alleged Holocaust perpetrators" is a BLP violation, if notable, high-quality sources like judgments of the United States Department of State or the Israel-based Simon Wiesenthal Center are available to support the allegation. As the category's title is "Alleged Holocaust perpetrators," it reports such claims, rather than endorsing them.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
AN, as you are aware, I am not able to discuss particular articles, so I will speak generally. Whilst the allegations may have been made by high-profile organisations, one would need more. You mention the US DoS, but I don't think even this is enough, as organisations such as DoS can stop anyone from entering a country for any reason at all. Whilst Richhoncho is off-base on the assertion that if it is not fact it has no place in an encyclopaedia -- remember verifiability not truth -- we shouldn't have categories such as this because it is still only alleged. I would really suggest simply using the "Nazi collaborator" categories, and leave it at that. It is the same reason that I would suggest that you look at
Category:People indicted for genocide and nominate that for deletion, for it is precisely the same as this, in that they are only alleged categories, just without the word alleged. --
RussaviaDialogue20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Disagree with Russavia: the two categories are not mutually inclusive and therefore both are valid, although there will be overlap for some individuals (some people have or can be indicted on charges for both).
HarryZilber (
talk)
15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep: here's the backstory to the Alleged holocaust perpetrators category which was initially created several days ago. Synopsis:
1) IP 67.149.150.252 from Michigan, who has previously taunted other editors critical of Nazi figures as shown
here, noted on this
Charles Zentai discussion topic that Zentai, who had been arrested in Australia in 2005, had not been convicted of any
war crimes;
2) with that rational, the same IP 67.149.150.252 removed the
Holocaust perpetrators Cat from the Zentai article.
That was seemingly appropriate, since according to the tenets of law in most western countries its improper to address a rapist or murderer as such unless they've actually been convicted of the appellation. Until such time they're normally referred to as: John Doe, the alleged rapist/murderer.... etc....
3) At this point, we now had the Charles Zentai article now with no connection to the Holocaust war crimes alleged of him and for which reason he was arrested in Australia and is currently undergoing extradition proceedings back to Hungary, which has all been amply documented and reported in reliable Australian news sources. Hence, several days ago I created the new category: Alleged holocaust perpetrators, and
4) then tagged the
Charles Zentai webpage with the new Cat, followed by:
5) an admin speedy deleting the above work without discussion or precedence (note that Alleged war criminal, a previous deleted category, is not in the same class as an Alleged holocaust perpetrator, which relates to genocide, not capital crimes –hence the lack of precedence).
Rational for the category and its use: as shown above the category is appropriate for articles concerning those who have been charged with holocaust related crimes but not yet been convicted of them. Owing to the seriousness of the crimes, which amount to participation in
genocide, those undergoing extradition or trial for those crimes can, and have, stalled their proceedings many times with numerous appeals to many levels of the judiciary and even to ministers of the government, as happened in Canada, and also with
John Demjanjuk. While a person arrested for other serious crimes is likely to go to trial and be cleared or convicted in a matter of a few months or a few years at most, that is definitely not the case with Holocaust perpetrators, some of whom have died before they could be extradited to the jurisdiction of their crimes.
Where such charges have been filed, they have almost always been investigated extensively, not only be several government agencies, but also by more than one government. In that circumstance the alleged Holocaust perpetrator is highly notable for having reached that status, but can probably not legitimately be categorized as a (convicted)
Holocaust perpetrator. Best:
HarryZilber (
talk)
03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Given that those charged are eventually tried and either convicted or acquitted, this category is somewhat transient and thus it is of limited utility. --
Martintg (
talk)
11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Rationale doesn't cut it, because people can be called Alleged holocaust perpetrators also then they were cleared by court or were never actually charged due lack of evidence. Making allegations about someone's participation in war crimes does not require any reliable evidence.--
Staberinde (
talk)
15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has many lightly populated categories –no one to my knowledge has seriously suggested they be eliminated. If the category is valid and serves a purpose of assisting readers in identifying their research targets then it has a valid purpose in Wikipedia. Additionally there are a number of people who died before they could be legally convicted of Holocaust related crimes, and who would therefore be more properly categorized as alleged Holocaust perpetrators rather than Holocaust perpetrators.
HarryZilber (
talk)
15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The fact that numerous Nazi war criminals were never prosecuted for their crimes creates the need for the category of "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrators," which brings to light the allegations against such persons and can offer information to explain why they have not been brought to justice. Thus for example it would be unthinkable for a source like Wikipedia not to be able to provide a list/category of such persons like Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller or Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele or Mauthausen doctor Aribert Heim, none of whom was ever physically put on trial. (Mengele was "tried" in a symbolic trial at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and research center in Israel.)
Dr. Efraim Zuroff
Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center-Israel Office
Coordinator, SWC Nazi war crimes research worldwide
www.operationlastchance.org —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.173.202.96 (
talk)
09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —
93.173.202.96 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Are you seriously proposing categorizing Mengele as "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrator"? I am absolutely confident that Mengele's participation in Holocaust is confirmed by numerous reliable sources and no serious historian (not counting holocaust deniers pushing fringe theories) would dispute this. Same would apply for any other person who died before being properly investigated by law enforcement authorities, if there is consensus among reputable historians, then they can be categorized as "Holocaust perpetrators", with no "alleged" which would be just ridiculous (Adolf Hitler as "alleged holocaust perpetrator" for example?).--
Staberinde (
talk)
10:04, 19 October 2009 (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.
Regions in Denmark
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per change of main article names to the official English names, which were not known at the time of creation of articles and categories.
Law Lord (
talk)
08:10, 10 October 2009 (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:Hardline politicians
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.
Delete. POV concerns as stated above. Also seems to assume a singular attitude on the part of the article subjects, whereas in reality the same person could be "hardline" at one point in their career and more flexible at another point, or hardline about one issue and not about another. --
RL0919 (
talk)
17:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subjective; potential for attack. And the grouping that was chosen to launch the category strikes me as particularly hilarious.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:36, 15 October 2009 (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-Armenian Wikipedians
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.
Delete. Strange that the creator and only entry are one and the same. Not sure I'd wish to be indentified by what I was against rather than what I was for. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Obvious, possibly speedy delete - Anti-anything user categories are not appropriate (as they don't support collaboration), let alone a hate category such as this.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:58, 12 October 2009 (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:Malta's Leader of the Opposition
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 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 Associated with James Joyce
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.
If doing so would be appropriate, they should be upmerged. How's that for a non-answer? Frankly, I don't feel that I know enough about all the article subjects in question to decide if they all need to be included in
Category:James Joyce. If the consensus is that they all (or some) should be upmerged, that is consistent with my nomination to delete.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The trouble is that the nom is not really set up to encourage that discussion; as we know it is often hard to get editors to engage with the detailed contents of a category. With the exception noted below, all are close family or friends mainly or entirely notable in that capacity (ok not Becket). But I see all are in the head-cat already in fact.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think the nom needs to be set up to do so. Anyone can bring it up if it's thought to be relevant. I didn't think it was at the time; thus, I had no reason to try to encourage it. I can't remember if at the time I had noticed that they were all in the parent category or not. That could have happened. I drank some motor oil that day so my recollections about such details are a bit fuzzy.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:28, 14 October 2009 (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.
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 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:New England Marching Bands
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete as an arbitrary and unnecessary grouping: arbitrary because
marching bands are neither a distinctive characteristic of
New England culture nor generally differentiable by any geographic region in the U.S.; unnecessary as all articles are already tagged in
Category:University marching bands and other useful categories. If retained, "Marching Bands" should be in lowercase.
- choster (
talk)
17:26, 10 October 2009 (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:Country songs by songwriter
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.
Nominator's rationale: The kernal of my argument is that the difference in genre is about arrangement, not songwriting. Many songs have been recorded with different arrangements in more than one genre, and therefore this category is purely a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore fails
WP:NPOV. A number of supportive points are raised below.
Songwriter reads "A songwriter is someone who writes the lyrics, as well as the musical composition or melody to songs." This means that a songwriter does not necessarily write the arrangement.
Country music includes the following, "Country music has produced two of the top selling solo artists of all time.
Elvis Presley, ..." this suggests that major songwriter contributors to Presley's career should be included as "country music songwriters" such as
Aaron Schroeder and
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller.
The country music article also goes on to say " ...and "
The Rolling Stones also got into the act with songs like "
Honky Tonk Women" and "
Dead Flowers". Jagger/Richards are country writers?
And here's my favourite, which perfectly illustrates my argument. The category I created
Category:Songs written by John D. Loudermilk was originally place by me in the Country song by songwriter category and removed by another editor. The
John D. Loudermilk article describes him as country, he is a member of Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, but his most famous songs crossed over to pop with recordings by
Don Fardon,
Nashville Teens, and
Norah Jones.
About 10 years ago there was a promo CD being passed round Nashville of
Cole Porter songs recorded in a "country-style." If a noteable hit had come from it, would Cole Porter have to be re-classified as a "country songwriter?"
There are a still a bunch of songwriters who could be subjectively included in "Country songs by songwriter" i.e. Johnny Cash, Travis Tritt, the aforesaid John D. Loudermilk and many others.
Support merge. This appears to be the only genre subcategory for
Category:Songs by songwriter. There aren't others such as "Pop songs by songwriter" or "Folk songs by songwriter", and if there were, it would quickly show the difficulties pointed out in the nomination. --
RL0919 (
talk)
15:56, 11 October 2009 (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:Alleged holocaust perpetrators
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.
A long line of past decisions mean that there is generally limited sympathy for 'alleged' categorisations, for a variety of good and policy-based reasons. Any issues raised here are basically a disagreement between those who wish to delete as per general consensus and those who believe that this category, by virtue of its subject matter, is a special case.
Unlike 'murderer', 'rapist', or 'thief', the description 'holocaust perpetrator' does not have any formal legal basis. This at once complicates matters and, at the same time, affords editors a degree of flexibility. Unlike any of the above crimes, the label of 'holocaust perpetrator' can be applied outwith any judicial process; it may be applied to those convicted of holocaust-related murders, administrators who organised the forced expulsions and transportation, or simply to those who gave the instructions for all this to be accomplished.
Categorisations deal with defining characteristics, things which should be as objective and factual as possible. Given the wide embrace of
Category:Holocaust perpetrators I am not persuaded that there is any need for an exception to the general avoidance of 'alleged' categorisations. Whether by virtue of Nuremberg tribunal (or similar), criminal conviction, or simply by widespread notoriety and repute (eg Hitler, Himmler, Mengele) - any of these could justify inclusion within
Category:Holocaust perpetrators. If the evidence is so slight or unproven that an individual cannot meet this standard then, according to general principles, such information is outwith the limited ambit of categorisation and more properly belongs in the article itself, not within an 'alleged' category.
Delete As per the nom, alleged in category names is not a good thing, otherwise we could have categories such as "Alleged paedophiles", "Alleged rapists", "Alleged horse masturbators" (OK, not long ago finished watching
Freddy Got Fingered). Whilst some of the people within the current category have received a large proportion of their notability as a result of being accused of killing Jews during WWII, a category for them is not warranted under
WP:BLP as do no harm. However, I do wonder out aloud why
Category:Nazi collaborators couldn't be used if this is an established fact, rather than an allegation? --
RussaviaDialogue16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
If the claim is alleged but unmistakably high-profile and key to some living person's notability, then BLP shouldn't be a concern, since we're prefacing the category title by "Alleged." (The reader is being explicitly informed of the dispute.) People do become notable simply for being alleged Holocaust perpetrators – they do not become notable by being "alleged pedophiles"/"alleged rapists"/"alleged horse masturbators" as in your counteraxample. Of course,
Category:Nazi collaborators should be used where it's established fact, as you correctly note. But not all collaborators were Holocaust perpetrators.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. You are missing the point of the objection. If it is "alleged" then it is not proven, if it is not proven, then it is not fact, if it is not fact then it has no place in an encyclopedia. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
19:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think that if the allegation is made by high-quality sources (like international isntitutions), the claim is notable. The concern above (very fairly raised) was
WP:BLP, and I don't believe that a category that describes certain people as "alleged Holocaust perpetrators" is a BLP violation, if notable, high-quality sources like judgments of the United States Department of State or the Israel-based Simon Wiesenthal Center are available to support the allegation. As the category's title is "Alleged Holocaust perpetrators," it reports such claims, rather than endorsing them.
Anti-Nationalist (
talk)
19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
AN, as you are aware, I am not able to discuss particular articles, so I will speak generally. Whilst the allegations may have been made by high-profile organisations, one would need more. You mention the US DoS, but I don't think even this is enough, as organisations such as DoS can stop anyone from entering a country for any reason at all. Whilst Richhoncho is off-base on the assertion that if it is not fact it has no place in an encyclopaedia -- remember verifiability not truth -- we shouldn't have categories such as this because it is still only alleged. I would really suggest simply using the "Nazi collaborator" categories, and leave it at that. It is the same reason that I would suggest that you look at
Category:People indicted for genocide and nominate that for deletion, for it is precisely the same as this, in that they are only alleged categories, just without the word alleged. --
RussaviaDialogue20:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Disagree with Russavia: the two categories are not mutually inclusive and therefore both are valid, although there will be overlap for some individuals (some people have or can be indicted on charges for both).
HarryZilber (
talk)
15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep: here's the backstory to the Alleged holocaust perpetrators category which was initially created several days ago. Synopsis:
1) IP 67.149.150.252 from Michigan, who has previously taunted other editors critical of Nazi figures as shown
here, noted on this
Charles Zentai discussion topic that Zentai, who had been arrested in Australia in 2005, had not been convicted of any
war crimes;
2) with that rational, the same IP 67.149.150.252 removed the
Holocaust perpetrators Cat from the Zentai article.
That was seemingly appropriate, since according to the tenets of law in most western countries its improper to address a rapist or murderer as such unless they've actually been convicted of the appellation. Until such time they're normally referred to as: John Doe, the alleged rapist/murderer.... etc....
3) At this point, we now had the Charles Zentai article now with no connection to the Holocaust war crimes alleged of him and for which reason he was arrested in Australia and is currently undergoing extradition proceedings back to Hungary, which has all been amply documented and reported in reliable Australian news sources. Hence, several days ago I created the new category: Alleged holocaust perpetrators, and
4) then tagged the
Charles Zentai webpage with the new Cat, followed by:
5) an admin speedy deleting the above work without discussion or precedence (note that Alleged war criminal, a previous deleted category, is not in the same class as an Alleged holocaust perpetrator, which relates to genocide, not capital crimes –hence the lack of precedence).
Rational for the category and its use: as shown above the category is appropriate for articles concerning those who have been charged with holocaust related crimes but not yet been convicted of them. Owing to the seriousness of the crimes, which amount to participation in
genocide, those undergoing extradition or trial for those crimes can, and have, stalled their proceedings many times with numerous appeals to many levels of the judiciary and even to ministers of the government, as happened in Canada, and also with
John Demjanjuk. While a person arrested for other serious crimes is likely to go to trial and be cleared or convicted in a matter of a few months or a few years at most, that is definitely not the case with Holocaust perpetrators, some of whom have died before they could be extradited to the jurisdiction of their crimes.
Where such charges have been filed, they have almost always been investigated extensively, not only be several government agencies, but also by more than one government. In that circumstance the alleged Holocaust perpetrator is highly notable for having reached that status, but can probably not legitimately be categorized as a (convicted)
Holocaust perpetrator. Best:
HarryZilber (
talk)
03:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Given that those charged are eventually tried and either convicted or acquitted, this category is somewhat transient and thus it is of limited utility. --
Martintg (
talk)
11:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Rationale doesn't cut it, because people can be called Alleged holocaust perpetrators also then they were cleared by court or were never actually charged due lack of evidence. Making allegations about someone's participation in war crimes does not require any reliable evidence.--
Staberinde (
talk)
15:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia has many lightly populated categories –no one to my knowledge has seriously suggested they be eliminated. If the category is valid and serves a purpose of assisting readers in identifying their research targets then it has a valid purpose in Wikipedia. Additionally there are a number of people who died before they could be legally convicted of Holocaust related crimes, and who would therefore be more properly categorized as alleged Holocaust perpetrators rather than Holocaust perpetrators.
HarryZilber (
talk)
15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The fact that numerous Nazi war criminals were never prosecuted for their crimes creates the need for the category of "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrators," which brings to light the allegations against such persons and can offer information to explain why they have not been brought to justice. Thus for example it would be unthinkable for a source like Wikipedia not to be able to provide a list/category of such persons like Gestapo chief Heinrich Mueller or Auschwitz doctor Josef Mengele or Mauthausen doctor Aribert Heim, none of whom was ever physically put on trial. (Mengele was "tried" in a symbolic trial at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and research center in Israel.)
Dr. Efraim Zuroff
Director, Simon Wiesenthal Center-Israel Office
Coordinator, SWC Nazi war crimes research worldwide
www.operationlastchance.org —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.173.202.96 (
talk)
09:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —
93.173.202.96 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Are you seriously proposing categorizing Mengele as "Alleged Holocaust Perpetrator"? I am absolutely confident that Mengele's participation in Holocaust is confirmed by numerous reliable sources and no serious historian (not counting holocaust deniers pushing fringe theories) would dispute this. Same would apply for any other person who died before being properly investigated by law enforcement authorities, if there is consensus among reputable historians, then they can be categorized as "Holocaust perpetrators", with no "alleged" which would be just ridiculous (Adolf Hitler as "alleged holocaust perpetrator" for example?).--
Staberinde (
talk)
10:04, 19 October 2009 (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.
Regions in Denmark
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Per change of main article names to the official English names, which were not known at the time of creation of articles and categories.
Law Lord (
talk)
08:10, 10 October 2009 (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:Hardline politicians
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.
Delete. POV concerns as stated above. Also seems to assume a singular attitude on the part of the article subjects, whereas in reality the same person could be "hardline" at one point in their career and more flexible at another point, or hardline about one issue and not about another. --
RL0919 (
talk)
17:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subjective; potential for attack. And the grouping that was chosen to launch the category strikes me as particularly hilarious.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:36, 15 October 2009 (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-Armenian Wikipedians
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.
Delete. Strange that the creator and only entry are one and the same. Not sure I'd wish to be indentified by what I was against rather than what I was for. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Obvious, possibly speedy delete - Anti-anything user categories are not appropriate (as they don't support collaboration), let alone a hate category such as this.
VegaDark (
talk)
01:58, 12 October 2009 (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:Malta's Leader of the Opposition
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 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 Associated with James Joyce
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.
If doing so would be appropriate, they should be upmerged. How's that for a non-answer? Frankly, I don't feel that I know enough about all the article subjects in question to decide if they all need to be included in
Category:James Joyce. If the consensus is that they all (or some) should be upmerged, that is consistent with my nomination to delete.
Good Ol’factory(talk)20:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
The trouble is that the nom is not really set up to encourage that discussion; as we know it is often hard to get editors to engage with the detailed contents of a category. With the exception noted below, all are close family or friends mainly or entirely notable in that capacity (ok not Becket). But I see all are in the head-cat already in fact.
Johnbod (
talk)
21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't think the nom needs to be set up to do so. Anyone can bring it up if it's thought to be relevant. I didn't think it was at the time; thus, I had no reason to try to encourage it. I can't remember if at the time I had noticed that they were all in the parent category or not. That could have happened. I drank some motor oil that day so my recollections about such details are a bit fuzzy.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:28, 14 October 2009 (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.