Category talk:Military scandals

So, only USA has "military scandals"? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe other countries have one occasionally, but according to Wikipedia's world-famous standard of objectivity, only the U.S deserves subcategories. 68.183.223.35 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

68.183.223.35 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I added Japanese embassy hostage crisis, Dirty War, Comfort Women, Torture during the Algerian War and some more and removed all the people. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a lot more. I hope anyone'd agree to these. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, what is "military scandal"?
"List of military controversies" has everything from the Holocaust to Iraqi insurgency. Which of these are "military scandals" and why? ("Military scandals" aren't even mentioned in Scandal article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When a war crime is a "military scandal"? When it was met with outcry in one's own country at the time of the incident? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think outcry is required, but it can be outcry in any country and at any time.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Article scandal tells: A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. I think this is exactly right. A scandal is simply a highly publicized controversial event (if allegations are true or not is irrelevant). If such events involve military, they belong here. Not every "controversy" is a scandal because it may not be highly publicized.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I added the Holocaust. It was so much of quite a scandal that I added whole category. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust should not be here. "Military Scandal" implies the involvement of military forces. The Holocaust was carried out by the SS, which was not part of the German military. It was a secret police arm. Further, I don't think that "conspiracy theories", particularly ones that gained currency decades after the events in question, should be in this category. It's quite easy to "widely publicize" something without a shred of validity (see Dihydrogen_monoxide, so merely being widely distributed is not a valid criterion, for inclusion. I think that a certain amount of support for a theory should be required. LordShonus (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)