Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:National liberation movements

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization. 22:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:National liberation movements
New category with a decidedly Leftist and extremist POV, and many are definite Terrorist groups that are already listed in Category:Terrorism and Category:Terrorist organizations. IZAK 02:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How would you "merge" two absolute opposites? Would one class the Nazi Party as "liberators" (as they were for many Germans) or as criminals guilty of genocide? This is very dangerous. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) You did not sign your comments with the tildes ~ so your comments are anonymous and your "vote" cannot be counted. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) You have not signed your name with the four ~ so there is no way to know who you are or acknowledge what you have to say. (Are you "voting" twice - i.e. one "vote" above also- ?)IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) How can opposites be merged, reflecting reality and make everyone happy all at the same time? IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Could you please log in with a User name so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Please let us know who is making these comments with a proper User name. Thank you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Again, there is no User name here to acknowledge. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) Who is this "person" who insists on leaving anonymous messages and expects to be taken seriously? Get a User name won't you. IZAK 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) To the above user, it is impossible to take seriously someone who does not have a user name, please get one so that your comments can be acknowledged. Thanks. IZAK 09:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete IZAK 22:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Cleanse and keep, many of the movements were indeed not aimed at liberation of any nation and that needs to be corrected. The rest, however, is fine. Halibutt 22:46, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neutrality (hopefully!) 22:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 00:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It was inevitable that someone would put up a category like this as a response to the POV Category:terrorist organizations. I would vote without hesitation for its deletion except that that would amount to a double standard. Both categories should be merged into one with a neutral title. Iota 01:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Evolver of Borg 12:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP National Liberation movements and terrorist organizations are distinct groups, although overlap occurs. They are also distinct from National Revolutionary Movements, with some overlap.
 * Al-Qaeda - terrorist organization
 * PLO      - National Liberation organization, and sometimes terrorist
 * Parti Québécois - National Liberation organization
 * ETA - terrorist and national liberation
 * The Contras - National Revolutionary movement and terrorist
 * Ang Sang Suu Kyi's group - National Revolutionary movement
 * Keep and clean up. Previous poster and Iota have good point; while there is overlap, they're not the same thing as terrorist groups, and a list of terrorist groups is very POV. --Tkinias 04:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and help me to clean up. I'm the one who created the category. Yes there is overlap, and i might have added some groups/parties to the list that don't belong there, but there are many groups that are neither "Left Wing POV" nor "Terrorist". As an example Free Tibet movement wouldn't fit into those two categories. And even if there is overlap it [overlap] exists in many other categories... it is a necessaty that must happen.
 * Merge with Category:Terrorist organizations, and give the new category a more neutral name (if anyone can think of one!). Grutness 08:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Terrorist organization is definitely more POV than this category, and they are *not* the same things. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Del - will be always a source of controversy. I am yet to see a group that admits that they are plain garden-variety terrorists.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Is the Dalai Lama a terrorist then?
 * A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to match the definition Wars of national liberation were those conflicts fought by indigenous military groups against an imperial power in an attempt to remove that power's influence. as stated in Wikipedia. Wikipedia being self-contradictory is not desirable. Contains patent nonsense such as Symbionese Liberation Army.  Parti Québécois?  The rest of Canada is an imperial power occupying Quebec?  Lance6Wins 14:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's what the Quebec politicians say. Also, you pulled up wars and military. Haven't you ever noticed that some countries become independant without war? A national liberation movement is not synonomous with armed conflict. Choosing to restrict it to such a definition is definitely POV on your part. 132.205.45.148 16:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * COMMENT To everyone who thinks that all national liberationists are terrorists, tell me this, is everyone in Taiwan who belong to political parties espousing separation a terrorist? By your definition they are. And so is the Dalai Lama 132.205.45.148 16:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Deletion_guidelines_for_administratorsFor example, administrators can disregard votes and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith Any anon can vote. If administrators choose to ignore anon votes, they should atleast think about it, because Administrators necessarily must use their best judgement, attempting to be as impartial as is possible otherwise they are not being impartial. 132.205.94.52 01:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * People do acknowledge my comments. If I make a sensible suggestion, usually the registered users pick up on it. OFcourse there are some people with elitist tendencies who choose to ignore all anons, whatever they say. But that violates the best judgement and impartial principles in the guidelines. Is wikipedia supposed to be a clique of wikipedioholics or something open for anyone to contribute to? It does go to the heart of what the wikipedia project is about, and openness. It's not like there's a whole mob of vandalizing anons rampaging across the deletion administrative pages either. Que sera sera, whatever will be will be. 132.205.15.43 05:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, now that CfD is a large page, shouldn't it switch over to the subpaging format that VfD uses?


 * Keep, mostly agreed with Halibutt. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 17:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a formal term. It doesn't matter what this movement actually do. Mikkalai 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly POV by definition (as is Category:Terrorist organizations) and likely to give cause for endless arguments. Elf-friend 19:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * KeepAndyL 22:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Thinking about this more, the category name is not NPOV. NPOV would be Category:National independence movements, which would easily include both groups like the Tamil Tigers or ETA which use violence and those like the Parti Quebequois which largely don't.  We could also create a group Category:Revolutionary movements, which would include groups -- whether they engaged in terrorism or not -- intending to overthrow a government (Contras, Bolsheviks), rather than gain independence for what they perceive as a submerged nation. --Tkinias 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * ^^^ What He Said, I like the cut of your jib sir, we agree. Alkivar 05:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * *blush* &mdash;Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I agree with Tkinias too. Catherine\talk 19:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hesitant delete. This sort of categorisation is too facile for an extremely complex and involved topic. Looking at the category, there's a lot of stuff that I'd barely consider qualified (NPOV issues aside), like the SLA, the OAS, and the White Rose. To pare it down properly means defining what a National Liberation movement is–and getting a decent consensus on that definition. Mackensen (talk) 05:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not replace this and Category:Terrorist organizations with the two I proposed plus a more-NPOV Category:Groups employing terror (this is less of an essentialization of the group as terrorist but acknowledges the group's use of terror attacks). Thus we categorize by goals and by tactics, but do not make POV judgements. On your examples:
 * SLA: not an independence movement, but a revolutionary movement which employed terror
 * OAS: quite the opposite of an independence movement, it was a right-wing armed group which employed terror to oppose independence
 * White Rose: revolutionary movement, not seeking independence
 * Al-Qa'ida (not on your list, but relevant): revolutionary movement, not seeking independence (seeking to merge several secular states into one theocratic state), employs terror
 * PLO (on the other hand): national independence movement, employed terror &mdash;Tkinias 08:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai is correct to point out that it is a formal term, but as Mackensen is pointing out above, this sort of categorization will likely generate too much confusion-- note the NPOV disputes above-- for it to be a workable one on Wiki. 172 08:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The category makes a useful and important distinction. Unfortunately the category also is in need of some cleanup because there is currently stuff that doesn't belong, and articles that it doesn't have that should be there. I am wondering if part of the problem with this category for some people might be the wording. Would it be better to describe these groups as Independence Movements or Secession Movements (although those descriptions do not fit well for groups that cross national boundaries, such as the Kurds)? gK [[User talk:GK|¿?]] 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful category that brings together a specific type of related articles. Just because some (or even many) of them can also be put in another category (i.e. terrorists) does not make it irrelevant. As with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, this seems to be an attempt to get rid of controversy by trying to ignore it. Get involved in the cleanup and discussion, don't delete it. That said, I agree with Tkinias and gK above that it could be renamed in a more NPOV way. mennonot 10:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Liberation" is highly charged POV.  Even if renamed to something else (like Category:National independence movements), the category's contents will still probably show quite a bit of POV.  -Sean Curtin 01:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Conditional vote: Keep, but only if renamed to "National independence movements" or some such. I agree that "liberation" is too charged a term.  I wouldn't consider Jefferson Davis to have been leading a national liberation movement, but some people would.  By contrast, we could neutrally apply a definition like "an organization seeking the establishment of an independent state in an area controlled by or part of another polity".  I really don't understand why so many people talk about terrorism in this context.  As has been pointed out, there are independence movements that use terrorism, those that don't, terrorists who aren't independence movements, and those who are. JamesMLane 07:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * delete. Will forever cause POV arguments.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   22:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Prepetual POV arguement starter. →Raul654 20:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - the keep arguments convinced me Guettarda 00:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - both terror and liberation have definitions. If a groups aim is "liberation" (expecially from outside forces, then it qualifies) and if a group uses terror as a tactic, then it still qualifies.... just as both. obvious overlap, and obviously no bias. ._-zro 11:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inevitably POV. Jayjg 18:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no compromise this time. This is POV. A NPOV category Category:Secessionist organizations exists already. gidonb  18:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Compromise proposal
By my count, there are enough delete votes to justify the deletion of this category. (14 delete; 7 keep, including one anonymous voter; three merge-or-rename. Note that "rename" requires deletion of this category since there is no category move option.) However, there are enough keep votes and enough people who seem to support a name change that I don't want to just delete this one out of hand.

I propose the following compromise:
 * 1) We create a Category:National independence movements, which seems to be supported by several folks as less POV.
 * 2) We examine the articles in Category:National liberation movements and move them to the new category if the expressed goal is some form of independent status.
 * 3) We then delete Category:National liberation movements.

Any objections? We can always list the newly-created category for deletion to see if it stands on its own merits. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 18:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good 132.205.15.43 03:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. &mdash;Tkinias 22:06, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, too. Grutness hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|30px|]] 07:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry to disagree this time. I am usually a moderate, but not when our neutrality is at stake. The POV name Category:National liberation movements should be completely deleted. There is already a NPOV name for the same concept, which is Category:Secessionist organizations. gidonb  17:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree as well, and I just voted delete. Jayjg 18:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with the suggestion. I don't understand  gidonb 's objection, given that part of the proposal is to delete the existing category (which, I agree, is unacceptably POV).  As for Category:Secessionist organizations, I'm glad to learn of its existence, and it's kind of surprising that no one mentioned it until now (good catch).  Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to me to do the job.  "Secession" implies splitting up an existing recognized nation-state.  It doesn't cover the independence of a colony, which is what many organizations, like the National Union for Total Independence of Angola, sought.  I favor creating the new Category:National independence movements and making Category:Secessionist organizations a subcategory under it. JamesMLane 18:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)