Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 18


 * CommentA category cannot be labelled or sourced. Elalan, I've been trying to illustrate to you and RaveenS at length elsewhere that state terrorism is indeed an issue very much prone to POV and verifiability abuses, much like terrorism which is why it is on WP:Words to avoid. Not one page concerning state terrorism page meets the basic requirements of WP:V. That you have yet to take any of my advice on board only fills me with more concern and a need to ensure that this issue is resolved as per policy. I can see from RaveenS comments elsewhere that he is trying to make state terrorism a major subject for wikipedia. Fine. But make sure it is acheived via WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This category cannot abide by these policies for the same reason your template on State terrorism cannot abide by these policies.--Zleitzen 02:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA Please leave personalities out of discussions, please stick to the subject matter. You have apologized above and I accepted it. Now it looks like you are repeating the same behaviour and repeating comments from my talk page. I would like to have a constructive editing realtionship with you as you demonstrated on the French section. I look forward to working with you. WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are important policy pages, which we can discuss elsewhere.  The deletion or retention of this category has nothing to do with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. State terrorism is simply a term. RaveenS 02:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Myself and others will continue to pursue this issue until these pages, templates and categories that have sprung up around the term "state terrorism" abide by policy. So far they have created a serious POV problem on numerous pages and much conflict between users. It is unfortunate that you have been behind each of the pages, templates and categories that I have seen so far. Sorry if you think this is "wiki-stalking" but the credibility of wikipedia articles, and the need to prevent major POV car-crashes are of greater concern. --Zleitzen 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the best place to address all of your concerns is on the wikipages you have policy concerns with. This is an AfD for a term, and nothing more RaveenS


 * You may be mistaking me for someone else. I've written, edited and monitored numerous articles about terrorism and even wrote the only heavily sourced section on Allegations of state terrorism by the US before I ever saw your name. I work steadily on the 1000+ political subjects on my watchlist. But I try and take great care to observe WP:V and WP:NOR by sourcing everything I write. My conflict with you only began when I noticed you restoring material on state terrorism that was wholly unsourced original research, some three months ago. And discovered a pattern of controversial edits, such as the creation of this category, ever since. Hence my concerns here.--Zleitzen 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what are the set criteria and definition for state terrorism? That article explains that there is no definition that people agree on. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking see State_terrorism That is a good starting point. Lack of so called clarity in Terrorism and Counter Terrorism has not prevented Wikipedia categories on them. I am going clean up the Category (I have already started) as I had in mind. I hope you will reserve your judgement till I am done within few day. ThanksRaveenS


 * I just cleaned as much as possible. This is pretty much how it should look. If Terrorism can be a cat, and if Counter terrorism be a sub cat why cant State terrorism be a sub cat of Terrorism ? ThanksRaveenS 04:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * State terrorism cannot be a cat. That is because there are numerous conflicting accounts of events which would need sourcing and attribution. A cat cannot be sourced. No government will admit that they engage in state terrorism - and few government supporters would agree that a certain governemnt has commited state terrorism. For example, the Cuban government (and some writers) believe the US committed state terrorism against Cuba. The US government deny it. Therefore there are conflicting views. Therefore to label something like Cubana Flight 455 as state terrorism would not meet NPOV. It would favour one view. I have explained this on numerous occasions elsewhere. Please take my points on board.--Zleitzen 05:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment You make a good point but with the passage of time and change of governments can events be clearly marked as State terrorism. No one can deny that Holocaust was not state terrorism? They can be called Holocaust deniers and can be legally put in jail in German and Austria. Hence the only category that can put together sub categories like War crimes (from the definition of ST) and Genocide (from the definition of ST) and Pogroms has to be ST. Also just because Armenian Genocide is hotly contested by Turkey today does not mean Wikipedia or for that matter any good standing Encyclopedia should not call it is Genocide and State terrorism because facts speak for themselves contested or not. Theory of evolution is hotly contested by over 40% of American population but does it make it controversial because of it ?  I agree 100% current events should not ever be categorized as State terrorism until and unless we find credible sources that say it is but like all facts in life it still will be contested. As long as the contest is fringe event (like Turkey’s context of Armenian genocide) an encyclopedia can write about it and categorize it. Indo-European homeland theory is hotly contested in some quarters but Wikipedia reflects the commonly accepted theory and all other theories are acknowledged including fringe one but they don’t dominate the articles. These are some examples for your consideration. ThanksRaveenS 13:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (Replying to Raveen S) The first sentence of State_terrorism states that there is no generally accepted definition. That means that it will never be "self-evident and uncontroversial" whether an act is state terrorism, and this is why the category should be deleted (see Categorization). Categories are simply not the correct medium. If you want a list of instances of state terrorism, you should assemble them in an article where you can cite sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Jitse, thanks for your kind words, Will await the results of this CFD and I will follow your advice. RaveenS 12:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)