Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 22
May 22
[edit]Category:Far right political parties in France to Category:Far Right political parties in France
[edit]Category:Filipino television series and Category:Television shows in the Philippines to Category:Philippine television series
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Reason: Violates POV by endorsing a subjective view, which could never have unbiased criteria as to what a dictator is. --Yossarian 
12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, if the articles listed have clear reason that they're listed there. SushiGeek 20:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There aren't any articles so there aren't any reasons. Osomec 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Actually, the article in there (Saparmurat Niyazov, I believe) was removed. Also, 'there aren't any articles so therefore' is a very broad generalization. EDIT: I was wrong. However, [1] shows two articles. SushiGeek 22:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Articles like Adolf Hitler seem to declare definitively that their subjects were considered Dictators. If they say that, why is a category saying the same thing so subjective? --W.marsh 01:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- But even Hitler isn't considered dictatorial by some, but that's neither here nor there. The problem with the category is that there are too few Hitlers (if you take my meaning). Someone put Hugo Chavez in there, and I know that there's plenty of debate on him. Any additon that isn't Hitler or Stalin is going to be desputed (and even then...), and it's just going to cause fighting between people with varying political POVs. Edit: Actually that's true, some articles do declare that. But it seems to me that's a seperate POV problem. --Yossarian
02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- But even Hitler isn't considered dictatorial by some, but that's neither here nor there. The problem with the category is that there are too few Hitlers (if you take my meaning). Someone put Hugo Chavez in there, and I know that there's plenty of debate on him. Any additon that isn't Hitler or Stalin is going to be desputed (and even then...), and it's just going to cause fighting between people with varying political POVs. Edit: Actually that's true, some articles do declare that. But it seems to me that's a seperate POV problem. --Yossarian
- Leave this to List of dictators...? David Kernow 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a better idea. Categories can't really give detailed explanation for inclusion, and the list/article is better developed. --Yossarian 08:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds like a better idea. Categories can't really give detailed explanation for inclusion, and the list/article is better developed. --Yossarian
- Comment Wikipedia articles are full of references to dictatorships, dictatorship governments, military dictators etc. The use of the term "Dictator" in these articles is based on History. If History calls you a dictator then you are one. Also dictators are not defined by the way they govern but by the way they came to power and or remained in power. In Hitler's case he came democratically to power but then he abolished the instruments of Democracy so that he can remain perpetually in power; at that point he became a dictator. Dr.K. 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. You ever got into a political debate around here? ; ) One can't appeal Wikipedia or History as justification. That's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. But what is history? Something every historian agreed upon (obviously not)? Is it something within the public eye? Which public? It's always, ultimately, going to be someone's personal point of view (or a group of peoples'). It's not neutral. The biggest problem with this category is that it will be abused, most likely inadvertantly. Example: someone puts Hugo Chavez up as a dictator. According to that person, it's perfectly reasonable to do that, and they have no reason to believe they're pushing a POV. Someone else, on the other hand, may see no reason for that label, and not recognize that they indorse the POV that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator. History doesn't play a role in this case. Thus the war begins. For that matter, what is an "accepted form of democracy" (as you mentioned on talk) but, most of the time, a Western one? The Japanese didn't have a democratic ruler, and many worshiped the emperor as a god. His followers would not have even entertained the idea of labeling him a dictator (even if a Western historian might find the issue quite clear). Criteria for a word with such negative connotations as dictator are inherently going to be part of a bias. History labels men dictators. But what about the many Russians who still consider Stalin a hero? Would they label him a dictator, with all it's negative connotations? Is the Russian state the only determiner of who was a hero and who was a monster (or, more specifically, Nikita S. Khrushchof). My problem is that no one has defined History. It seems to me to be an exclusively Western contrast to "accepted" democratic values. Stuff to chew on. --Yossarian 16:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- 'Something every historian agreed upon?' as a point is nonsense. I'm sure you could say ANYTHING about ANY politic or war related article, and when removed you could say "Does every single historian agree on that?"
- Not necessarily. You ever got into a political debate around here? ; ) One can't appeal Wikipedia or History as justification. That's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. But what is history? Something every historian agreed upon (obviously not)? Is it something within the public eye? Which public? It's always, ultimately, going to be someone's personal point of view (or a group of peoples'). It's not neutral. The biggest problem with this category is that it will be abused, most likely inadvertantly. Example: someone puts Hugo Chavez up as a dictator. According to that person, it's perfectly reasonable to do that, and they have no reason to believe they're pushing a POV. Someone else, on the other hand, may see no reason for that label, and not recognize that they indorse the POV that Hugo Chavez is not a dictator. History doesn't play a role in this case. Thus the war begins. For that matter, what is an "accepted form of democracy" (as you mentioned on talk) but, most of the time, a Western one? The Japanese didn't have a democratic ruler, and many worshiped the emperor as a god. His followers would not have even entertained the idea of labeling him a dictator (even if a Western historian might find the issue quite clear). Criteria for a word with such negative connotations as dictator are inherently going to be part of a bias. History labels men dictators. But what about the many Russians who still consider Stalin a hero? Would they label him a dictator, with all it's negative connotations? Is the Russian state the only determiner of who was a hero and who was a monster (or, more specifically, Nikita S. Khrushchof). My problem is that no one has defined History. It seems to me to be an exclusively Western contrast to "accepted" democratic values. Stuff to chew on. --Yossarian
Let's go take away any instances in the article on the Civil War (America's, that is) that says that the North won. How do you define "win"? Does every historian agree on your definition of "win"? SushiGeek 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with SushiGeek. We can carry on with this debate ad infinitum but at the end of the day we must move with the majority of the historians. Clearly most historians agree that Hitler was a dictator. Same with most famous dictators. Chavez I'm sure doesn't carry a majority vote yet and he is too contemporary for the verdict of history. As for Stalin his supporters or fans don't qualify as historians. Dr.K. 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with W.marsh: If an article establishes, definitively, that the person in question was/is a dictator, then there's no reason for them not to be in this category. If the people in the category are stated to be dictators in their articles, then it should probably be kept. Jude (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if that's the way the wind is blowing (though I imagine others will weigh in), then that's how it'll have to go. Just so you know, I've got a slightly more detailed response written on the talk page (and I also clarified some things above). I still think this will present point of view problems later on, but, c'est la vie. Cheers all. --Yossarian 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose if that's the way the wind is blowing (though I imagine others will weigh in), then that's how it'll have to go. Just so you know, I've got a slightly more detailed response written on the talk page (and I also clarified some things above). I still think this will present point of view problems later on, but, c'est la vie. Cheers all. --Yossarian
- Delete --Haham hanuka 12:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong keep Dictator is a very common concept. Like most labels in social science it has a grey area, but in most cases it can be established very well whether a person was a dictator or not. Further, not only can it theoretically be established, but in practice it is established in some of our articles. I see no particular reason not to use that valuable information for categorization. gidonb 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong keep Maybe I had to make my vote explicit. Dr.K. 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- While I'd entertain possible other names keep it as is. Dictator says it all; '... an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state (though the term is normally not applied to an absolute monarch). ' -- ∞Wirelain 03:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually that could work, assuming the criteria were followed strictly. I still don't agree with this idea of "History" with a capital H, but dbroadwell's got a good point. Perhaps I've been thinking about the word "Dictator" too semantically/broadly (it can be a rather loaded term). If it gets kept (which looks like the case) perhaps a definition like that one could be appended? It seems pretty neutral. I wouldn't have a problem in that case. Edit: I still support deletion on principle, though: to me, not having it would be better than having it, particularly for the point that LaszloWalrus makes below. --Yossarian 04:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually that could work, assuming the criteria were followed strictly. I still don't agree with this idea of "History" with a capital H, but dbroadwell's got a good point. Perhaps I've been thinking about the word "Dictator" too semantically/broadly (it can be a rather loaded term). If it gets kept (which looks like the case) perhaps a definition like that one could be appended? It seems pretty neutral. I wouldn't have a problem in that case. Edit: I still support deletion on principle, though: to me, not having it would be better than having it, particularly for the point that LaszloWalrus makes below. --Yossarian
- Weak delete Some people are quite obviously dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Castro) etc., but this category still doesn't quite seem NPOV, and I can see soon degenerating into a place for everyone to list his least favorite head of state. LaszloWalrus 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- And I'm sure many categories are like that. And that's what reverting is for. SushiGeek 02:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (Although I'm presently engaged in a dispute on the List of dictators article, this is more because of one entry than the existance of the article itself.) Frankly, the whole thing seems unneccessary (in agreement with dictators are usually described as such on their own pages), and creating a situation where leaders (of whatever distinction) can be called by the emotive term 'dictator' just opens the door to politicization (eg: George Walker Bush, Fidel Castro, or my favourite, Alexander Lukashenko), and then later to flames and revert wars. Additionally, regulations surrounding use of the term 'dictator' are not always observed properly... --Oceanhahn 12:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Too subjective. Twittenham 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A textbook "do not have" category. Sumahoy 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I object to the inclusion of Napoleon in this company, and the contents could easily become more objectionable than they are now. Honbicot 23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The present selection doesn't look neutral and it probably never will. Athenaeum 22:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I once voted to keep a similar category, but now I know that this is just too POV to be useful. --Ezeu 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.