Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1[edit]

Category:Turkish cuisine milkys[edit]

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: Merge to Category:Turkish cuisine (and to Category:Dairy products). Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Turkish cuisine milkys to Category:Turkish cuisine dairy
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Milkys" is a dubious term. Please suggest a better title. Mukadderat (talk) 23:27, 1 May 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:Film awards for Best Cinematography[edit]

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: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Film awards for Best Cinematography to Category:Cinematography awards
Nominator's rationale: Not all awards in category are for "best" cinematography; respect WP:NCCAT guidelines for non-capitalization of regular nouns. Moreover, I believe the word "cinematography" is sufficiently specific to cinema so as not to require the "Film awards..." precursor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to more accurately reflect the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 3 May 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:Film awards for Best Editing[edit]

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: Merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Film awards for Best Editing to Category:Film editing awards
Nominator's rationale: Merge per unnecessary duplication and WP:NCCAT naming conventions for regular nouns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to more accurately reflect the contents of the category. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 3 May 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:FAA images[edit]

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: Merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:FAA images to Category:Federal Aviation Administration images
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Images with the FAA image template are automatically placed in Category:Federal Aviation Administration images thus rendering this category redundant. This should be merged by placing the correct license template on the images if they don't have it already. 71.66.241.245 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Any reason, other then the work involved, why both of these should not be deleted with the images being moved to commons? Aren't all of these in the public domain? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But Category:Federal Aviation Administration images is the category images with an FAA license tag are automatically placed in, and since people keep uploading US government images to here instead of commons, that category should be kept.--71.66.241.245 (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - target has a better name. Robofish (talk) 06:16, 4 May 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:Foodservice navbox templates[edit]

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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Foodservice navbox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not super familiar with category policy, but aren't categories intended for articles? This seems like over-categorization to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No, they're not. I am realigning the various templates in the category Category:Food templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that they correspond with the projects that oversee these subjects, this is an unneeded action by the nominator and complicates my work. This template is replacing the Category:Restaurant navbox templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which is very specific with one that is less so in that this new cat is for all commercial food navboxes as opposed to those that are only for restaurants - the oposite of his reasoning for the TfD. The nominator should have inquired as to the purpose of this before nominating. --Jeremy (blah blah) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to organize a group of well-defined navboxes that share a common purpose. Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 3 May 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-Armenianism[edit]

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: Administrative close: a fairly clear violation of WP:CANVASS has taken place. This action is without prejudice to a future nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anti-Armenianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category unlikely ever to be neutral. "Anti-Armenianism" implies racism against Armenian people, whereas this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian (e.g. even academicians seem to have been added to this category, because they may question the Armenian genocide). Great potential for violation of WP:BLP. Most notoriously, Bernard Shaw and Justin McCarthy prominent American historians who question the Armenian genocide, were tagged with this cat. The controversy lies that such people are automatically branded as anti-armenian. Academicians should not be automatically branded as such. Saguamundi
  • Delete Category is a creation of ethnic warriors, applied way too freely. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The purpose of categories to help readers navigate to articles. The articles exist and document historical facts; this category serves its navigation purpose. Hmains (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been blatant canvassing in an attempt to sway the outcome of this CFD by User: 81.214.147.154 Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the ip doing the canvassing is the nominator not logged in, and given the bad faith involved, I have asked at WP:ANI for an admin to close this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:59, 2 May 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:2004 United States election voting controversies[edit]

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:  Relisted at 2009 May 1. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:2004 United States election voting controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not used. Only one page exists that could reasonably fit the description. 2004 United States election voting controversies Bonewah (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Perhaps this nomination was meant for another category. Category:2004 United States election voting controversies contains 18 articles; there is no assertion made that these articles are inappropriately placed in this category. And given the facts regarding this election cycle, there certainly was controversy. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Hmains. The category is well-populated, and there is probably scope for a lot more. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category groups articles that are directly related to one of the major historic political controversies in the United States in recent decades. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I misspoke earlier when i said it was not used. However, all the entries in this category, save one, are not really controversies. Participants in controversies, yes, critics of the election, yes, but actual controversies, no. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the notice for this discussion was on the talk page rather then on the category page. This may be grounds for a relisting. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 9 May 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:New York Mets first round draft picks[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:New York Mets first round draft picks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as a trivial intersection of draft selection and team. TM 17:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm not sure how this intersection can be looked at as trivial. These are players who the New York Mets selected in the first round of the annual baseball draft, which is a rather strong and defining characteristic that makes them qualitatively different than other players and that groups them together in a meaningful fashion as an aid to navigation. Just searching in The New York Times, I had no trouble finding here this mention that "Randolph mentioned only Matt Ginter, 27, and the former first-round draft pick Aaron Heilman, 26." or the one here that states that "Front-office officials still believe Payton, a former first-round draft pick of the Mets, can be a productive everyday player." The folks at ESPN, who seem to know a bit about the sport categorize players as being New York Mets First Round Draft Picks. While all of them aren't about the athletes listed in this category, this search on Google News archive found over 3,000 articles, a significant percentage of which cover these individuals directly. Alansohn (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MLB Draft, of all professional sports drafts in the United States, is the least defining; would you say that Category:New York Mets ninteenth round draft picks is also notable and defining? An article simply mentioning the round a player was drafted in doesn't make it anymore notable.--TM 02:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The drop-off in talent from the first round to the second is significant, and by the 19th round (for example) or beyond players are unlikely to progress to the Major Leagues. I would say that selection in any round after the first is non-defining. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Per what Alansohn said. Alex (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the order in which one happens to be drafted to a particular team is not a defining characteristic. The examples offered above of sources that happen to mention draft pick order once again show an incorrect conflation of "defined" in the non-WP sense and "defining" in the WP sense. The fact that a reliable source mentions the draft order of a particular player does not make that draft order defining as it is used on Wikipedia. Accepting the notion that "mentioned in a reliable source equals defining" would mean that any fact mentioned about any subject of any article would instantly become a "defining characteristic" of that subject. That there are Google hits using the term is not persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can offer a few thousand more sources, and would be happy to do so, but it is still unclear what your definition of what exactly "'defining' in the WP sense" means and how one could satisfy the claim in objective and unambiguous fashion to your satisfaction. Surely the "order in which one happens to be drafted" is not random, and each team in Major League baseball scouts prospective players and ranks them in order of preference and selecting players in order of perceived ability, with those chosen in the first round expected by the team, the media and fans to be near-certain successes as baseball players; First-round picks who don't progress as expected are often labeled as "draft busts" a moniker not applied to a 19th round draft pick who doesn't become a star. Shawn Abner, drafted by the Mets in 1984 was labeled a can't-miss player who ended up having a brief career in the major leagues and is primarily notable as a first-round draft pick who did not succeed. Alansohn (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cat clutter on bios is rife, this intersection, while interesting is best handled by a list - after all a 1st round pick is listed on his bio as such, and the link maintained from that tidbit. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify I wouldn't have a problem with keeping this category, per se, but it could easily be made into a list a la List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks. I don't consider this to be "trivial" at all as per the nomination, but a list is easily constructed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what makes the first round of MLB's draft notable? Does being drafted in the first round of MLB's draft make a player notable? My experience shows me that most of the players who go on to be stars, or even reach the majors, are drafted much lower: Piazza (62nd round), Pujols (13th round), Peavy (15th), etc.; while most drafted in the first round amount to nothing, therefore not eligible to have an article on WP. Without an article, they would not be included in the category, making the category uncomprehensive. For interested people, going to list would satisfy their curiosity, if only to see how badly their team drafted.Neonblak talk - 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is of interest, being the first round pick is not a predictor of actual performance in any sport. If anyone wants to create a list, they are free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 8 May 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:Children's films[edit]

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: no consensus to rename. Kbdank71 14:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Children's films to Category:Family films
Nominator's rationale: I find the idea of categorising these as children's films to be far too exclusive. Especially on Wikipedia! Although children watch these films, so do lots of adults. I feel renaming this category to Family films would better reflect this and would be far more neutral than saying these films are aimed solely at one age group. John Sloan (view / chat) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Family films was deleted last year and this category suffers the same definitional issues as that one did. Otto4711 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is defined at the main article (..."films that were made for, or primarily marketed to, children."). I wondered how long it would take for Otto to start picking off genres one-by-one, citing a rather weak previous CfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it wasn't my nomination. Make it about the nomination, not someone who happened to comment on it, OK? Otto4711 (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the nomination is putting forward a case for renaming, not deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That main article should be renamed to List of Family films. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Otto shows that there's precedence against renaming. However, I see that the deletion of the Family films cat was not matched by a renaming of Family film, which still exists as an alternate main article. It also makes what I think is a valid distinction between a family and true children's film, suggesting there might be a case for recreating Family films as a separate category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the book "Children's Film's" by Ian Wojcik-Andrews, he refers to them casually as both "family" and "children's" films. Allmovie also declares them to be one in the same with their genre of "Children's/Family" films.[1] If there is any change, we should also note that they can be referred to by both names, and both have the same meaning. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The corresponding main article provides a rather clear definition for the category. While the ever-present "what about certain actual or hypothetical case requires deletion of this category" argument is likely to appear, those borderline cases should be dealt with separate and apart from this rather well-defined category. We have discussed the issue of subjectivity on two different occasions over the past several weeks regarding Category:LGBT-related television episodes at both in November 2008 and less than two weeks ago, coming to the near-unanimous conclusion in both cases that the far greater concerns of subjectivity in the inclusion criteria for that category was no bar to retention. These strong and directly relevant precedents argue for retention here, where ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate that the term is used as a strong defining characteristic and that the grouping of such films clearly benefits navigation across these similar articles. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware i'm asking for this category to be renamed and not deleted arnt you? Its simple, children's films is incorrect, because the films in the category that i've personally seen have jokes/stories clearly intended for adults in them. They are family films!! John Sloan (view / chat) 12:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, children defines the subject clearer than family. If it's not obvious, reducing family to children is not so obvious outside the U.S. (hey, if me and wifey rent a porn, is this a family thing too?) NVO (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is no, not unless the porn movie actually has plots or jokes intended for children as well as adults. To be clear, whats classed as a porno or "adult movie" is clearly intended to be viewed by adults only. The films Wikipedia are classing as a "children's films" are clearly intended for children and adults. Hence they should be classed as FAMILY films. John Sloan (view / chat) 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then what about films intended just for children? Specifically, films made at times and in places were modern American concept of family entertainment did not exist. Like the 14:00 movie shows for junior schoolchildren before the videotape era. Family viewing at 14:00 was out of question: most parents had a daytime job to do. So the films were made for children alone, and did not pretend to appeal to parents as well. NVO (talk) 04:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the films in this category are family films (or at least most of them are)! I've not seen them all personally, but I have seen a few of them. One example of a family film in that category is Rugrats in Paris. I doubt all the jokes about The Godfather were intended solely for children. The film was clearly made with adults in mind, making it a family film. I see this problem with most films in the category. John Sloan (view / chat) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then having two cats is justified - one for those made for family viewing by design, and those intended for children alone. Even in modern media, - I can't imagine parents staring at at Teletubbies longer that a few minutes... :) NVO (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats very true :D - Its just a shame the category "Family films" was deleted! John Sloan (view / chat) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category is way off-base. Do we know that "Shrek" and "Air Force One (film)" categorized down this tree really were aimed at kids? The latter one, distributed by a Disney marquee (Buena Vista) I would have thought unsuitable for young children, and for children are we talking under 18, if so - all but porno is distributed for them. Can't define it, can't categorize based on it. Gotta go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if necessary pruning to films clearly mainly for children. To me a family film just suggests one with no sex, violence, swearing or complex thought, & these should not be categorized. But films actually for children should be. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 5 May 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:El Salvador beach volleyball players[edit]

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: Rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:El Salvador beach volleyball players to Category:Salvadoran beach volleyball players
Nominator's rationale: Change to nationality (adjective form) per WP:NCCAT. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 16:22, 1 May 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:Daredevil[edit]

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: rename all per nom, with the exception outlined by Occuli.--Aervanath (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Daredevil to Category:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main. Not only are there other things that can be titled "Daredevil," there are other Daredevils in comics. CfR to apply to the subcategories as well (they will be tagged.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note For Category:Covers from Daredevil related titles, I propose adding a hyphen as well as a dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Small case of not quite paying attention when creating at least some of the cats... The parent images one should have gone in as Category:Daredevil (comics) images (precedent Category: Flash (comics) images). The point made about the over all parent is a good one, though I'm unsure if it needs to be dabbed as thoroughly as the articles. Yes, it is likely that Daredevil (the profession) would be reasonable (sufficient articles to justify a category) and a more likely search than the comics. However, it is unlikely there are, or will be, enough articles/files related to the Lev Gleason Publications character to justify categories. That makes it unreasonable to dab the cats on "(Marvel Comics)".
    And there are a couple of specific problems with the rename for the cover images cat:
    • Adding the dab becomes very, very awkward in a search. It's an unlikely search argument and it's unlikely that there will be a separate similar category for the other comic book character or one related to any of the "Daredevil" articles. (see Category:Covers from Flash related titles for a similar situation.
    • Unless there is something that can be pointed to that changing "related to Foo" to "Foo related" needs a hyphen, saying it is needed comes across as personal preference. If there is, it may be better that the entire class of categories (currently 23) get moved to "Covers from comics related to Foo" for simplicity (no, I don't think that punctuation in a category title makes for simplicity).
- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what are the guidelines on this? Should the category name mirror the article name? This might be unwise because the move of an article would result in the need to rename a whole set of categories (that said this article's name is stable and is unlikely to be moved at any time soon). If there isn't such a guideline then shouldn't we do this renaming if there is going to be another Daredevil category? I can't think, for example that we will need one for other Daredevil characters in comics, so that isn't a problem and there isn't much at Daredevil that shows there might need to be an eponymous category. So basically if there isn't a guideline for this, then shouldn't we do what we always do with disambiguation: wait until there is a sign there could be problem and then deal with it then? If there is such a guideline then this is pretty much cut and dried and it needs to be renamed. (Emperor (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 1 May 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:Armenian Genocide deniers[edit]

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: No consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Armenian Genocide deniers to Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is blatantly POV. It privileges one side of an active area of historical research by calling the other side "deniers" of what is assumed to be true. Even worse, it mimics the phrase "Holocaust denier" as if the scholars categorized here are somehow similar to the scum who deny the Holocaust. Over a year ago a proposal to delete the category failed. Many editors believed the category conveyed some information. Accepting that judgment, it seems that we should at least move to a more neutral name. Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, the article title is also a problem.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the record, I say Keep as it is an accurate description. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy is also served by the signifier skeptic. The problem with denier is that it is opprobrious. The relevant policy is here.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Factual articles get an appropriate cateogry name as the purpose of categories is to help navigaton them. There is no question of the historical facts nor the denial thereof. Not out of line from parent category Category:Denialism and article Denialism. Hmains (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no question of the historical facts..." If there is no question of the facts, then why are the most-respected scholars of Ottoman history (e.g., Bernard Lewis) "denying" those facts? Answer: there is a question of the facts because this is an active area of historical research. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Category:Armenian Genocide deniers" implies racism against Armenian people, and this category has been used for any person or organisation which has had a disagreement with the Armenian genocide, Armenian organizations or the modern Republic of Armenian on this subject, whereas this nominated "Category:Armenian Genocide skeptics" states their disagreements on this subjet, and does not imply racist view towards Armenian people and Armenia. Saguamundi
  • Where is the implied racism? It's not called "Armenian hating genocidal racists"... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that deniers of this genocide would not wish to be lumped with the "scum" that deny that genocide. But isn't that just a subjective sentiment on the side of the deniers? I imagine the victims of this genocide would not be so outraged by such an apparent parallel. Which leads me to the conclusion, I think, that we should set aside subjective feelings about certain words and focus on their literal meaning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that you premise everything on the assumption that this was indeed a genocide. Case closed, move on. Why do you take that stand? This is still an area of active research, where even the biggest names in Ottoman historiography disagree with each other. The truth is not really known yet. Something this much up in the air doesn't merit being lumped together with an indisputable historical fact like the Holocaust. And scholars working on this don't deserve being lumped together with Holocaust deniers.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to seem insensitive to your concerns, but look at the categories under Category:Skepticism. It just doesn't seem to fit and I still believe this belongs under Category:Denialism. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this fits better under Category:Denialism than under Category:Skepticism. But it doesn't have to be in either--the best home would be as a sub-category of Category:Armenian Genocide.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category is subjective and very prone to abuses especially concerning prominent academicians and historians who do not agree. 81.214.147.154 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.147.154 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE that the above user is actively canvassing support for his position He has left notices on over a hundred user talk page as is almost certainly some sort of WP:SOCK Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless you also propose we also change Category:Holocaust deniers to Category:Holocaust skeptics. There is no good reason to make the Armenian Genocide an exception to this trend, regardless of Anthon or his favorite historians' views on the event. Wikipedia, in accordance with the rules of majority-point-of-view and undue weight, has rightfully treated the Yeghern as a genocide, in accordance with mainstream historical views. It is hard to see this request as anything but an attempt to push and promote the minority POV (Armenian Genocide Denial) by breaking a well-established trend on a well-established genocide. The Myotis (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lumping the Armenian Genocide with the Holocaust is not appropriate. Those scholars who "deny" the Armenian Genocide are respected, at the top of their field (people like Bernard Lewis)--they are not the pariahs who deny the Holocaust. A category gathering together those people should reflect that the field is one of active historical inquiry, and that those skeptical of genocide claims can have legitimate grounds for skepticism.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that line of argument is that they are not being "lumped in" with deniers of the Nazi Holocaust anywhere on Wikipedia. They are two separate and distinct categories that happen to use the same word in their titles, a word that accurately reflects the content of the articles in those categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but they are both sub-categories of Category:Denialism. Further, the rhetorical value of using the phrase Armenian Genocide deniers is that it triggers an immediate association with Holocaust deniers.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that logic, anything in the category " Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks," another such sub-category would also be associated with Nazism. I'd like to see whatever proof you have of that "psychological trigger." It also seems to me we have been dancing around a more important point, that category names like this should reflect terms used in the sources of the articles. So, if you could demonstrate that the majority of sources refer to them as "skeptics" rather than "deniers" that would be compelling. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed skeptic simply because it seemed the best neutral alternative to denier, which I am convinced is not neutral. If you have a better suggestion, I would be eager to hear it.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly how much a person is "respected" should have no bearing on what language we use to categorize them. They still deny that a well-established genocide was that, and as such are deniers of it. If a few of them - and I assure you the same goes for the list of Holocaust deniers - have indeed gained degrees or a measure of respect, that should be incidental, though it should also probably be kept in mind that only a select few in each list have gained those. Wikipedia should worry more about factuality and less about 'sullying' the name of people who have done exactly what we have labeled them as doing. These people have denied that a genocide has occurs and they deserve - they should expect and accept - that they will be know as a denier for it. One does not offer controversial and potentially offensive support for a fringe theory without acknowledging the negative publicity for it - and I suspect in many cases that is the sole reason they have done it. And if we do decide that these people's reputes do need protection, then the same should go for Holocaust deniers; in fact, most people in the Category:Denialism would probably be better-off with such a label. It would be inaccurate, of course, as most are not simply "skeptical" of an event, but outright disbelieve it, but if we are going to use such obvious Weasel Words, we can at least be consistent.
This proposal smacks of biographical favoritism at best and outright POV pushing at worst. If you seriously beleive the Armenian Genocide is still "up in the air" as according to how it is defined, perhaps you had better make sure the Armenian Genocide article reflects that (it currently does not), before you ask the rest of wikipedia to follow suit. If you are just trying to 'save' the reputation of the people on that list, you are wasting your time. The Myotis (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we err on the side of not slurring people. Seems more NPOV to use skeptic, and reflects the fact that this isn't binary "did happen/didn't happen". The reader can decide whether these people are reputable or not, we stay neutral. The fact it makes our category delialism not fit as easily is NOT an argument that we can use. These are BLPs.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that this is absolutely binary. You either deny it or accept it, there's no middle ground. In addition, one can be a reputable denier. David Irving for example was considered to be very reputable prior to the Lipstadt case.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent example of how the signifier denier leads to misleading associations. Here Eupator uses the example of David Irving--a Holocaust denier! Why is this relevant to our discussion of academics such as Bernard Lewis? Because they are both deniers!--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't err by slurring skeptics, Scott Mac. Meowy 22:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this does rather turn on the degree to which the view that there was an Armenian Genocide is accepted. "Denial" is a loaded word in a way which "skeptic" is not, and it's only justified if there is sufficient agreement that there was one. It doesn't matter who these denialists/skeptics are - but their motivation does matter. One might arguably draw a distinction between skeptics (who are neutral experts starting with the evidence and working to whatever conclusion comes out) and denialists (who are not experts and start with the conclusion - there can't possibly have been one - and pick whatever evidence supports that, insofar as they bother with evidence at all). Rd232 talk 15:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the argument that "denier" is a loaded word goes both ways. "Skeptic" could be seen as implying that it didn't happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to me. Others should weigh in on this--it's an important point. The objective is to find a neutral name, not to privilege one side over the other.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a bad faith nom judging from the nominator's contributions. This is not an "active area of historical research" since the overwhelming majority of international scholars affirm the reality of the Armenian Genocide, while a minority on the fringes, most of whom with an axe to grind do indeed deny it. This category simply states the obvious.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two ad hominem arguments in one comment! Let's keep the focus on the topic, rather than on the editors, please. Just to set the record straight, I am very far from being a SPA. And to further set the record straight, the scholars who question the reality of the Armenian Genocide are not minor-leaguers "with an axe to grind". They include Bernard Lewis, of Princeton University, the foremost American authority on Middle Eastern History.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look up that word prior to using it next time. Critics of Lewis point out that his work is tainted, and that he uses his work to support his political ideologies which includes but is not limited fervent support of an Israel-Turkey alliance. It was Lewis who called the Armenian Genocide: Armenian Holocaust before backtracking for political motives since he never replied when an association of scholars asked him to provide the materials which made him change his position. In fact he only switched positions after he became an advocate of Turkey in a missguided belief that it will be in the interest of Israel.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really now! One becomes the foremost U.S. authority on Middle Eastern history by bending ones research to the strategic interests of Israel! I hope this doesn't sound uncivil, but such a comment betrays a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to reach the top of an academic field. And I'm also very tired of hearing Armenian militants accuse these (mostly Jewish) scholars of being some kind of Israeli Fifth Column.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps among necons (the sole source for that line is a neocon author as well) and their supporters. As for the ludicrous "militant" comment, you're only digging yourself into a deeper hole, do continue please.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "skeptics". The problem with the word denier is that it implies a state of denial, i.e. that the events are unquestionably true and that any "denier" fails to accept reality. I believe that this doesn't meet WP:BLP and that "skeptic" is a more WP:NPOV name. Oren0 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, the problem here is, as I alluded to above, the lumping into one category of very different views. Erich Feigl can reasonably be called a denialist I think; the events he rejects seem well-enough established to say that. Bernard Lewis does not deny the events; he merely rejects the term "genocide" on the basis that the deaths were not intended by the government. I'm not sure that calling him an "Armenian Genocide skeptic" reflects his views any better. Perhaps we should have a neutral category like Category:Armenian Genocide scholars (or writers or authors or something), so that we can categorise the relevant people without oversimplifying or judging their views. Rd232 talk 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very constructive suggestion. I like it! If the subject of a BLP is an academic, has published on the Armenian Genocide, and that research is mentioned in the article, then they would merit Category:Armenian Genocide scholars. If not an academic (like Feigl), then they would not merit that category. All judgment about whether the research is on one side or the other is moot. Category:Armenian Genocide deniers would be deprecated. The real scoundrels could always receive Category:Anti-Armenianism, so a category would be available for people who are clearly not interested in the truth. Of course there would be fights over applying that category as well, but at least we begin to treat the scholars in a neutral way. What do others think?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources that call Lewis a genocide denier (including a plethora of renowned scholars) regardless of his personal statements. He was even admonished for it by a French court, albeit with a symbolic fine.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and keep it as its current name which is entirely descriptive. It is as valid as the Category:Holocaust_deniers - in fact, it is somewhat more valid since many (perhaps most) of those included in that latter category would deny that they deny the Holocaust. Those included in this category are entirely up-front about the fact that they deny the reality of Armenian Genocide - their views are thus not in doubt or just a matter of someone elses opinion. Meowy 21:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the lede of the article Denialism, "Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists." Identical wording is found in the Wiktionary definition. According to this definition, denialism wouldn't apply to these academics, because there is no scholarly consensus (unless one seriously mangles the meaning of "consensus").
By the way, for those who are curious about what it is that the skeptics say, here is a link to testimony Justin McCarthy made before the U.S. Congress which provides a very brief outline of his position: [2]. Needless to say, McCarthy's views are different from those of Guenther Lewy, which are different from those of Bernard Lewis, and so on, because there is as yet no consensus view.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus among Armenian Genocide deniers but there is a consensus among international scholars. The International Association of Genocide Scholars is but one example. A few names upholding a fringe view, who don't even agree among themselves could hardly shatter a global consensus among the scholarly community.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly "fringe", when the foremost US expert on Middle Eastern history holds the view. And then when one considers the world "community" of Ottoman historians, most will be found in the countries formerly in the Ottoman Empire. In all of these countries there are real constraints on research (true in both Armenia and in Turkey), so one can hardly speak of "consensus"--what one finds is disagreement, fueled by nationalism. The consensus is yet to be achieved, and will not be achieved until free inquiry is permitted. Step one to a consensus: cease stigmatizing academics who take positions different from those of the Armenian diaspora.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can barely count with two hands the number of academics that deny the Armenian Genocide, that makes it a fringe, minority view. Enough already.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eupater, you aren't listening. No Turkish academic accepts the Armenian Genocide. No Syrian academic accepts it. No Israeli academic accepts it. How many hands have we used up? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Israel Charny and Yair Auron are Koreans and Taner Akcam and Halil Berktay are Polish right? Get a grip.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of blows your Jewish world conspiracy theory out of the water, doesn't it? Lack of consensus, even in Turkey, even among Jews.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now. Eupator advanced no such theory. This type of rhetoric is preposterous. You created this straw man argument when you implied he was being anti-semitic with your comment that "Armenian militants accuse these (mostly Jewish) scholars of being some kind of Israeli Fifth Column." Then, when he effortlessly refuted your statement that "No Israeli academic" recognizes the Armenian genocide, you fall back to this bit of rhetorical trash-talk? Attempting to tar a good-faith editor with a completely unjustified implication of anti-antisemitism just because he disagrees with you on the Armenian genocide is appalling and you should apologize immediately or be cautioned for incivil behaviour on this page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote: "In fact he only switched positions after he became an advocate of Turkey in a missguided belief that it will be in the interest of Israel." To suggest that Jewish academics conspire to forward Israeli interests is most certainly anti-Semitic.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) He was speaking of a single academic, Lewis, not all Jews. You're the one that's been tossing that nugget around. He's pointed to two Israeli academics who oppose Lewis' stand on the genocide -- so how can he be said to be advancing a Jewish conspiracist view? 2) Suggesting, correct or not, that Lewis has modified his position in order to advance Israeli strategic interests is not anti-semitic 3) finally, as a Jewish Wikipedian I find this particular line of argument transparently disingenuous. Thank you for your deep concern for Jews. We feel so much better. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need I say anything else? Anthon, you should do yourself a favor and watch Andrew Goldberg's documentary The Armenian Genocide.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus on the occurrence of this genocide is almost universal. Therefore, "deniers" is an appropriate and accurate word.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate and accurate when used to describe people who are denying that a genocide occurred. Unfortunately the category also includes at least one person, namely Bernard Lewis, who has (wrongly and regrettably) refused to apply the term "genocide" but should not be taken to have denied the underlying reality of the events. Accordingly I am removing Lewis from this category. I would encourage other editors to research for the other people now listed in the category whether or not they properly belong. At least in the case of Lewis, there is an added urgency because he is alive and WP must be careful to avoid libelling people. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found two passages from an article by Jeremy Salt, where he specifically addresses the issue of the incompleteness of the historical research. I apologize for the lengthy blockquotes. The original article is: Salt, Jeremy. The Narrative Gap in Ottoman Armenian History, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol.39, No.1, January 2003,pp.19–36. The first passage is from the introduction (page 19):

The claim of genocide – vehemently denied in Turkey – is based on a reading of history from which the Ottoman narrative is absent except for marginal references in English language sources. This is partly because very few scholars have the language skills necessary to work in the archives, partly because Turkish governments have been slow in releasing archival material on the Armenian question and partly because the amount of material that stands in need of researching before more complete histories can be written is vast. Thus by default most accounts of the Armenian question are still being written almost wholly from European language sources and largely from the archives of two countries – England and France – that were at war with the Ottoman Empire from 1914 to 1918. However, even if these problems of language and access to sources were overcome the Armenian question as presented in Europe and the United States would still stand as a case study of ‘history’ shaped largely by propaganda and religious bias.

The second passage is from the conclusion (page 35):

The central problem from the standpoint of history remains the sources on which the western historical narrative is still being written. The Ottoman archives remain largely unconsulted. When so much is missing from the fundamental source material, no historical narrative can be called complete and no conclusions can be called balanced. If the Ottoman sources are properly utilized, the way in which the Armenian question is understood is bound to change but from such close scrutiny no one is likely to emerge with unstained hands – not Turks or Kurds responsible for the killings, not the Armenians who engaged in revolt against the Ottoman government and were themselves guilty of massacres, and certainly not the European governments playing minority politics in the Middle East in time of peace and in time of war from the nineteenth century until the present. There is unlikely to be a pristine version of history that neatly accommodates the foundation myths necessary to Armenian nationalism. The search for ‘truth’ will probably remain chimerical but is more likely to lead somewhere if left to historians rather than politicians and lobbyists.

To repeat myself, "denialism" requires "consensus", and consensus requires that the historical record be fully investigated. This, however, is still an active area of historical research.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Putting a respected figure like Bernard Lewis in a category called Armenian Genocide deniers is very harsh. Lacking context, this suggests to casual readers that Lewis is the equivalent of someone like notable Holocaust denier David Irving, which is not the case. It is true that Lewis has refused to call the Armenian genocide a genocide, for which he was rightly censured by a French court. However, Lewis does not deny the historical fact of the mass killings. Renaming the category to Armenian Genocide skeptics is not a good step, as it suggests that there is an ongoing debate about whether or not the Armenian genocide occurred, with some people going on record as "believers" and others as "skeptics". More discussion is needed. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, no one called a denier in WP denies the fact of the killings. There is disagreement about the numbers, but the numbers are so inconceivably large that even the low figures (300 thousand) are horrific. The disagreements are about two issues. First, did the Ottoman state order the killings? Second, did Armenians kill an equivalent number of Muslims (and Jews)? The skeptics tend to say no to the first question and yes to the second. The implication is that one can't call it a "genocide" if it was village-level intercommunal violence, undirected by the state. But, as I've said many times already, no one can really claim to have the answer yet, because this is still an active area of historical research.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but both notions fly in the face of what I've read on the topic. Fact 1: massacres were directed by the Sublime Porte. Fact 2: the Armenians did not kill an equivalent number. In my opinion, you just discredit yourself if you refuse to accept these facts. At the same time I agree that there was also "village level intercommunal violence" and that Armenians murdered innocent Turks (but not on an equivalent scale). More than a few Armenians were also actively disloyal to the Empire. However, any historical treatment that takes account of these factors must take care not to construct a false moral equivalence. The balancing requires a great deal of knowledge, skill and sensitivity: it is probably beyond the ability of amateurs such as we WP editors.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. You make a valid point regarding Lewis as well; however, we do have people like Stephen Zunes who called Lewis a "notorious genocide-denier". It's not exactly original synthesis. See: Bernard Lewis#Loses court case over definition of Armenian Genocide-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Goodmorningworld's argument for removing Lewis is valid. The category does not exist just to contain those who would wish to be included in it, but those whose views have led them to be called "genocide deniers" by other sources. I already mentioned in passing that the majority of names listed in the Holocaust denial article would probably deny that they dispute the oerall reality of the Holocaust - but their names are still there because others have claimed that they are Holocaust deniers. If a credible source calls Lewis a "notorious genocide-denier", then his name should be in the category unless a strong argument is given about why it should not. Unlike the Holocaust deniers category (where anyone who questions even a tiny aspect of its current historical orthodoxy risks being called a "Holocaust denier"), the "Armenian Genocide deniers" category is much clearer cut, which is why it should remain. For example. nobody gets called an Armenian Genocide denier by saying "2.5 million didn't die, only about 1.2 million did". Maybe I've stumbled upon the only good aspect of this ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide? It prevents the subject being hijacked by the same sort of extemist, vested-interest groups that have set themselves up to define what opinions and subjects are acceptable in the study of the Holocaust. Meowy 13:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find Meowy's comments about the Holocaust and "vested-interest groups" decidedly odd. They do not belong in this discussion and I reject them entirely.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would seem that there are editors on both sides of this bitter dispute who are incapable of stating their case in this matter without trotting out their own agendas or axes to grind vis a vis Jews. Sad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though they little know it, the comments by the above two editors have proved my point. But I agree that this particular discussion is not the place to pursue this interesting and important subject further. Meowy 14:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term "skeptics" makes it seem that these people approach the matter from a academic view rather than having already come to a conclusion on whatever basis that may be. I have removed a couple of BLPs where nothing in their bio indicates that they are "deniers". I looked through the remainder and only a couple approach it from a purportedly academic view and they seem generally to deny that many of the events which took place in Anatolia during WWI even happened much less amounted to a genocide. I think such shoddy scholarship indicts itself and that the reason must be to deny the whole Armenian Genocide, so I am comfortable with the cat as currently titled and now pruned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no basis in renaming deniers to skeptics, given that a number of these "deniers" have direct ties to the Turkish government via the Institute of Turkish Studies, which removes any "skepticism" on their part. See: [[3]].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The term "denier" in "Holocaust denier" has taken a meaning of its own, in that it doesn't necessarily mean outright denial. There's no evidence that this term translates to other denials. --Anewpester (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What strange reasoning. You point out a flaw in the "Holocaust deniers" category, and use that flaw to advocate the deletion of a category that does not have the flaw. Meowy 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Claims that the Armenian Genocide did not happen are not taken seriously by close to any non-Turkish scholars. The claim is a fringe viewpoint. These aren't skeptics. These are deniers. The terminology seems completely appropriate. Obviously, we should be careful about sourcing in individual uses. But that's not a reason to delete the category. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Below is an attempt at a summary of my position, for the benefit of the closing admin.
  1. All of the academic "Armenian Genocide deniers" agree (with the rest of the world) that genocide is despicable, and agree that massive amounts of Armenians died in the last days of the Ottoman Empire. They do not deny the obvious.
  2. They do not agree, though, that the deaths of the Armenians constitute a genocide. First, because (they say) Armenians killed equivalent numbers of non-Armenians. Second, because (they say) it cannot be established that the Ottoman state ordered the killings of Armenians.
  3. They believe they have good grounds for this view, and have published a great volume of peer-reviewed papers in academic journals in defense of it. None of us participating in this discussion are really competent to judge this work--its worth must be evaluated by the community of scholars who work in this area--historians specializing in the late Ottoman period.
  4. This is not a "fringe" view, because the people advancing it are not from the "fringe"--they are some of the foremost scholars of the Middle East. This is also not held by a small number of scholars, since most experts on late Ottoman history live in the successor states to the Ottoman Empire, and the skeptical view of the Armenian Genocide is widespread there.
  5. But it is not yet possible to say who is right. This is still an active area of historical research. It is active because (as the article by Jeremy Salt argues) the current view of the Armenian Genocide is almost entirely based on historical research in the archives of nations that were at war with the Ottoman Empire during the time of the tragedy. As of yet, the Ottoman archives have not been much researched. Our current picture is incomplete, and because it is incomplete, there is no consensus yet among the historians of the late Ottoman period.
  6. Denialism is defined (on WP) as denying what has been established through scientific or scholarly consensus. For this particular topic, the consensus has not yet been reached. Hence the diversity of views, even among the top scholars.
  7. WP policy is clear, that when choosing a category name, one should choose the least opprobrious among the alternatives (see here). Armenian Genocide deniers is inappropriate and highly opprobrious. I propose Armenian Genocide skeptics as a neutral alternative. Because BLP considerations come into play here, it is especially important to choose the neutral alternative.
Thanks to everyone for taking time to participate in this discussion. Cheers. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I dont want to simplify the issue, emotions run high on both sides, however it seems what we have is a dispute without resolution before impartial and qualified persons. In the western sense of justice, if an allegation is made the accused has the right to a fair hearing before a qualified judge. Innocent until proven guilty, the accused has the right to defend himself and have the prosecutions evidence scrutinised. Since this has not happened in this case using the term denial would be too loaded and just POV.

Comparisons cannot be made with the holocaust. The evidence for that has been brought before trial and the outcome is clear. A person disagreeing with that outcome would rightfully be a denier. Ironically, in the "Armenian Genocide" debate, it is the supporters of the alleged genocide view who are the most reluctant to take the dispute to a tribunal even though they argue it is beyond doubt and it is the critics of the allegations who are the most vocal in their support of establishing a fair trial to resolve the dispute. One has to wonder why Armenian groups and lobbies are so reluctant given that a War Crimes Tribunal ruling in their favour would be so beneficial towards their cause. 92.237.12.132 (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC) — 92.237.12.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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:Music composers[edit]

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. Category was empty at close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Music composers to Category:Composers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. New cat created today, redundant. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the 2 articles are aleady in nationality subcats of Category:Composers. (The main article is at Composer.) Occuli (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composer" is a general word when "Music Composer" is quiet specific. So I think Category:Composer should be Category:Music composer, in my humble opinion.117.18.231.180 (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rather than merge. Category:Composers is already explicit about what belongs in it. Adding the word "music" is tautological. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content in composer and delete category. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge (in case anything gets added before deletion). - Fayenatic (talk) 20:44, 5 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_1&oldid=1144709656"