Category talk:Cold War people
|
|
Template:Oldpeerreview On what basis is this a useful category? It looks really lame on the individual pages, and doesn't provide any very useful information. john k 07:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. "People assocated with XYZ" seems very loosely defined and indeed useless. I think this sort of thing is best dealt with in the text of articles unambiguously about the Cold War. ShadowDragon 19:03, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Folks, this category, as with all categories, should stick to a more strict definition, otherwise the category is useless. Less is more. Fuzheado | Talk 05:48, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moved from vandalism in progress:
User:Sesel
Making POV additions of mass quantities of people to Category:Cold War people RickK 05:18, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Information is NOT POV if is is FACTUAL. I have information linking EVERY SINGLE NAME on the list to actions during the Cold War. --Sesel 05:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- this isn't vandalism - perhaps you should debate it rather than just revert. The debate is whether the category should exist - Sesel's edits seem fine - but is the category sensible? Secretlondon 05:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- See "Please only use this page for genuine malicious vandalism, and only for a sustained attack." above.
- You don't call the huge numbers of people added to the category a sustained attack? And as I KEEP asking, if the user would give us PROOF that these are Cold War people, then there wouldn't be a problem, so long as his proof is NPOV, but he has declined to do so. See his Talk page, where he feels it's beneath him, apparently. RickK 05:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
- No this is an editing dispute. Secretlondon 05:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You don't call the huge numbers of people added to the category a sustained attack? And as I KEEP asking, if the user would give us PROOF that these are Cold War people, then there wouldn't be a problem, so long as his proof is NPOV, but he has declined to do so. See his Talk page, where he feels it's beneath him, apparently. RickK 05:45, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
As I understand it RickK believes this is POV as he sees it as anti-American. My take on this is we need to decide what this category is for. It can't list ever figure during the cold war as it would be ridiculous - and yet using some definitions most national leaders of the period could be added. My question: should this category exist? Secretlondon 05:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable category. But it needs to consist of people who played some major role in the events. I've just removed among others, former Presidents of Nauru, Papua New Guinea and Madagascar, who had precisely nothing to do with the conflict, for gods sake. Ambivalenthysteria 05:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- But it could be easily argued that leaders of non-aligned nations did. Hence the problem. Secretlondon 06:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- In what way? Somehow I don't think you can class Michael Somare in the same category as Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Eduard Shevardnadze. If they go in, then so could just about ever twentieth century politician? Heck, some of the people that got added, (Askar Akayev, for one) weren't even in politics when the Cold War ended. Ambivalenthysteria 06:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- But it could be easily argued that leaders of non-aligned nations did. Hence the problem. Secretlondon 06:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The problem with lack of limits entailing giant lists exists with many categories, e.g., Category:World War II people, which would be enormous under some standards. I suppose the question is whether any of these categories are viable. VV 06:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you! I see this as very similar to the category of people who a certain magazine has considered to be a sex symbol - ie totally useless. Secretlondon 06:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think it's quite as bad as that, but nevertheless, I wouldn't object if it were put on CFD. Ambivalenthysteria 06:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you! I see this as very similar to the category of people who a certain magazine has considered to be a sex symbol - ie totally useless. Secretlondon 06:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ummm, hello, like what does Isabel Allende have to do with the Cold War??? -- Viajero 06:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Well her brother certainly... But overzealous. I honestly think this category is going to be a nightmare - it will no doubt bring up every case of alleged US or Soviet involvement in various countries affairs. And I don't see what the practical use of the category will be. Secretlondon 06:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The prosecution rests. Ambivalenthysteria 06:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Categories like Cold War leaders would be more useufl. I agree this category or whatever results from this discussion needs to be narrowed down to be useful. Fuzheado | Talk 06:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think a rename would help the situation much - particularly not to leaders, anyway. That would still include most of these people - Somare, Ratsiraka, and Dowiyogo were all leaders during the Cold War. While it might get rid of people like Isabel Allende, it could also exclude people like Eduard Shevardnadze - who while not a leader at the time, was pretty important. Ambivalenthysteria 06:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Ummm, hello, like what does Isabel Allende have to do with the Cold War??? -- Viajero 06:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- How about this rule of thumb - if the article does not mention the word "Cold War" then it should not be labeled with the category. I think that's a pretty decent measure. Right now there are simply too many folks associated with this category. Fuzheado | Talk 08:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- That would be a good start. Ambivalenthysteria 08:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The persons is in this article should have some involvement or bearing on foreign policy, international affairs, international incident etc, as realting to Cold War politics; not just People who were alive in the "Cold War Era". Nobs01 21:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)