Editing Category talk:Atrocities
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 5:
Line 5: ::::Here's the problem: By the nature of what you're choosing to do, you're violating NPOV. Categorizing something as an act of extreme wickedness, a tremendous injustice, an atrocity by the definition of the word is inherently a subjective decision based on opinions, not facts. Find an objective definition to categorize on. It may work better if the category is defined (EDIT: but not named) as something like this: "Events commonly but not necessarily universally held to be acts of extreme cruelty or excessive wickedness." That lets people look at the category and know what's going on without asserting that BTW chooses to regard them as ''de facto'' atrocities. There certainly are events that are nearly universally regarded as atrocities but there's a difference between saying it's regarded as such and simply saying it ''is'' an atrocity: the former is a statement of fact, the latter of opinion. On the other hand, it's certainly only my opinion that this is potentially problematic. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ::::Here's the problem: By the nature of what you're choosing to do, you're violating NPOV. Categorizing something as an act of extreme wickedness, a tremendous injustice, an atrocity by the definition of the word is inherently a subjective decision based on opinions, not facts. Find an objective definition to categorize on. It may work better if the category is defined (EDIT: but not named) as something like this: "Events commonly but not necessarily universally held to be acts of extreme cruelty or excessive wickedness." That lets people look at the category and know what's going on without asserting that BTW chooses to regard them as ''de facto'' atrocities. There certainly are events that are nearly universally regarded as atrocities but there's a difference between saying it's regarded as such and simply saying it ''is'' an atrocity: the former is a statement of fact, the latter of opinion. On the other hand, it's certainly only my opinion that this is potentially problematic. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ::To clarify something, what's in there right now isn't really an issue. But then you get into the question of why nuking Arcadia in the Crucis March isn't generally seen as an atrocity but just about everyone thinks what happened on Kentares was. The term itself is inflammatory in my experience and the definition is subjective from person to person. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 14:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) ::To clarify something, what's in there right now isn't really an issue. But then you get into the question of why nuking Arcadia in the Crucis March isn't generally seen as an atrocity but just about everyone thinks what happened on Kentares was. The term itself is inflammatory in my experience and the definition is subjective from person to person. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 14:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − :I'm stepping in as a fellow editor, and I agree that 'Atrocities' is indeed non-neutral. And, as Neufeld requested, we can definitely come up with a better term for it. As Sarna 'historians', we have to remove ourselves from (as well as any appearances towards) judging the events as good or bad, but instead just report them. I think all three of us are in agreement on that. I'm gonna devote a handful of braincells to this, and will [[Policy:Bold|be bold]] by making some changes to both the description of the category and I'll try to suggest a different name. That name will probably influence (and allow for) the inclusion of non-traditional means of warfare to include orbital strikes and NBC warfare. (I do think it's an interesting category.) --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − ::Fine with me. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 15:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − :Okay, gentlemen: take a look at the new category description and see if it meets with your expectations for the category and that it meets most definitions of non-neutral. − :I developed this by reading up on terrorism as a subject, and came up with the concept that there exist nonconventional methods of waging war. So, how about that as a name? Category: Nonconventional Acts of War? It's a bit wieldy, but I think a bit more descriptive of specific events than would Category: Nonconventional Warfare. − :Let me know. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 19:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − ::When you say outside the bounds of civilised warfare, do you mean specifically in breach of the Ares Conventions? It feels like a loaded phrase given that the BTech verse has those conventions, and theoretically, every war fought without those conventions (such as the Capellan/Concordat war) would by default fit into this category. [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 20:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − :::That's something I'm seeking guidance on, from the two above. I'm presuming to speak for Neufeld when I suggest he means acts (real world) Westerners would consider evil and wrong, while I think its fair to say it should be about the concept of the Inner Sphere's idea of non-standard methods of warfare. We have to strive to keep the definition neutral, for clearly the Draconis Combine felt justified in their actions, as did the Blakists in their's. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − ::::I was working through House Davion and House Liao earlier today, working up the posts on the [[Almach Accords]] and [[Acala Pact]], and I found the detail on how the entire population of [[Bell]] allegedly vanished while the world was occupied by the Federated Suns... and by coincidence, I saw the entry on here where it cites the Taurian Concordat finding the inhabitants of Bell in a work camp on [[Tintavia]], and in freeing them, began the Taurian Defence Force. So, one of the questions this category makes me ask is, does the disappearance of the residents of Bell and their alleged discovery in a work camp on Tintavia qualify it as an event or action worthy of being in this category? [[User:BrokenMnemonic|BrokenMnemonic]] 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − :::::Maybe? I imagine there is no article on the presumably forced relocation yet, but I'd have to be familiar with the incident before I'd weigh in on it. By default, the article would be in the Events category, but if it were a political move (and non-violent), I'd say it wasn't meant for this (as yet un-renamed) category we're discussing here. Neufeld, Moonsword? --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 21:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) − ::::Well, I like the new description and thinks it is fine. I am a bit uncertain about the issue of orbital bombardment of military targets, and border cases like Capella Prime. As for the type of acts I indended to be in this category is mostly those type of actions that targets non-military targets. As for new category name, I would prefer something that was a bit briefer, but it will do unless someone has a better idea. --[[User:Neufeld|Neufeld]] 12:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC) − :::::Neufeld, that's a great category: "non-military targets". In light of that, my description would be off. I'm going to re-word the description, to better state the intent. Let me know (all) what you think. That was helpful; thanks.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 14:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC) − ::::::I'm still not sure terrorism isn't a subjective label, but this is much better and it certainly gets the point across. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 19:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC) − :::::::The word 'terrorism' is notoriously hard to define. The 'other' side constantly employs it, 'we' never do. WP has an entire article devoted to the [[w:Definitions of terrorism|definitions of terrorism]]. I agree with you that it could be conceived as a pejorative; I'm just hoping that -due to its inherent difficulties in definition- more readers than naught will accept the intent.--[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 20:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::::Here's the problem: By the nature of what you're choosing to do, you're violating NPOV. Categorizing something as an act of extreme wickedness, a tremendous injustice, an atrocity by the definition of the word is inherently a subjective decision based on opinions, not facts. Find an objective definition to categorize on. It may work better if the category is defined (EDIT: but not named) as something like this: "Events commonly but not necessarily universally held to be acts of extreme cruelty or excessive wickedness." That lets people look at the category and know what's going on without asserting that BTW chooses to regard them as ''de facto'' atrocities. There certainly are events that are nearly universally regarded as atrocities but there's a difference between saying it's regarded as such and simply saying it ''is'' an atrocity: the former is a statement of fact, the latter of opinion. On the other hand, it's certainly only my opinion that this is potentially problematic. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ::::Here's the problem: By the nature of what you're choosing to do, you're violating NPOV. Categorizing something as an act of extreme wickedness, a tremendous injustice, an atrocity by the definition of the word is inherently a subjective decision based on opinions, not facts. Find an objective definition to categorize on. It may work better if the category is defined (EDIT: but not named) as something like this: "Events commonly but not necessarily universally held to be acts of extreme cruelty or excessive wickedness." That lets people look at the category and know what's going on without asserting that BTW chooses to regard them as ''de facto'' atrocities. There certainly are events that are nearly universally regarded as atrocities but there's a difference between saying it's regarded as such and simply saying it ''is'' an atrocity: the former is a statement of fact, the latter of opinion. On the other hand, it's certainly only my opinion that this is potentially problematic. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
::To clarify something, what's in there right now isn't really an issue. But then you get into the question of why nuking Arcadia in the Crucis March isn't generally seen as an atrocity but just about everyone thinks what happened on Kentares was. The term itself is inflammatory in my experience and the definition is subjective from person to person. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 14:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ::To clarify something, what's in there right now isn't really an issue. But then you get into the question of why nuking Arcadia in the Crucis March isn't generally seen as an atrocity but just about everyone thinks what happened on Kentares was. The term itself is inflammatory in my experience and the definition is subjective from person to person. --[[User:Moonsword|Moonsword]] 14:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||