[WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies

[Andrew Gray]

On 09/11/05, Alphax <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:

> > It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would
> > be subject to the whims of the voting process.  This is not just a
> > question of "Soviet spies".  Any category suggesting a criminal activity
> > of any kind should be viewed as POV.
>
> Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?

In effect, yes. [[Category:Rapists]] states: "This category is for
individuals who have been convicted of rape, or those for whom there
is little academic doubt as to whether they committed the crime".

(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less
comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in
the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried
about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)

"Little academic doubt" covers things like rape-and-murder where
someone's been convicted on seventeen counts of first-degree murder;
even though they didn't get around to charging him with the rapes,
it's not generally seen as a sign of innocence.

For [[Category:Soviet spies]], however, the description is: "This
category lists people who are said to have spied for the Soviet Union
by some sources. Many are not Soviet citizens. Several denied they
were spies, and even more were never indicted."

This is somewhat less stringent, certainly. I mean, there's no
shortage of claims that [[Harold Wilson]] was a Soviet spy - should he
be in that category? God no - and if there'd been accusations of rape
he wouldn't be in [[Category:Rapists]]. But under the wording now,
you'd be perfectly justified adding him...

The difference between the scope of the categories can be put this
way: you wouldn't be able to add Bill Clinton to the Rapists category,
but you would be able to add Wilson to the Soviet spies one. Yet the
accusations are only accusations for both...

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk