Category talk:Military scandals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Category-class)
WikiProject icon This category is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Category page Category  This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Category-Class)
MILHIST This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Cat Categories do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

So, only USA has "military scandals"? -- (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe other countries have one occasionally, but according to Wikipedia's world-famous standard of objectivity, only the U.S deserves subcategories. (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC) (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I added Japanese embassy hostage crisis, Dirty War, Comfort Women, Torture during the Algerian War and some more and removed all the people. -- (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added a lot more. I hope anyone'd agree to these. -- (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, what is "military scandal"?[edit]

"List of military controversies" has everything from the Holocaust to Iraqi insurgency. Which of these are "military scandals" and why? ("Military scandals" aren't even mentioned in Scandal article.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When a war crime is a "military scandal"? When it was met with outcry in one's own country at the time of the incident? -- (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think outcry is required, but it can be outcry in any country and at any time.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Article scandal tells: A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. I think this is exactly right. A scandal is simply a highly publicized controversial event (if allegations are true or not is irrelevant). If such events involve military, they belong here. Not every "controversy" is a scandal because it may not be highly publicized.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I added the Holocaust. It was so much of quite a scandal that I added whole category. -- (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust should not be here. "Military Scandal" implies the involvement of military forces. The Holocaust was carried out by the SS, which was not part of the German military. It was a secret police arm. Further, I don't think that "conspiracy theories", particularly ones that gained currency decades after the events in question, should be in this category. It's quite easy to "widely publicize" something without a shred of validity (see Dihydrogen_monoxide, so merely being widely distributed is not a valid criterion, for inclusion. I think that a certain amount of support for a theory should be required. LordShonus (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)