Category talk:Murdered politicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is 'Assassinated politicians' a sub-cat of 'Murdered politicians'? Aren't the two terms more or less synonymous? If not, there are certainly quite a number of people listed under 'Murdered' who I think belong under 'Assassinated'. LordAmeth 12:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

Aren't 'Murdered politicians' & 'Assassinated politicians' the same thing? Perhaps the Categories should be merged into one.

Michael David 21:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in strong agreement on this point, though I'd keep the name "Murdered", not "Assassinated". If we want, we can then subcat out into "Category:Politicians murdered after leaving office" or "Category:Politicians killed criminals unaware of their status" or whatever, but the term "assassinated" is just too darn subjective, I agree. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 12:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the argument I made on the 'Assassinated Politicians' Talk Page:

I’m still learning, but right now I guess once a politician, always a politician (and that’s another issue altogether). In common usage, the term, or occupational category, of ‘politician’ covers everything from Dogcatcher to President (there’s another issue best left alone). And, once a person leaves office they are still commonly regarded a ‘politician’. And the term ‘assassinated’ is more commonly used to refer to their death if it is under violent circumstances. Bottom line: I think we ought to abandon the ‘Murdered politicians’ Category altogether in favor of ‘Assassinated’ regardless of the circumstances of their death, or whether or not they were still in office. This is the rational argument.

I don't have a really strong feeling either way. I was just thinking of which term is usually applied to the murder of a politician in common usage. Actually, the term 'Assassinated' seems to elevate the act of murder to some degree of status when it is applied to a politician. Actually - in some individual cases - this may not always apply.

Michael David 13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Think about this. In the debate over 'Murdered' v. 'Assassinated' politicians, would it simplify matters if the politician were categorized "Assassinated' only if they were killed while still in office. Once they leave office they are still commonly referred to as a 'politician', but their death at the hands of another would be catagorized as 'Murdered'.

Thoughts?

Michael David 15:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Murdered' >'Slain'

I would like to propose that the name of this Category be changed to a more neutral term: 'Slain Politicians'. Thoughts?

Michael David 19:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

Folks,

I have been working on ‘dead politicians’ (Assassinated v. Murdered) for a while now [and, believe me, they are not a happy bunch to spend much time with]. The discussion had gotten murky with no clear consensus as to how to proceed; so I went ahead on my own. I stopped working on it because I did not want to complete the long task, only to have someone come along and want to reverse it.

My belief is that the Category the person is placed in should depend on the circumstances of the their death. The Leo Ryan example User Ghosts&empties gave is an excellent one. Also, if a wife kills her husband who happens to be a US Senator – did she assassinate him? If so, that would make her an assassin. I don’t think so!

• This is what I propose: To go through both Categories, ‘Assassinated Politicians’ & ‘Murdered Politicians’; separate out, by the circumstances of their death, those killed for political reasons from those not. Those politicians killed under other than political circumstances become categorized as ‘Murder Victims’ (a Category which already exists). Those remaining in the Assassinated Category can be further subcategorized by nationality (e.g., “Assassinated American Politicians”)

This issue has been unresolved for some time now; can we reach a consensus here?

Be healthy,

Michael David 11:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)