Category talk:Propaganda films

Proposal for inclusion criteria

I feel that the current usage of this category is inconsistent, and that editors on different pages are interpreting the category differently when determining whether a film qualifies as propaganda. Furthermore, since "propaganda" is frequently interpreted as a negative descriptor, the lack of a clear working definition and criteria for inclusion makes it possible for editors to push an agenda or unconsciously insert bias in their choice of which films to include (as has been pointed out before). According WP:CAT, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories." In an attempt to make categorization more consistent, I would like to propose some criteria for when a film should be included in this category (or an appropriate subcategory).

First, main article for this category, propaganda film, says that a propaganda film is

a film, either a documentary-style production or a fictional screenplay, that is produced to convince the viewer of a certain political point or influence the opinions or behavior of people, often by providing deliberately misleading, [[propaganda|propagandistic] content.

The second clause strikes me as too broad to determine whether a film belongs here; there are many films which attempt to "influence opinions or behavior" for which a propaganda label would be unsuitable. So I think that the working definition of propaganda, for the purposes of this category, should be taken from the first clause: a propaganda film is a film that is produced with the intent of convincing the viewer of a certain political point.

In other words, a film should be included in this category if it can be shown through reliable sources to be intended to convince the viewer of a certain political point. This doesn't have to be the sole intent, for example a film which is intended with the primary purpose of entertainment and a secondary purpose of arousing patriotism would still be considered propaganda under this definition. This is, to some extent, a tricky definition to apply because it deals not with intent, not the content, of the film, which in some cases may be hard to know. For some films, (case 1) it may be self-evident what the intent of the creators was; for others, (case 2) it may be possible to establish the intent through sources of funding for the film, or direct statements by the makers of the film; for still others, (case 3) it may be more subtle and one must do careful analysis of the film in order to establish intent; it may also be possible (case 4) that the intent of the filmmakers is to convince the viewer of a certain political point, but that it is impossible to clearly establish this intent through reliable sources. In case 1, one can simply add the propaganda films category (or an appropriate subcategory). In case 2, when reliable sources appear in the article demonstrating the direct statements of intent or funding link, one can add the propaganda films category. In case 3, one must provide reliable sources who have done such an analysis and concluded that the intent justifies the propaganda label; moreover, one must be mindful that, "Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article," per WP:CAT#Guidelines. Additionally, it must be clear that the reliable source is either using the same definition that is used here, or else makes specific factual claims which qualify it for this definition; the fact that a reliable source calls a film "propaganda" is insufficient, as the source may be using the word in one of its popular meanings, such as "deceitful", which doesn't qualify it for this category. Finally, in case 4, the category should not be used, since it can't be reliably demonstrated to be appropriate.

Another thing to bear in mind is that this definition restricts propaganda to films trying to make a political point. If a film intends to establish some factual point, however controversial, that does not qualify it for inclusion in the category. However, such a film might still meet the definition if it also attempts to convince the viewer of a political point. For example, neither a film which argues that global warming is real and human-caused nor a film which argues that global warming is a myth would be suitable for inclusion in the category; however, a film which argues that global warming is real and therefore we should support tighter emissions-control legislation would be suitable for inclusion, as would a film which argues the reverse.

Finally, there is nothing negative in being included in this category. "Propaganda" is generally viewed as a negative label, but there is nothing negative about arguing in support of a political point. Casablanca, arguably one of the best films ever made, has been viewed as a WWII propaganda film due to its portrayal of the axis and of fascism. The category merely serves to make it easier to find articles on Wikipedia about films which explicitly argue in favor of some political purpose or otherwise seek to persuade the viewer.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain more, but I am leery of what you are proposing as it smacks of partisanship, especially in your comments about global warming. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC).

An argument to consider for politically driven films of the past decade or so is that there is not enough of a retrospective perspective. I am fairly positive that it would be easy to find sources that are divisive about the nature of a film. If you notice, a lot of films in this category are older and thus entail a historical perspective. Films like Expelled and what-have-you are too current for that, so I don't think that they should be categorized as "propaganda films" so quickly. Unfortunately, people are in a hurry to identify topics one way or another on Wikipedia, and I think that at least part of the criteria needs to be the factor of time. Consider cult films... would we necessarily recognize them as such in the past year or two? Just food for thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Explain what, in particular? My issue is that partisanship is an inherent problem with this category, and having clear criteria would help avoid partisanship in determining whether to include a particular film in the category. I've edited my comment about global warming to make it clear that the particular political point being argued doesn't affect whether a film should be considered propaganda under this proposal, the important thing is that the point is political, rather than historical, scientific, etc. That said, I'm not particularly attached to this proposed set of criteria; I just think that some agreed-upon criteria would help editors apply this category in a consistent way, and avoid the appearance of bias. If you have a counterproposal, I'd be happy to hear it.

I think the idea that films should be at least a certain age before inclusion has a lot of merit - it would help keep NPoV by preventing current controversies from being played out by editors. skeptical scientist (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much a matter of age as it is a matter of misusing the category. For Expelled, it is being used to hold "Documentary films whose point I violently reject". One could just as well include anything Michael Moore did after Roger and Me, or for that matter, An Inconvenient Truth. Or for that matter, any film whose content might lead someone to call their congressman. I really think we must be extremely conservative and limit the category to material produced at the behest of specific institutions, and especially political institutions. Expelled clearly doesn't belong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs) 09:38, August 2, 2008

I think that misuse of the category is tied in with the age of the work. You identified contemporary films that could be wrongly categorized, since the issues are ongoing and continuously provocative with different parties. I'm not suggesting an arbitrary age to gauge whether a film is considered propaganda or not, but there needs to be a historical perspective in this case. For propaganda war films, they are obviously best assessed after the war is over. In the case of the films that you named, they may warrant a different timeline for historical assessment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I'd be just as happy to confine the category to films by or at the behest of governments or similar political entities, but if you want some examples about a particular company, the film Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price would not qualify as propaganda, while the film Why Wal-Mart Works; and Why That Drives Some People C-R-A-Z-Y could conceivably be termed "propaganda", since it was made at the behest of Wal-Mart in its own defense. Mangoe (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only classify films as propaganda films if someone has described them as propaganda films (and this has been sourced in the article. If it hasn't been called propaganda, then we shouldn't put it in this category. If you disagree with tat method of classification, then I say we remove the category altogether, as it would be very POV of Wikipedia to put a film in this category if it hasn't been described as such. Wikipedia should mention the controversy, not say the controversy is correct. Deamon138 (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "someone"? I'm assuming we're at least talking Wikipedia:Reliable source here, but if a single film critic (or more than one) calls a film propaganda does that mean it's appropriate to include it in this category? I'm not so sure. I don't think we should remove the category altogether, as it's very useful for films such as Why We Fight, Tokio Jokio, etc., (which can uncontroversially be labeled propaganda) but it's true that the mere existence of such a category creates problems. I'm trying to find some way of preserving the utility while limiting the potential problems. skeptical scientist (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is an enormous difference between attempting to influence opinion, which is considered a normal and ethical activity, and "deliberately misleading" etc., which is not. I also agree that a definition which seems to lump both things together into a single category can have serious problems and should be changed. However, because of the negative connotations of the term "propaganda", which tends to connote misleading or unethical communication, I would limit the term "propaganda" to the very narrow category of films reliably sourced and generally regarded as misleading. I would use a different, more neutrally and innocuously labeled category such as "political films" for the much broader category of films intended to influence opinion or communicate a political message. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical Scientist, by "someone" I did indeed mean WP:Reliable source, sorry if I was a little ambiguous. But a single film critic would count as a reliable source, so what's the problem? Yes there are many clear examples of propaganda films like those you quoted, but the ones that are obvious forms of propaganda should still have to have been described as propaganda by a film critic (or other reliable source). This is fairly trivial for Why We Fight, but what about more contentious films? In my view a film like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is blatant propaganda, and a film like An Inconvenient Truth is not, but my view on those doesn't count as it would be original research. So it would be NPOV if we put both those two films into this category (note I don't know if they are or not right now) since Expelled has definitely been described as propaganda, and William M. Gray has described Al Gore's film/book combo as ""We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. This is a slick propaganda book. The pictures are very good. But there are factual errors." So both would probably belong in.

The problem I feel, comes from the name of this category: "Propaganda Films". That to me is POV, as whether a lot of films are propaganda is subjective. So a more NPOV way would be to make sure the propaganda is sourced like I've outlined above, and rename this category to "Films described as propaganda". Deamon138 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, a little Googling produces a UK court ruling that Gore's book, at least, is "propaganda". And certainly by the neutral elements found in our article on propaganda, it qualifies, since it is certainly intended to push a particular political position. The thing is that documentary making has become so politicized that increasingly large percentages could be classed as "propaganda" in this sense. I agree that it isn't useful to come from this perspective. That's why I would prefer to take a narrow sense and stick with films from/for specific institutions to promote their interests; it is something that can be determined quite neutrally and harkens back to the oldest sense of the the term. In the somewhat controversial cases mentioned just above, neither film would qualify on this ground, because there's no institution (not counting Al Gore (just kidding)). Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion seems like it might be the best. It would allow inclusion for those obvious government propaganda films (a clear example of this), and even the Wal-Mart one mentioned above, assuming it can be verified that it was indeed sponsored by Wal-Mart (the current article does not address this), but would exclude independent documentaries advocating a political position, regardless of how dishonest people say they are. The main issue remaining would be to define exactly what "specific institutions to promote their interests" means. If Amnesty International helps finance a documentary on Darfur would that be propaganda, because ending such genocides is undoubtedly an interest of that organization? Clearly there is a difference between that and, say, Union Carbide releasing a documentary about a large mass suicide in Bhopal, India in 1984. -R. fiend (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the category is bound to be problematical regardless of what sort of inclusion criteria is decided upon, so the best solution might be to use "films described as propaganda". However, I still foresee such a category being removed from An Inconvenient Truth or Fahrenheit 9/11 but not Expelled. That's what we've done for the Expelled article itself; it doesn't call the film propaganda (except through the use of the category) but cites several sources that do.

The idea of putting anything in this category that any allegedly reliable source has ever called propaganda is simply not going to work. It brings up all sorts of issues with reliability, undue weight, NPOV, etc. Are film critics experts in deciding what is propaganda, as some have suggested, or are they guys who make a buck stating with some eloquence how good they thought a movie was? Film reviews are opinion pieces, and opinion pieces are generally not considered reliable sources. We wouldn't put Kim Jung Il in a category:Evil people because George Will calls him that in an opinion column (assuming he does), so we shouldn't put a film into category:Propaganda films because a single opinion piece uses that word. The fact that two alleged "experts" can see the same movie and come to opposite conclusions (just watch an episode of Ebert and Roeper) illustrates how what they say is not exactly definitive.

Furthermore, the definition of propaganda, as given by WP, is hardly useful:

"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience..."

So far that describes any commercial you've ever seen, as well as most art.

"...Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented..."

Stating that it "often" does this means it is not necessarily part of the definition. And again, we're looking at commercials, as well as most documentaries. Certainly Michael Moore's films present facts selectively. Looking at Sicko you'd think health care in France is perfect, and the country itself is veritable Utopia, when it obviously has its significant problems (as every place does). This isn't really a problem necessarily; it's not his job to make the case against his position any more than it's a defense lawyer's job to fairly present the case against his client. But it still is presenting facts selectively.

"...The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda."

"To further a political agenda" removes most commercials (but not all) and a large amount of art, but, by this definition, just about every documentary even remotely about a political subject can qualify as propaganda. While I would be against using this category for every such movie, I would probably prefer that approach to the selective, POV, approach we seem to be taking now.

I guess the most compelling case for use of the category for Expelled (which is what this discussion is largely about) is that several sources have called it that. Yet this is still problematical for numerous reasons:

1. Policy specifically addresses the fact that categories are not cited, and the self-evidence of the subject is a requirement, and the film does not clear the "self-evident" bar.

2. The sources are generally (if not always) opinion pieces.

3. While there is a general consensus that the movie is poorly done, based on the large majority of professional film reviews, there is no such consensus on the propaganda issue, despite assertions by at least one editor that any negative review is a de facto statement that the film is a propaganda piece. That is simply not true.

It is very obvious to me that some people are letting their personal opinions of the film affect their editing of the article. If we want to remain NPOV we have to overcome that. -R. fiend (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"If Amnesty International helps finance a documentary on Darfur would that be propaganda, because ending such genocides is undoubtedly an interest of that organization? Clearly there is a difference between that and, say, Union Carbide releasing a documentary about a large mass suicide in Bhopal, India in 1984." I'm guessing the Union Carbide Documentary is just a hypothetical and they never actually made one did they? (Sorry if that's a dumb question, I don't know a lot about that event). Anyway, hypothetically speaking, I think if both documentaries were actually described as propaganda then we have to list them here. It might sound horrific, and 99.9% of editors here would describe genocide as evil, and labeling an obvious industrial accident that killed thousands as suicide would also be pretty damn bad, but it would still be POV to say categorically (no pun intended) that "zero genocides is a better situation than a genocide". Remember, Wikipedia describes the controversy, and doesn't take sides. With say pseudoscience, we describe articles as saying that "most scientists see X as pseudoscience" (plus citation) rather than saying "X is pseudoscience" or with morals "X is wrong/right". It is worth quoting User:Karada on Saddam Hussein from WP:NPOV:

"You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources."

Yes a film critic might not be an expert on the subject of propaganda, but if they are reliable enough to have their opinion in the article what's the problem? A reliable source is a reliable source and therefore the opinions in that source can be given in the article. How else are we to decide what should be included in this category if not from a reliable secondary source? It's not like Category:American musicians (I don't know if that exists) because that title is inherently NPOV, but this one isn't. We can't just go "Why We Fight is clearly propaganda, let's add it to this category" because what's obvious to you and me isn't obvious to someone else. I guarantee that there is a fair few people on this Earth that would disagree with the distinction of it being propaganda. This is why it should be sourced in the article itself, and this category moved to "Films described as propaganda." At the moment it just looks like it is Wikipedia saying that all these films are propaganda which is a violation of WP:NPOV.

""To further a political agenda" removes most commercials (but not all) and a large amount of art, but, by this definition, just about every documentary even remotely about a political subject can qualify as propaganda. While I would be against using this category for every such movie, I would probably prefer that approach to the selective, POV, approach we seem to be taking now." There is no limit to category size, so using this as a category for that many films wouldn't be a problem, but again something along the lines od "to further a political agenda" would have to be cited in the articles themselves.

"Policy specifically addresses the fact that categories are not cited" Actually WP:CATEGORY says that, "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories. Avoid including categories in an article if the article itself doesn't adequately show it belongs there. For example, avoid placing a category for a profession or award unless the article provides some verification that the placement is accurate. Use the {{Category unsourced}} tag if the article is in a category but no sources demonstrate the category is appropriate." This clearly shows the article itself needs to demonstrate why it is included in a particular category. I think you might be confusing the difference between lists and categories: that lists contain inline citations, while the categories themselves don't, but the articles sure do.

"self-evidence of the subject is a requirement, and the film does not clear the "self-evident" bar" By that logic, no films could qualify for this category, since it is not self-evident that any film is propaganda, as calling anything propaganda is one of the purest forms of subjectivity you will ever see. If we do go along with that though, we may as well delete this category, and do a list instead, since it doesn't have to be self-evident with a list. But I think it would be much easier with my suggestion, that the film actually to have been called propaganda in a reliable secondary source (in the article). If people would prefer to do a list instead that is fine by me, but then we would still have to cite the fact that it has been described as propaganda in the list itself then.

"The sources are generally (if not always) opinion pieces." Quoting from WP:RELIABLE, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Since I would presume a film critic to be generally reliable towards the subject at hand (films) then they should be alright. Yes they offer opinions, and yes they might be opposed by opposite opinions, and yes they even might be the sole owner of that opinion, but so what? If the source is reliable enough to be in the article, then it is reliable enough for our purposes here. The vast majority of Wikipedian citations are opinions: most books, films, scientific theories, ideas, concepts, whatever have some form of praise or criticism in them, and that counts as opinion pieces. Remember, we have the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, this would be akin to List of films described as propaganda: we are not saying those scientists are right or wrong to oppose the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, nor would we be saying that these "critics" are right/wrong to describe the films as propaganda, only that is what they have done.

"despite assertions by at least one editor that any negative review is a de facto statement that the film is a propaganda piece. That is simply not true. It is very obvious to me that some people are letting their personal opinions of the film affect their editing of the article. If we want to remain NPOV we have to overcome that." I hope it wasn't me you were referring to. If it was I shall clarify: I am not saying that "any negative review is a de facto statement that the film is a propaganda piece", I am saying that "any (reliable source) review that describes the film as propaganda is a de facto statement that the film is 'described as propaganda, and therefore can go in this category" and I am not letting my personal opinion get in the way either, while I think that Expelled is blatant crap, and An Inconvenient truth is a good documentary, in my suggestion, BOTH would be part of this category. This would be extremely NPOV. Think about it: both a "pro-science" and an "anti-science" film would be in, which would balance nicely, and this balance would be continued for most topics/areas/types of film. If done correctly, this wouldn't mean that there would be an equal number of (say) pro and anti science films. No, not unless there truly is an equal number described that way, but if the "pro science" crowd (I would include myself in that) are right to be pro science, then there will be less pro science films described as propaganda. Anyway, I hope it wasn't me that you were addressing with that quote above, but if it was, sorry for the confusion. Deamon138 (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This would all be fine if the category were "Films described as propaganda", but that's not what the category is at present. I think much of what you say therefore does not apply. For example, an opinion piece calling it propaganda is not a reliable source that a film is propaganda, and can't serve as a basis for inclusion in the category. Either the category should be renamed (a viable option), or editors should take extreme care to use it in a NPoV way.

--skeptical scientist (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's my point though: how can the current title be handled in a NPOV way, when the idea that something is propaganda is inherently subjective? That is why I would prefer the category renamed, or a list created instead of a category. Deamon138 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement among some of us here regarding use of this category. It seems to me that the most we can say about Expelled with any authority it that is has been referred to as a piece of propaganda, hence it seems it would qualify for some sort of category:films described as propaganda. If we made such a category and included this in it, I think we could largely put this matter to rest (though I am skeptical that this would be evenly applied to similar films with a different political agenda). I think it is also clear that this phantom consensus that the propaganda category is appropriate for this film does not exist. Oh, and to put your worries to rest, Deamon, it was not you I was referring to when I mentioned editors who referred to every negative review as a verification of the propaganda label. I also wish to reiterate that as of now I have no major problems with the article's content, and I think that the statements that several sources have used the word "propaganda" to describe the film is appropriate, and maybe necessary. That, however, is not the same as calling the film propaganda, and does not warrant its inclusion in that category.

The question then remains, what films, if any, do belong in this category? It is tricky, I realize. Let's just say that, in my mind, there is a much greater divide between Goebbel's films about "The Jewish Problem" and Expelled than there is between Expelled and An Inconvenient Truth. It would be a much easier task to draw a line between the former two than the latter two. That, however, is not where the line is drawn at the moment. -R. fiend (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do believe that there are situations where the term propaganda can be used in a NPoV way - mainly when there is consensus among historians that a given film is propaganda, or at least when a clear and consistent set of criteria is met. A good example of a film that's clearly propaganda and is reasonable to label as such is Prelude to War. I do agree that it's very easy for the category to be misused, however, and I think some unambiguous criteria for inclusion in the category would help. The criteria I proposed above is maybe too inclusive, but I would like to see some criteria established (possibly accompanied by renaming the category, although that may not be necessary depending on what set of criteria is agreed upon).

--skeptical scientist (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

"If we made such a category and included this in it, I think we could largely put this matter to rest (though I am skeptical that this would be evenly applied to similar films with a different political agenda)." If we did that, we would have to make sure that the criteria is enforced, and that it is done evenly.

"Oh, and to put your worries to rest, Deamon, it was not you I was referring to when I mentioned editors who referred to every negative review as a verification of the propaganda label." That's alright then!

"I think that the statements that several sources have used the word "propaganda" to describe the film is appropriate, and maybe necessary" Yes maybe instead of my criteria of using one source calling a film propaganda, we could use "several" sources calling it propaganda to be the criteria. This would be less lax I guess. Though what number could we use as "several"?

"mainly when there is consensus among historians that a given film is propaganda" I don't necessarily think that a film has to be historically treated to be propaganda. Take Expelled for instance. It is my own view (OR I know!) that, although I haven't seen it, from the information on that article, and from frequenting Scienceblogs, that Expelled is propaganda. Things like I believe images of Stalinism/Nazism were used with the voice of some Evolutionary biologists over the top or something. That to me stinks of propaganda. Of course, my opinion means squat, but since notable reviewers and scientists etc have agreed that it is propaganda, then films don't necessarily have to be historical to be propaganda.

"I think some unambiguous criteria for inclusion in the category would help......(possibly accompanied by renaming the category, although that may not be necessary depending on what set of criteria is agreed upon)." I think even if we establish NPOV criteria, the title of this category is inherently POV. It is like it is Wikipedia describing these films as propaganda, as I said above, when obviously it shouldn't even appear that way. Quoting WP:CATEGORY:

"Generally, the relationship between an article and its categories should be definable as "(Article) is (category)": John Goodman is an American actor, Copenhagen is a city in Denmark, Jane Austen is an English writer"

So with our current title, we are basically saying, "Prelude to War is a propaganda film" or even "Expelled is a propaganda film". That isn't NPOV unfortunately. Deamon138 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be NPOV if "propaganda" is used as a clearly defined technical term. However, the word "propaganda" has so much baggage and such a negative connotation that a more neutral term would be preferable, or the category being replaced by a list of films described as propaganda, or something less prone to misinterpretation. skeptical scientist (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think for us editors "in the know" so to speak, we know that there are/will be criteria that remove the criteria, but someone not "in the know" may misinterpret as you said. Deamon138 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems there is agreement here that the category is problematical for films which are merely described on occasion by reviewers as propaganda, and therefore should probably be removed from Expelled at least. However, those not in agreement are not participating in this discussion at the moment. I'm sure if I were to remove the category now it would be back in seconds. I think this discussion needs more input from the other perspective. -R. fiend (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm well I think the most important thing would be to change the name of the category, personally. Deamon138 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding to categories for renaming. skeptical scientist (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool. Btw, can you provide a link, I'm not familiar with that region of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Deamon138 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)