September 12
Category:Supporters of George W. Bush
Category:Weaponlord
Category:Fictional narcissists
Category:Deadliest natural disasters
Pinot noir
People by religion and occupation
Mathematicians by religion
Jewish mathematicians
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus --
Kbdank71 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Category:Jewish mathematicians (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Tagging_living_people_as_Jews,
Category talk:Jewish_mathematicians
Bellbird 15:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Jewish Mathematics but Mathematicians. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies
. Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. --
Avi 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- This is an interesting argument, but you should make it on the appropriate policy page. In particular, if there is an article on Jewish mathematics or Hindu mathematics, these names will emerge in the text. If there is no article, then it is not important enough, and we dont need to worry about your hypothetical researcher.
Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- KeepEither we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. --
ProveIt
(talk) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- See the above! I am proposing to remove all categorizations of mathematicians by religion.
Bellbird 16:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I voted above in favor of removing them all. My view is they should all stay, or they should all go, either of those is acceptable. --
ProveIt
(talk) 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- The cross out of your initial keep vote has been removed, for now, as it was not done by you. If the cross-out met with your approval feel free to bring it back.--
T. Anthony 00:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- You have to opportunity to vote "delete" now. All the mathematician categories by religion are up for deletion I believe.
...And Beyond! 00:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I have blocked
User:...And Beyond! and
User:Boscovic as sockpuppets. Please ignore their contributions.-
Runcorn 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I don't have a problem with you noting he's a sockpuppet, provided that's actually true, but some of what you are blocking out are simply comments he made to me which I did not find offensive or irrelevant. That said he "crossed the line" by marking out one "Keep" vote, at the Christian one, by
ProveIt. I think this was done accurately, but I feel like people should cross out their own keep votes if that is what they wish to do.--
T. Anthony 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Further note: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that instructing the closing admin to ignore what is said even by confirmed sockpuppets is deeply presumptuous. Please see policy at
[3].
Hornplease 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I was not instructing the closing admin.--
Runcorn 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - meh, you know what. The day when one of these users nominated every single list and category by ethnicity for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out.
Mad Jack 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Stay tuned. We can and will do that. This CfD doesn't want to single someone out (and not only category by ethnicity, also category by religion). --
Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Well the good things about deleting these categories and lists (all of them), is that I don't have to spend time sourcing them. And, it makes it harder for the "Jewishness deleters" to find these names and delete mentions of their Jewishness. However, when it comes to these nominations, for some strange reasons the nominators always go for the Jews first (if I nominated Greek, Greek-American, British-Greek (yes, it exists) and Greek Orthodox categories and lists for deletion, I would probably be blocked). So, I am voting a strong "Keep" on any of these until every single last category and list is nominated, at which point I will vote "Delete", although that will be fairly pointless, because, the majority of people would vote "Keep". But, as for my "Delete" vote that day - you have that as a promise if you're ever up to it
Mad Jack 16:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Let's not get into childish accusations of anti-semitism. Anyone in the right mind can see that it just so happens Jewish categories are among the most ridiculous and overhyped on wikipedia, that's the "strange reason" why a lot get nominated. They're also the hardest to delete because everyone fears appearing anti-semitic if they vote "Delete." Yet, other categories are deleted without much problem. I wonder what "strange reason" is behind that.
...And Beyond! 00:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, it's not anti-Semitism at all that I'm talking about. Just paranoia from these people, some of whom are Jewish and some who are not, that these categories are somehow harmful to the people listed or can place them in danger or label them somehow, etc. That kind of stuff. That's why the user who nominated this nominated this in the first place. My biff is that no one ever singles out all lists of, say, Greeks, Greek-Americans and Greek Orthodox people in the same manner.
Mad Jack 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I'm just saying Catholic lists and categories have been up for deletion many times. Maybe not as many as Jewish, but that's because when Catholic categories are up for deletion the deleters tend to win. As for Eastern Orthodoxy
Category:Eastern Orthodox Christians doesn't have many subdivisions to delete. Here's the subcats for it that relate to Greek Orthodoxy:
Category:Greek orthodox philosophers and
Category:Greek Orthodox clerics. For Russian Orthodoxy I find:
Category:Russian Orthodox Christians,
Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Moscow,
Category:Metropolitans and Patriarchs of Kiev and all Rus' and
Category:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Pretty much every Eastern Orthodox category I find is for clergy, philosophers, patriarchs, and theologians.--
T. Anthony 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Category:Hindu mathematicians was up for delete before this.--
T. Anthony 16:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_31#Category:British_Anglicans --
Pjacobi 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- What are you trying to tell me? That once a year a non-Jewish category gets nominated? Yes, I know that.
Mad Jack 16:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- It's not once a year. A variety of Christian and Catholic lists I worked on were deleted. As were Categories. In fact the massive deletion of any reference to anyone's religion ever was part of why I once left. (I mean the article on
Augustin Louis Cauchy I don't even think mentioned he was a Catholic royalist until I added it. That omission caused a person at the talk page to ask why he was against oaths to the Republic.)--
T. Anthony 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- MadJack, if you had so much as bothered to read the discussion on Hindu Mathematicians linked above, you would realise that this cat was being used as a precedent. It should be clear that this means that this one is coming to CfD, without having to assume anything about the motives of the nominators. Further, I note that you have not marshalled any arguments to keep this other than discrimnation. If all of them are being deleted, then that is an insufficient argument.
Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, categorizing by ethnicity and by religion is bad™. But I assume this must be addressed by a more ambitious attack, including better formulated rationale for deletion, comparison with other encyclopedias, and of course listing all affected categories. --
Pjacobi 16:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep This debate is getting tiring. If any particular subject is of interest to many other people, if the info is correct and does not violate any kind of copyright or privacy restriction, it should be in Wikipedia. All this moral talk is of no relevance. There is a reason why we don't have categories like blond Australian zookepers - noone cares. If some people care, let them create such category. Just make sure they use reliable sources.
Mhym 19:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- "Caring" is not the policy here. Fortunately we have policy, and that is if (a) someone has self-identified as part of a religion and (b) that religion has influenced their notability then the cat is justified. In this case, you have to make an argument that religion can influence notability, and you havent done it. Sorry!
Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- So if a bunch of wiki friends and I wanted to make
Category:Green-eyed Lesbians we should because we find it interesting? Sorry, I can't follow your argument.
...And Beyond! 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I'm going to have to agree here oddly enough. "Interesting" is a vague term and not enough of a justification. A category of people who had sex with
Bill Clinton could be interesting, and there would be enough names for a category, but that doesn't mean it'd be appropriate. I think this is or can be useful and appropriate, but interesting isn't enough in itself.--
T. Anthony 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Well do people care about green eyed lesbos? no. Cat Christian mathematicians has quite a large number of articles, meaning its somewhat popular.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 01:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Clearly if someone were to create green eyes lesbos, someone does. And the people in Christian mathematicians could have all been added by one user.
...And Beyond!
- I think it is unlikely anyone is notable for being a green-eyed lesbian or that anyone's notability is equally because of their lesbianism and eye-color.
Category:Tall lesbians could be more analogous as there are women who are as noted for being tall as they are for being lesbians. (
Judy Gold is all that's coming to my mind at present, but there's likely others)--
T. Anthony 05:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep, absolutely NO legitimate reason to delete it. Jews have made great contributions to math and science, as shown with the amount of Jewish Nobel Prize recipients. Great category. --
Shamir1 19:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Given that these categories do not take piety or religious affiliation into consideration, how is this different from saying "Whites have made great contributions to science, as measured by Nobel Prizes"? Could we create a category of "Black Criminals"? After all, this moral talk is just nonsense, isn't it?
Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Incidentally - what great contributions have you made?
Bellbird 21:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Bellbird has a point. Wikipedia is not here to instill ethnic pride via its articles. Should we make a
Category:White males category because they've made "great contributions to math and science"? Or as Bellbird mentioned a
Category:Black criminals because they're overrepresented in the US prison system? Please.
...And Beyond! 01:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
****OK. Clearly you're taking this out of hand, as can be seen by your own personal attack on my comments.
...And Beyond! 02:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep: I find this category very useful.--
Newport 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Very useful to what?
Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. WP is not datrabase and categories not search tool.
Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Pavel, have you read the opening paragraphs to
Wikipedia:Categorization and
Help:Category? --
Avi 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - well-referenced cat. 143 is a very good number.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- That's because this category does not use the same standard as
Category:Christian mathematicians. It's much more relaxed in its inclusion.
...And Beyond! 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Strong Delete - please lets get rid of all these unmanageable and debate-inducing mathematician by religion categories once and for all.
...And Beyond! 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - it was only debate-inducing because
anti-Hindu users attacked me by putting certain cats up first.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Look at the talk page of Jewish mathematicians. This category causes a lot of problems.
...And Beyond! 00:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Jewish mathematicians has actual controversy. Hindu mathematicians is merely used by people to denigrate the religion, not because of any lapses in research which may or may not happen in this cat. I dont discriminate so all cats of mathematicians should be kept.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I'm baffled by the suggestion that this category causes any problems. How can it?--
Brownlee 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago?
Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see
Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. Encyclopedias do not need categories for the religion or ethnicity of every last human on Earth. There is ZERO
Wikipedia:Notability to know the religious status or ethnicity of any important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that.
IZAK 08:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Religion is irrelevant to mathematics.
Osomec 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per very straightforward Wikipedia categorization policy. —
Dark Shikari
talk/
contribs 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago? What about the lists of "leading Jewish bolsheviks" or "Jewish members of the Soviet secret police" beloved of antisemites (see
Talk:Jew)? Mind you, these lists are large and by true and verifiable. If there is a problem, it resides in the pratice of categorisation itself.
(By the way, all of this talk about sociology is silly. New Yorkers are, large and by, not as portrayed by Woody Allen; generally, only the generation of immigrants has clear and strong common traits. When it comes to anybody anywhere else, the label - as an ethnic label - can be utterly misleading. In general, it is a label that is being adjudicated by descent - any descent.
Bellbird 14:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
reply
- Strong Keep pr several of the reasons above.--
Holdenhurst 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
*Strong Keep Jewish education stresses mathematics, so if they're practicing Jews, it's a big deal!
Boscovic 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
:::Delete I changed my vote. If this is a category of "Jewish mathematics" which it appears to be, I am 100% agains't it! Sorry, Nazi ideology is long dead.
Boscovic 05:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- You should know that this category isn't AT ALL about practicing Jews. It's about anybody who happens to have a Jewish ancestor. Please reconsider.
...And Beyond! 01:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- No, that was
Category:Christian mathematicians which was a mis-communication, and because T. Anthony didn't bother specifying what a "Christian mathematician" was.
...And Beyond! 01:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- True. I was silly enough to think that it was just presumed we should obey the rules governing lists and categories. (That the category only be of those whose X+Y status is important to said person's notability) I didn't consider that you have to actually explain those rules on the category's page, or give readers the gist of them, each and every time you make a category. When I created
Category:Draughts players, a long time back, the note I put was "People who are or were players of various forms of draughts, sometimes called checkers. At present the category is underpopulated so does not separate into subcategories like Category:International draughts players or Category:Pool checkers players." I see now this is insufficiently clear and I should have said "People who are or were notable as players of various forms of draughts." After all people who just played checkers for fun, like
Harry Houdini, could've ended up there. That didn't happen, ever, but still best to be careful. (Too snarky?)--
T. Anthony 01:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- (That said I was actually dissatisfied with the original note on rereading it so changed it to something like the above)--
T. Anthony 01:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- I know it may seem "obvious" that Christian Mathematicians would just mean mathematicians whos Christianity is important to the said personality notability, but then how come
Category:Jewish mathematicians doesn't follow that? Even people who were Christian converts are on the list, so clearly it has nothing to do with the religion itself. People will argue "because Jewish is an ethnicity too" but the category doesn't follow any set rules for that either. But most importantly, not everything is worth having a category over on this encyclopedia; that's why I'm still maintaing the delete vote on Christian mathematicians.
...And Beyond! 02:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- The category should be limited to those whose cultural, ethnic, or religious identity is valid to their public life or notability. That this is possibly not being adequately done does not mean getting it done is impossible or unworth the effort.--
T. Anthony 06:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Just because an article/category needs to be policed does not warrant deletion.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per policy. (a) if someone self-identifies, certifiably, as part of a religion and (b) that self-identification is central to their claims to notability, then the cat is justified, as per policy laid down following much discussion. I fail to see it justified here. Thus all arguments to keep that are variations of (a) this is discriminatory and (b) some who may have followed this religion has made specific contributions to mathematics must be disregarded by the closing admin.
Hornplease 20:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- This is more a matter of misuse than anything essential. Show that someone can't be equally notable for being Jewish and a mathematician. To give you examples of mathematicians whose Jewish status is important to their significance I cite:
Paul Epstein,
Adolf Abraham Halevi Fraenkel,
Gersonides,
Felix Hausdorff,
Adolf Lindenbaum, and
Stanisław Saks. That's only six names, but that's a decent start for a category. Can you support the idea that their notability is unrelated to being Jewish?--
T. Anthony 10:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Reply - The above vote has not cited any actual policy. The above vote merely shows a POV
WP:OR dream-voting and begging.
Bakaman
Bakatalk 01:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- May I congratulate you on your mastery of the colloquial, which does, however, imply that I am quite unsure what exactly you are being insulting about. The bit I understand, however, indicates that I have not quoted policy. I have done so elsewhere on these pages, in which (as you perhaps know, having voted on them) several similar cats are up for deletion. Sometimes one gets tired of typing. Though given that you've taken to replying to everything I've ever said, I suppose that doesnt apply to you.
Hornplease 14:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
Comment Did I remember to vote keep on this? I thought I voted, but I'm not seeing it. (I didn't vote on the Christian one as I created it and feel I should not vote.)--
T. Anthony 11:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Short story collections by Stephen King
Category:WP System
Category:Penguin Wikipedians
Category:Christian mathematicians
Category:Organized crime people
and
Category:Organized criminals
UMass basketball