The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This page lists
Polish citizens of partial
Armenian ancestry or national descent. For those whose Armenian descent is half or more see
Category:Polish Armenians.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
If the definiton you mention is the stated purpose of the category, that can be changed by a few keystrokess so this is no argument.
Hmains (
talk)
23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – we've had dozens of these and agreed time after time that Fooian Barians is ambiguous except for Fooian Americans. However we have the well-fledged
Category:Armenians by country of citizenship (note that according to this American Armenians are Armenians with US citizenship, ie Armenian Americans). It seems to me that a Pole of Armenian descent is not necessarily a Polish Armenian so keep both (eg father Polish, mother Armenian).
Occuli (
talk)
10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
REverse MergeCategory:Polish Armenians to this category. A lot of effort was put into converting these dual nationality categories into the form Booians of Fooian descent, and these categories should conform. A Polish Armenian could be a Pole of Armenian descent or an Armenian of Polish descent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Poles of Jewish descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
Keep The many quotations from Wikipedia guidelines and policy may be relevant to particular entries within this category, but address nothing about the category itself. There was this thing called
The Holocaust that happened a few decades ago in which a few million Poles of Jewish descent were selected from among their non-Jewish countrymen and sent for extermination. I can think of few characteristics that would be more defining.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There are people who are Poles of Jewish descent who did not experience the Holocaust. If you have any evidence to counter my statement that being Poles of Jewish descent has been a rather significant defining characteristic I look forward to hearing it.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
By definition, these folks did not consider themselves Jewish. Thus, it has not defined them. It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist. Therefore, Wikipedia policy does not require me to give any evidence. Rather, it would be your responsibility to give
reliable and
verifiable sources for an exception to the policy. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
11:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge for the reasons given above for Polihs Armenians. WE do not need to distinguish those with some Jewish blood and those mostly of Jewish blood. I ahve not come across that for any other country.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Suicides by firearm in Arizona
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This comes under the heading of "non encyclopedic and generally bad ideas". Categories related to people can be "delicate" (see
Wikipedia:Categorization of people) and this is one of them. There isn't a policy on this specifically, but general principles seem to indicate a clear view that it's probably a bad idea:
While each suicide is a human tragedy, and a few people may find a list of suicides useful, Wikipedia is
WP:NOT#NEWS and articles (and categories) don't exist just because material might be interesting or useful to a few people. Being a suicide by firearms in a given state may be a news item but it's just not at heart encyclopedic.
It's also likely to have very few members - "people notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, who died by suicide, using a firearm, in Arizona..."?
A third reason is that a
Category:Suicides might be viable, but this is far more specific than that broad category; we generally try hard to
avoid non-encyclopedic cross categorizations; "People in region X who commited suicide by means Y" seems a very clear case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. ("People in North Dakota who were hit by a car while DUI"? "Suicides by jumping in Georgia"?)
Keep part of a category structure, see
Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States. The nom's whole premise is that singling out a location (here, Arizona), makes this too narrow. However, division of many things by state in the US is common and no ill-will attaches to it. It's just keeping the main cat space clean. Whether 5 or so people in the cat is sufficient to break this by state for Arizona was not addressed by the nom but may merit a merge with the parent if consensus is that this is small and unlikely to grow (how one may base that judgment I don't know as suicide is as much in vogue now as ever and handguns in the US are omnipresent).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
keep to match its sibling categories and because it is encyclopedic. Nominator should read the surrounding category structure before trying to delete/destroy.
Hmains (
talk)
03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:War of 1812 prisoners of war
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. It may appear to be a redundancy, but these individuals are being classified as "
prisoners of war", not just prisoners. We can't adopt a portion of a (capitalised) proper noun (War of 1812) and incorporate it into "prisoners" and thereby convert that term into "prisoner of war". Proper nouns don't work like that in English.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Borders of Palestine
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Egypt-Palestine border
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is still no country called Palestine, so this category is somewhat biased. Also, it is practically empty.
EliyakT·
C20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment and upmerge - there may currently be no country called Palestine, but there has been. As such, this is no less likely a title for a category than, say,
Category:Borders of Yugoslavia. Despite that, this particular category is likely to be so small as to be practically worthless, so upmerge per Carlossuarez.
Grutness...wha?23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Well as you probably know, Wikipedia takes a rather quirky exception to using short-form names to refer former states/gov'ts. For example, you can never refer to the
Russian Empire as "Russia" or to the
Italian Social Republic as "Italy". So the title (making proper use our pedantic retronyms for this era) would be something like "British Mandate of Palestine – Kingdom of Egypt [and the Sudan?] border" (note the alphabetic reversal). However being conterminous* with the current
Egypt–Israel border it might not be terribly useful as a separate category. —
CharlotteWebb05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Croatian clerics
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
European Americans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RenameCategory:Foo-Americans and
Category:Americans of Foo descent to
Category:Foo Americans. We have both forms and support seems to be for the latter. If anyone wants the former then let's have one big nomination where a change to that format is the only thing proposed. I'd also suggest that we ether make this the standard for American categories or convert all of the American ones to whatever the rest fo the world is doing, but again that needs to be a separate discussion which can be held even though these were just renamed. I sympathize with the lone delete opinion, but there was no support. If anyone feels strongly about that, then maybe a test nomination for a few categories where that is the only proposal could be useful. Given the complexity of this nomination I can see why a consensus is hard to find. After the above changes, I'm going to leave everything else as Keep and those can be renominated in a smaller group if anyone wishes. I'm electing to not add the category redirects. If we are using one form, then I don't see the need and I don't see support in the opinions voiced. Having said that if any admin wants to add these, then feel free to do so.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)reply
That's the reason the nomination states: "1st test case for consensus". Too bad you didn't read the recent precedent listed, and the 4 places the same was posted. I know you've worked on these before. Please check the references! --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete all OCAT by subjective criteria that is not defining. Race/Ethnicity + Nationality is not a defining intersection and we have no objective standards for inclusion even if it were.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - Wow. Apparently both of you have completely forgotten about one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia...namely, the absolute necessity of keeping a
NPOV in regards to Wikipedia content ("Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia"). It seems that both of you have personally scrapped this essential policy and as such both of you should be investigated and possibly even censured for blatantly disregarding/flaunting this essential Wikipedia policy. I'm sure many of the regular users and commenters here at CfD and elsewhere would agree with me regarding this critical NPOV issue. We are here to gather and sort factual information of any and all kind, not to attempt to impose our personal POV views regarding race/ethnicity upon the entire encyclopedia; given that race/ethnicity has played and continues to play an integral and factually verifiable role in the history of humanity, it only makes sense that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia (which purports to be a repository for all human knowledge) would include information dealing with the very broad and ancient human topic of race/ethnicity. --
Wassermann (
talk)
09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. The "rule" of grammar as I understand it is if the phrase is used as an adjectival phrase (Fooian-American people) it should be hyphenated. If it is used as a noun phrase (Fooian Americans), it is not. The proposed renames for the first five do not reflect this "rule".
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree. Unfortunately, the folks making decisions for the past few years don't seem to be agreeing. I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The current standard is "people" for various regional ethnicity parent categories, apparently to distinguish from "topics". I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar.
What has this to do with "language variants"? Even if the
Sorbian language was a dialect or variant of something else it wouldn't matter because this category is for Americans of Lusatian Sorb ethnicity/ancestry regardless of what language they speak (likely English). —
CharlotteWebb13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
"Dialect" of what, exactly? (cut it out already) Anyway… if the "writers" category is meant to be "writers whose stuff is written in Sorbian" rather than "Sorbians who write stuff" (as the title suggests) it needs to be renamed to
Category:Sorbian-language writers to match the style of the other categories, see
Category:Writers by language. I agree that there is "no need for
Category:Sorbian-German writers, nor
Category:Sorbian-American writers" at this time. I have not suggested creating these categories and in fact neither has anyone else. As for the first
Category:Sorbian-Americans (remember the one we were originally talking about) I'd argue that their
well-attested colonial history provides sufficient "cultural context" for this category. Whether or not Sorbian Americans are recognizable as a distinct group today, one cannot dispute that well-defined ethnic enclaves existed in previous centuries. —
CharlotteWebb18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment most thenic origin categories outside USA were renemaed some months ago to the form "Americans of Fooian Descent". The person who did this evidently balked at tackling the complications of American ethnicity, but the American categories should in proicnople conform.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Standardize to "X Americans" (without hyphen), as the most commonly used, simplest, easiest to remember, and most reasonable naming system.
Badagnani (
talk)
08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political prisoner
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Nothing in this discussion raises reasons to overturn the previous decisions to delete this class of category. It is not the purpose of CfD to create a category name that might pass muster by being able to include certain individuals. Any editor can suggest an alternative name for consideration, but failing to do so is not a reason to keep a category. I sympathize with those that would like to keep this, but nothing offered here addresses the POV problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Tagged for speedy deletion - as recreated category. If not speediable then delete for the reasons that the political prisoners categories were previously deleted, POV, OR, subjective inclusion criteria.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Laura Ling is a redirect to
Current TV, which is rather ridiculously included in this category as if an entire network could be a political prisoner under any sane definition of the word. The article
Roxana Saberi does not support the notion that she is a political prisoner so even if this category were to survive placing her in it would require original research. They both belong in various journalist categories and may be placed in another prisoners or detainees category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. This really should have been speedily deleted, though I see an admin has declined the speedy. Based on the quite recent (
2008 SEP 11;
2008 SEP 17) decisions to delete these, I doubt if there's any viable reason to think that anything has changed with respect to the problematic name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Youth broadcasters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - the majority of
categories including the word "broadcasters" are for people, not corporate entities or networks. That usage is I believe correct and so this category should be renamed to reflect that it's for networks. There is a subcat for Canadian networks that uses the word "children's" so
Category:Children's television networks is another possible rename, although I think I prefer "youth" as being somewhat more encompassing (
The N hardly seems like "children's television" but it is definitely youth-oriented, for example).
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete youth is undefined and non-defining - all broadcasters aim at "youth" 15-30 year olds who have money and no kids to beef up advertising.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename to make the focus very clear. I looked at
XHGC-TV and they carry the CSI shows among others. Is that youth programming? This gets into what percentage of programming qualifies. That makes inclusive POV and subjective.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Olympic broadcasters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - performer by performance overcategorization, similar to recently deleted categories
here and
here. Olympic broadcasters can and do cover any number of other sporting events and categorizing on this basis would lead to category clutter.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also all these people are simultaneously of many nationalities according to the parent cats, so deletion would solve several problems.
Occuli (
talk)
16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, precedent, and its title is ambiguous is there a broadcasting olympics? He or She with the fastest, highest, and strongest voice wins....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Intersex activists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm not entirely sure we even need the rename, considering that there are only two entries, one of which is doubled with the unnecessary single-item American subcategory anyway. There are several other people filed directly in
Category:Intersexuality, but none of them appear to be activists in any notable way. I'd propose a rename to just
Category:Intersex people instead, and then refile the people who are directly in the parent category too.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7113:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - there appear to be several 'intersex people' as Bearcat points out; 1 is also an 'Intersexuality activist' and 1 is an activist in something else. Perhaps there are 'Intersexuality activists' as yet uncategorised who are not themselves intersex. It would seem a distinctly defining characteristic. I support Bearcat's suggestion - rename to
Category:Intersex people, add any others and perhaps create a new
Category:Intersexuality activists.
Occuli (
talk)
14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Squeezeboxes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Existentialists by ethnicity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment. People are very parochial so these may be what people want. As long as the categories are accesible from the top one it would not cause me any offence to 'Keep'.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Americans of Jewish descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This page lists Americans of partial ethnic
Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "American Jews" see
Category:American Jews.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
As a currently included example,
George Allen: he was not raised Jewish, and is currently a Presbyterian; he does not self-identify as Jewish; it has been speculated (not
verified) that his mother was of Jewish extraction; his mother's possible Jewishness is not relevant to his public life, other than in a derogatory manner.
Delete — This information is trivial to most people it applies to. Plus, we already have the American Jews category. --
Vizcarra (
talk)
16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Can't we get it through our heads that having Fooian blood (descent) in you is neither meaningful nor defining, especially if we are content with differing self-designations and purely subjective standards. The racialists here are stretching on this one in particular - take an example: since Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism, would any children that she had (pre-conversion, post-) be in this category? And how meaningful would it have been to any of them?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Can't we get it through our heads that we base this and other similarly defining categories based on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and not based on some
Nuremberg Laws blood percentage? If there are particular entries that are questionable, they can be dealt with separately with no relevance to the remainder of the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There are no entries in a category that cannot exist.
The example was given merely to demonstrate actual abuse of this category.
Self-identification is required. This category is never for self-identification.
Partial ancestry is not allowed. This category is only for partial ancestry.
It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist.
merge to
Category:American Jews. This separation of these two categories was mostly the work of a single editor who tried to do this to many ethnic American categories. Nearly all these have already been folded back into their 'fooian American' categories; that editor has also agreed that what he had been doing was an unworkable bad idea.
Hmains (
talk)
03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
KeepBecause it is not the only category of this kind, as i saw that there are categories such as "British people of Irish descent","English people of Scottish descent", and so on. What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround. I think that if the category will be deleted eventully, than at least those people should be added to the category of "American Jews". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.173.210.223 (
talk)
14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi 93.173.210.223: Please get a normal user's ID or use the one you may alreday have in order to have any credibility in these kind of serious discussions. Your statement that "What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround" is known and it's the root of a huge problem because for far too long there has been ongoing abuse on Wikipedia (mainly through crass ignorance) of the notion that Jews are an ethnicity (which is true in an abstract manner relating mainly to strict Jewish law) but it has been flogged to death in the wrong way and stretched far beyond any reasonable and logical standards so that if someone allegedly had a Jewish ancestor a hundred years ago or was called "Jewish" by a celebrity magazine or in some journal or book in one line (that totally disregards Judaism and what being Jewish really means in an active meaningful way) they become "notable" Jews no less than the chief rabbis of Israel or the rabbis of the Talmud. Jews and Judaism are connected so that to place anyone in these categories implies that they were fully aware of this connection, subscribed to it and presumably fully (self) identified as such, which they did not. It would be safe to say that 99.99% of the "Jews" in these categories did not have much to do with Jews or with Judaism during their lifetimes. Many of them are in fact not considered Jewish by classical Jewish law and they had little or no formal or even informal contact with the Jewish people or with Judaism, yet now they become enthroned as examples of full-fledged "Jews" on Wikipedia no less than the most fervent of Hasidim, which they are not.
IZAK (
talk)
12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This has two possible meanings - people of Jewish descent and people of Jewish religion. I would suggest that "American Jews" should be retained for those of Jewish religion (or self-identifying as Jews). The Jewish descent might be used for those not of Jewish religion. As a British person, I am not voting.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This page lists
Polish citizens of partial
Armenian ancestry or national descent. For those whose Armenian descent is half or more see
Category:Polish Armenians.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
If the definiton you mention is the stated purpose of the category, that can be changed by a few keystrokess so this is no argument.
Hmains (
talk)
23:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep – we've had dozens of these and agreed time after time that Fooian Barians is ambiguous except for Fooian Americans. However we have the well-fledged
Category:Armenians by country of citizenship (note that according to this American Armenians are Armenians with US citizenship, ie Armenian Americans). It seems to me that a Pole of Armenian descent is not necessarily a Polish Armenian so keep both (eg father Polish, mother Armenian).
Occuli (
talk)
10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
REverse MergeCategory:Polish Armenians to this category. A lot of effort was put into converting these dual nationality categories into the form Booians of Fooian descent, and these categories should conform. A Polish Armenian could be a Pole of Armenian descent or an Armenian of Polish descent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Poles of Jewish descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
Keep The many quotations from Wikipedia guidelines and policy may be relevant to particular entries within this category, but address nothing about the category itself. There was this thing called
The Holocaust that happened a few decades ago in which a few million Poles of Jewish descent were selected from among their non-Jewish countrymen and sent for extermination. I can think of few characteristics that would be more defining.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There are people who are Poles of Jewish descent who did not experience the Holocaust. If you have any evidence to counter my statement that being Poles of Jewish descent has been a rather significant defining characteristic I look forward to hearing it.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
By definition, these folks did not consider themselves Jewish. Thus, it has not defined them. It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist. Therefore, Wikipedia policy does not require me to give any evidence. Rather, it would be your responsibility to give
reliable and
verifiable sources for an exception to the policy. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
11:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Reverse merge for the reasons given above for Polihs Armenians. WE do not need to distinguish those with some Jewish blood and those mostly of Jewish blood. I ahve not come across that for any other country.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Suicides by firearm in Arizona
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This comes under the heading of "non encyclopedic and generally bad ideas". Categories related to people can be "delicate" (see
Wikipedia:Categorization of people) and this is one of them. There isn't a policy on this specifically, but general principles seem to indicate a clear view that it's probably a bad idea:
While each suicide is a human tragedy, and a few people may find a list of suicides useful, Wikipedia is
WP:NOT#NEWS and articles (and categories) don't exist just because material might be interesting or useful to a few people. Being a suicide by firearms in a given state may be a news item but it's just not at heart encyclopedic.
It's also likely to have very few members - "people notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia, who died by suicide, using a firearm, in Arizona..."?
A third reason is that a
Category:Suicides might be viable, but this is far more specific than that broad category; we generally try hard to
avoid non-encyclopedic cross categorizations; "People in region X who commited suicide by means Y" seems a very clear case of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. ("People in North Dakota who were hit by a car while DUI"? "Suicides by jumping in Georgia"?)
Keep part of a category structure, see
Category:Suicides by firearm in the United States. The nom's whole premise is that singling out a location (here, Arizona), makes this too narrow. However, division of many things by state in the US is common and no ill-will attaches to it. It's just keeping the main cat space clean. Whether 5 or so people in the cat is sufficient to break this by state for Arizona was not addressed by the nom but may merit a merge with the parent if consensus is that this is small and unlikely to grow (how one may base that judgment I don't know as suicide is as much in vogue now as ever and handguns in the US are omnipresent).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
keep to match its sibling categories and because it is encyclopedic. Nominator should read the surrounding category structure before trying to delete/destroy.
Hmains (
talk)
03:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:War of 1812 prisoners of war
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. It may appear to be a redundancy, but these individuals are being classified as "
prisoners of war", not just prisoners. We can't adopt a portion of a (capitalised) proper noun (War of 1812) and incorporate it into "prisoners" and thereby convert that term into "prisoner of war". Proper nouns don't work like that in English.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Borders of Palestine
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Egypt-Palestine border
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is still no country called Palestine, so this category is somewhat biased. Also, it is practically empty.
EliyakT·
C20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment and upmerge - there may currently be no country called Palestine, but there has been. As such, this is no less likely a title for a category than, say,
Category:Borders of Yugoslavia. Despite that, this particular category is likely to be so small as to be practically worthless, so upmerge per Carlossuarez.
Grutness...wha?23:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Well as you probably know, Wikipedia takes a rather quirky exception to using short-form names to refer former states/gov'ts. For example, you can never refer to the
Russian Empire as "Russia" or to the
Italian Social Republic as "Italy". So the title (making proper use our pedantic retronyms for this era) would be something like "British Mandate of Palestine – Kingdom of Egypt [and the Sudan?] border" (note the alphabetic reversal). However being conterminous* with the current
Egypt–Israel border it might not be terribly useful as a separate category. —
CharlotteWebb05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Croatian clerics
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
European Americans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RenameCategory:Foo-Americans and
Category:Americans of Foo descent to
Category:Foo Americans. We have both forms and support seems to be for the latter. If anyone wants the former then let's have one big nomination where a change to that format is the only thing proposed. I'd also suggest that we ether make this the standard for American categories or convert all of the American ones to whatever the rest fo the world is doing, but again that needs to be a separate discussion which can be held even though these were just renamed. I sympathize with the lone delete opinion, but there was no support. If anyone feels strongly about that, then maybe a test nomination for a few categories where that is the only proposal could be useful. Given the complexity of this nomination I can see why a consensus is hard to find. After the above changes, I'm going to leave everything else as Keep and those can be renominated in a smaller group if anyone wishes. I'm electing to not add the category redirects. If we are using one form, then I don't see the need and I don't see support in the opinions voiced. Having said that if any admin wants to add these, then feel free to do so.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)reply
That's the reason the nomination states: "1st test case for consensus". Too bad you didn't read the recent precedent listed, and the 4 places the same was posted. I know you've worked on these before. Please check the references! --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete all OCAT by subjective criteria that is not defining. Race/Ethnicity + Nationality is not a defining intersection and we have no objective standards for inclusion even if it were.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - Wow. Apparently both of you have completely forgotten about one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia...namely, the absolute necessity of keeping a
NPOV in regards to Wikipedia content ("Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia"). It seems that both of you have personally scrapped this essential policy and as such both of you should be investigated and possibly even censured for blatantly disregarding/flaunting this essential Wikipedia policy. I'm sure many of the regular users and commenters here at CfD and elsewhere would agree with me regarding this critical NPOV issue. We are here to gather and sort factual information of any and all kind, not to attempt to impose our personal POV views regarding race/ethnicity upon the entire encyclopedia; given that race/ethnicity has played and continues to play an integral and factually verifiable role in the history of humanity, it only makes sense that an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia (which purports to be a repository for all human knowledge) would include information dealing with the very broad and ancient human topic of race/ethnicity. --
Wassermann (
talk)
09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. The "rule" of grammar as I understand it is if the phrase is used as an adjectival phrase (Fooian-American people) it should be hyphenated. If it is used as a noun phrase (Fooian Americans), it is not. The proposed renames for the first five do not reflect this "rule".
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree. Unfortunately, the folks making decisions for the past few years don't seem to be agreeing. I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar. --
William Allen Simpson (
talk)
00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The current standard is "people" for various regional ethnicity parent categories, apparently to distinguish from "topics". I'm trying to find consistency, not necessarily correct grammar.
What has this to do with "language variants"? Even if the
Sorbian language was a dialect or variant of something else it wouldn't matter because this category is for Americans of Lusatian Sorb ethnicity/ancestry regardless of what language they speak (likely English). —
CharlotteWebb13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
"Dialect" of what, exactly? (cut it out already) Anyway… if the "writers" category is meant to be "writers whose stuff is written in Sorbian" rather than "Sorbians who write stuff" (as the title suggests) it needs to be renamed to
Category:Sorbian-language writers to match the style of the other categories, see
Category:Writers by language. I agree that there is "no need for
Category:Sorbian-German writers, nor
Category:Sorbian-American writers" at this time. I have not suggested creating these categories and in fact neither has anyone else. As for the first
Category:Sorbian-Americans (remember the one we were originally talking about) I'd argue that their
well-attested colonial history provides sufficient "cultural context" for this category. Whether or not Sorbian Americans are recognizable as a distinct group today, one cannot dispute that well-defined ethnic enclaves existed in previous centuries. —
CharlotteWebb18:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment most thenic origin categories outside USA were renemaed some months ago to the form "Americans of Fooian Descent". The person who did this evidently balked at tackling the complications of American ethnicity, but the American categories should in proicnople conform.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Standardize to "X Americans" (without hyphen), as the most commonly used, simplest, easiest to remember, and most reasonable naming system.
Badagnani (
talk)
08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Political prisoner
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. Nothing in this discussion raises reasons to overturn the previous decisions to delete this class of category. It is not the purpose of CfD to create a category name that might pass muster by being able to include certain individuals. Any editor can suggest an alternative name for consideration, but failing to do so is not a reason to keep a category. I sympathize with those that would like to keep this, but nothing offered here addresses the POV problems.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Tagged for speedy deletion - as recreated category. If not speediable then delete for the reasons that the political prisoners categories were previously deleted, POV, OR, subjective inclusion criteria.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Laura Ling is a redirect to
Current TV, which is rather ridiculously included in this category as if an entire network could be a political prisoner under any sane definition of the word. The article
Roxana Saberi does not support the notion that she is a political prisoner so even if this category were to survive placing her in it would require original research. They both belong in various journalist categories and may be placed in another prisoners or detainees category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete. This really should have been speedily deleted, though I see an admin has declined the speedy. Based on the quite recent (
2008 SEP 11;
2008 SEP 17) decisions to delete these, I doubt if there's any viable reason to think that anything has changed with respect to the problematic name.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Youth broadcasters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename - the majority of
categories including the word "broadcasters" are for people, not corporate entities or networks. That usage is I believe correct and so this category should be renamed to reflect that it's for networks. There is a subcat for Canadian networks that uses the word "children's" so
Category:Children's television networks is another possible rename, although I think I prefer "youth" as being somewhat more encompassing (
The N hardly seems like "children's television" but it is definitely youth-oriented, for example).
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete youth is undefined and non-defining - all broadcasters aim at "youth" 15-30 year olds who have money and no kids to beef up advertising.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete or rename to make the focus very clear. I looked at
XHGC-TV and they carry the CSI shows among others. Is that youth programming? This gets into what percentage of programming qualifies. That makes inclusive POV and subjective.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
00:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Olympic broadcasters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - performer by performance overcategorization, similar to recently deleted categories
here and
here. Olympic broadcasters can and do cover any number of other sporting events and categorizing on this basis would lead to category clutter.
Otto4711 (
talk)
15:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Also all these people are simultaneously of many nationalities according to the parent cats, so deletion would solve several problems.
Occuli (
talk)
16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, precedent, and its title is ambiguous is there a broadcasting olympics? He or She with the fastest, highest, and strongest voice wins....
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Intersex activists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm not entirely sure we even need the rename, considering that there are only two entries, one of which is doubled with the unnecessary single-item American subcategory anyway. There are several other people filed directly in
Category:Intersexuality, but none of them appear to be activists in any notable way. I'd propose a rename to just
Category:Intersex people instead, and then refile the people who are directly in the parent category too.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7113:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - there appear to be several 'intersex people' as Bearcat points out; 1 is also an 'Intersexuality activist' and 1 is an activist in something else. Perhaps there are 'Intersexuality activists' as yet uncategorised who are not themselves intersex. It would seem a distinctly defining characteristic. I support Bearcat's suggestion - rename to
Category:Intersex people, add any others and perhaps create a new
Category:Intersexuality activists.
Occuli (
talk)
14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Squeezeboxes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Existentialists by ethnicity
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment. People are very parochial so these may be what people want. As long as the categories are accesible from the top one it would not cause me any offence to 'Keep'.
Twiceuponatime (
talk)
08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Americans of Jewish descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This page lists Americans of partial ethnic
Jewish ancestry. For those of full ancestry or who self-identify themselves as "American Jews" see
Category:American Jews.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Violates Wikipedia categorization policy and guidelines.
In addition to the requirement of
verifiability, living people must have self-identified as a particular heritage, while historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage.
Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
The basis for creating such a category is not the number of individuals who could potentially be filed in the group, but whether there's a specific cultural context for the grouping beyond the mere fact that [persons] of that ethnic background happen to exist.
As a currently included example,
George Allen: he was not raised Jewish, and is currently a Presbyterian; he does not self-identify as Jewish; it has been speculated (not
verified) that his mother was of Jewish extraction; his mother's possible Jewishness is not relevant to his public life, other than in a derogatory manner.
Delete — This information is trivial to most people it applies to. Plus, we already have the American Jews category. --
Vizcarra (
talk)
16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity/religion category. Can't we get it through our heads that having Fooian blood (descent) in you is neither meaningful nor defining, especially if we are content with differing self-designations and purely subjective standards. The racialists here are stretching on this one in particular - take an example: since Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism, would any children that she had (pre-conversion, post-) be in this category? And how meaningful would it have been to any of them?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Can't we get it through our heads that we base this and other similarly defining categories based on descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and not based on some
Nuremberg Laws blood percentage? If there are particular entries that are questionable, they can be dealt with separately with no relevance to the remainder of the category.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
There are no entries in a category that cannot exist.
The example was given merely to demonstrate actual abuse of this category.
Self-identification is required. This category is never for self-identification.
Partial ancestry is not allowed. This category is only for partial ancestry.
It is the established policy of Wikipedia that such categories shall not exist.
merge to
Category:American Jews. This separation of these two categories was mostly the work of a single editor who tried to do this to many ethnic American categories. Nearly all these have already been folded back into their 'fooian American' categories; that editor has also agreed that what he had been doing was an unworkable bad idea.
Hmains (
talk)
03:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)reply
KeepBecause it is not the only category of this kind, as i saw that there are categories such as "British people of Irish descent","English people of Scottish descent", and so on. What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround. I think that if the category will be deleted eventully, than at least those people should be added to the category of "American Jews". —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.173.210.223 (
talk)
14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Hi 93.173.210.223: Please get a normal user's ID or use the one you may alreday have in order to have any credibility in these kind of serious discussions. Your statement that "What many people are not aware of is that Jewish is an ethnicity and that Judaism is a religion, so that even if a person doesn't really identify as a Jew, then it's still part of his backround" is known and it's the root of a huge problem because for far too long there has been ongoing abuse on Wikipedia (mainly through crass ignorance) of the notion that Jews are an ethnicity (which is true in an abstract manner relating mainly to strict Jewish law) but it has been flogged to death in the wrong way and stretched far beyond any reasonable and logical standards so that if someone allegedly had a Jewish ancestor a hundred years ago or was called "Jewish" by a celebrity magazine or in some journal or book in one line (that totally disregards Judaism and what being Jewish really means in an active meaningful way) they become "notable" Jews no less than the chief rabbis of Israel or the rabbis of the Talmud. Jews and Judaism are connected so that to place anyone in these categories implies that they were fully aware of this connection, subscribed to it and presumably fully (self) identified as such, which they did not. It would be safe to say that 99.99% of the "Jews" in these categories did not have much to do with Jews or with Judaism during their lifetimes. Many of them are in fact not considered Jewish by classical Jewish law and they had little or no formal or even informal contact with the Jewish people or with Judaism, yet now they become enthroned as examples of full-fledged "Jews" on Wikipedia no less than the most fervent of Hasidim, which they are not.
IZAK (
talk)
12:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This has two possible meanings - people of Jewish descent and people of Jewish religion. I would suggest that "American Jews" should be retained for those of Jewish religion (or self-identifying as Jews). The Jewish descent might be used for those not of Jewish religion. As a British person, I am not voting.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.