Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:35, 10 July 2009

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14

Category:Jews by occupation

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: Administrative close. Only Category:Jews by occupation was tagged and listed, and as long as numerous subcategories for Jews of specific occupations exist, there is little sense in discussing deletion of this category, which solely acts as a holder for other categories. There is also the possibility that this is a WP:POINT nomination, as many have suggested (though I don't intend this to be a declaration that this was without question a bad-faith nomination) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominators rationale: this is not a nationality and is fundamentally racist. Further, having some categories but not others could lead to accusations of non -NPOV Beganlocal (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While I tend to agree that Jewish is not a nationality, those who hold the opposite view have got it their way at Wikipedia, as we do categorize Jews by occupation. You should move to have that higher level category along with all its sub-categories deleted, it's wrong to single out the fraudsters category just because some people don't like the fact that there are Jewish fraudsters as well. Your argument is equally valid for Category:Jewish inventors or Category:Jewish actors. BirgerOJ (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) This must be a defective nomination as the rules require that all categories affected must be tagged. This is thus an improper nomination and must have administrative closure (2) "Jewish" is a religion, and has an ethnic (though not national) basis. In some professions, being Jewish is a notable characteristic. Accordingly Keep, at least selectively where the characteristic is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The categories must also be listed here. And don't forget Category:Rabbis. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this a WP:POINT nomination? The nominator created Category:Jewish fraudsters before it was deleted, made this rather extraordinary effort to create a whole family of "Jews by crimes" categories and has argued vigorously to highlight more prominently the Jewishness of many criminal figures in the lede. Failing at all that, he now wants to delete all Jews in legitimate job categories? Very suspect, and more than a little creepy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and close - first, the categories are not tagged. Second, the sheer number of such categories are guaranteed to lead to an incomprehensible result. Third, this does appear to be a WP:POINT nomination. Let us hope that the nominator voluntarily withdraws this ill-conceived suggestion but whether s/he does or not, there is no reason for this to continue. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion per Otto4711. Apart from that, previous discussions have already shown that every category has to be judges ion its own merits, so even if all were tagged, such a nomination would have to be ruled unadmissable. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Shawn in Montreal has a point here, as he may well have, then this should be taken to WP:ANI or ArbCom. I now begin to wonder if the repeated personal attacks against me (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson) have perhaps to do with my ethnicity and occupation (I did not hide my identity on my userpage)? Debresser (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will and you have been going at it something fierce, but I don't think he deserves to have that laid on him. In fact, he argued rather forcefully to retain the Jewish film and theatre cat when I nominated it for deletion. Just sayin' Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering. He does have a history of personal attacks. It may be something ethnicity related. Doesn't have to be tied specifically to the Jewish ethnicity. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary racial/ethnic/religious category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep and close - per Otto4711. Agreed that this is a WP:POINT nomination in response to a previous category deletion [1]. My objection is not that Jewish is not a nationality but that that "fraudster" (the original nom) is not an occupation, rather it is an often pejorative term. This is not an issue here with objective occupation descriptions. Jews are predominant in the nominators' edits and the majority of them attempt to cast Jews in a negative way resulting in a NPOV problem. It is much more consistent than just the single example Shawn gives. To me the bias is evident and I have told this editor so. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to do anything, there need not be a "Jewish" way to do anything for there to be a category. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Heritage. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish ___" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

Terminology must be neutral....
Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 June 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:GOOD Music albums

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: Nominator withdrawal: per the discussion below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:GOOD Music albums to Category:Good Music (record label) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), the capitalization is not appropriate, even if official. Good Music is ambiguous; I've recently moved the main article to Good Music (record label). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest moving the article back. GOOD is an acronym and I see no issue with presenting it as such in the category name. The examples offered at WP:TRADEMARK are REALTOR, TIME and KISS, none of which are to the best of my knowledge acronyms (unless "KISS" really does, as many of my junior high classmates insisted, stand for "Knights In Satan's Service"). Otto4711 (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I've misunderstood the trademark convention, but I don't see an exception for acronym trademarks, though it makes sense that there could be one. I know the British style often uses normal (non-caps) case for acronyms, but since this is an American label I suppose the all-caps could be used, if we use caps for acronyms. Depending on the outcome here, I will take care of moving the article back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support Rename~~Keep and revert name of parent article to match title of parent article, which should always be our standard. I agree that the article title is hard to understand based on policy. After all, we don't have articles titled Ibm, Cnn or Nato. We should respect the broader consensus on how this article was titled and incorporate the title as is, as proposed, in the title of the category. Efforts to have a category-only interpretation of naming conventions will only create needless confusion. Any effort to use the word "GOOD" in the title should be made at the article level, not here. Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the nomination in full and seeing the edit history of that article, I think that the all caps should be used in the title. As "GOOD Music" there is no disambiguation needed. Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, as I consider this again I think it would be best for me to revert the article name back at this point, since I misunderstood the extent of the convention for trademarks. Others can feel free to express their opinions still on this category name, but I think that for the time being I should restore the previous article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:09, 16 June 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.

Remaining Space exploration WikiProject categories

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: rename all per nom. Note that since many of these categories are populated by Template:WikiProject Space, the servers may take a significant period of time to rename the categories after the template is edited, depending upon the current job queue length. Erik9 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Additionally:

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Space exploration articles by quality to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Spaceflight articles by quality

And any subpages thereof

While these are not categories, I am listing them here to avoid starting two discussions on the same move.

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are assessment categories for WikiProject Spaceflight, which was originally called WikiProject Space exploration. For some reason when the project was renamed, these categories were not renamed with it, so I am proposing that they be renamed in line with the project which uses them. Please note that this is a project category, not a content category, and that its name refers to the project that maintains it, not the topic. --G W… 22:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This is long overdue and should be non-controversial. (sdsds - talk) 06:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with rename proposal Ariel♥Gold 08:37, 17 June 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:Civil rights protests

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: Do not rename. (Personally, I think it's folly to argue that either protests encompass all demonstrations or that demonstrations encompass all protests. Why not split the baby and make Category:Civil rights protests and demonstrations? Oh well ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil rights protests to Category:Civil rights demonstrations

Nominator's rationale: Rename - not every demonstration is a "protest". Renaming to the more general broadens the scope of the category. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep as is to match is parent category Category:Protests by issue, all its sibling categories, and its grandparent category Category:Protests. No agrument presented why this category should be the exception to all the others. Hmains (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire tree should probably be renamed for the same reason, that "protest" is narrow and "demonstration" is general. That one category is nominated in isolation (I didn't notice the tree) is no reason not to rename it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not every protest is a demonstration - protest is surely the broader term. Consider the first item in the category: 1968 Olympics Black Power salute - protest yes, demonstration no. Few items in Category:Environmental protests could be called demonstrations, nor can hunger strikes etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, those items in the environmental category that are actually about actions and not miscategorized activist groups constitute demonstrations.

Keep per irrefutably strong argument of Johnbod. Debresser (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some protests take the form of demonstrations. There is thus an overlap, between the two, but they are not the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main issue is that the term protest fits best with the existing parent category structure working up to Category:Protests and the fact that there is no structure for Category:Demonstrations. The article Demonstration (people) defines the term as "a form of nonviolent action by groups of people in favor of a political or other cause, normally consisting of walking in a march and a meeting (rally) to hear speakers. Actions such as blockades and sit-ins may also be referred to as demonstrations", while a protest is defined as a "relatively overt reaction to events or situations". All demonstrations are protests, but all protests are not demonstrations. Alansohn (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have this backwards. All protests are demonstrations but all demonstrations are not protests. For example, a pep rally is a demonstration but it is not a protest. Gay pride parades may, depending on the political climate, have elements of protest but are demonstrations. Ditto for St. Patrick's and other Saint's Day parades. Observances that commemorate various historical events are demonstrations, not protests. That WP currently lacks a correct structure for categorizing non-protest demonstrations merely highlights a gap in the categorization system. It does not serve as an excuse not to have the system. Otto4711 (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just pull my own preconceptions about the subject out of the air or any bodily orifice, I did some research before coming to my conclusion. The Wikipedia article defines the word "demonstration" to mean "a form of nonviolent action by groups of people in favor of a political or other cause, normally consisting of walking in a march and a meeting (rally) to hear speakers. Actions such as blockades and sit-ins may also be referred to as demonstrations" and a "protest" as a "relatively overt reaction to events or situations". All demonstrations are protests, but all protests are not demonstrations. A pep rally is neither a demonstration, nor a protest. A St. Patrick's Day Parade is an expression of ethnic pride (and often a great excuse to get stinking drunk regardless of your country of origin), but is also neither protest nor demonstration. I do appreciate that you've singled me out for an argument, but so far every other participant has taken the same position that I have, so your insistence that I "have this backwards" hardly seems justified. I am more than willing to reconsider if you can show me that sources show that "All protests are demonstrations but all demonstrations are not protests". For that matter, I'd love to see any source that describes either a pep rally or St. Patrick's Day Parade as being defined as a form of demonstration (or protest). Alansohn (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three hundred Carnegie Tech students and their kitty band put on a pep rally last night that is undoubtedly unique in the annals of gridiron fanfare. They actually turned out to demonstrate their confidence that their team would show up on the field today for the big Homecoming game against Notre Dame." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
St. Patrick's Day was observed in this city with more than usual spirit. It has been seven years since the people of Columbus have witnessed any public or street demonstration. New York Times
Not sure why my posting this comment after yours - the last to date in the discussion - constitutes "singl[ing you] out" but whatever. I note that our articles cite no source for the definition of either a demonstration or protest and, as always, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. I've cited three different sorts of demonstrations that are not protests. How about you cite me some protests that aren't demonstrations. "Protest" is a subset of "demonstration", not the other way around. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no one else seems to think so - I agree with Alansohn & the others above. The online dictionary defines that sense of "demonstration" as "A public display of group opinion, as by a rally or march", which might cover St Patrick's Day parades, but rather more clearly Presidential Inaugurations, Royal Weddings etc, which no one would think of calling "demonstations". In Uk English the common abbreviation "demo" makes the sense a bit clearer, but evidently the US meaning is essentially the same. You've already been cited examples of protests that are not demonstrations above. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cited examples of protests that are also demonstrations. I have yet to be cited an example of a protest that is not also a demonstration. The idea that the Olympic black power salute was not a demonstration because the athletes didn't march someplace first is ludicrous on its face. The idea that a rally in support of a new president or showing support for a royal couple are not demonstrations is nonsensical. Are you suggesting that the people who lined the streets of Washington DC to show their support for Barack Obama were protesting? Ridiculous. Were the people who turned out to celebrate Charles and Diana's wedding not demonstrating their support of the marriage? Were they protesting it? Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they showed up at the pep rally to "demonstrate their confidence" there was neither a protest nor a demonstration taking place. Can you come up with a source other than this one from 1874 within the past few decades after the Great Depression? It was a fascinating article from 135 years ago, and the descriptions of parades across the country sounds nothing like what occurs at such parades today. We seem to have a standard here that when you indent a remark underneath the statement of another person that you are responding to that person. If you wanted to make a general remark to all readers, the standard is to not indent and prefix the remark with the bolded word "comment". While I do acknowledge that the word "you" in English can be second person singular or plural, this making the claim that this was a collective comment possible if unlikely, the fact that you replied with "All protests are demonstrations but all demonstrations are not protests", an exact reversal of a statement I made immediately above other than the removal of a comma, sure makes it seem that it was aimed at me. I will agree that WP:RS applies to articles, but it certainly doesn't apply here. That would be like my arguing that WP:OCAT doesn't apply at CfD because the source is not reliable; The statement is sadly true, but it is still not a valid argument. Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a demonstration of school pride and school spirit taking place at that long-ago pep rally, and I chose a very old source to demonstrate (heh) that the usage of "demonstration" as inclusive of such events as St Paddy's Day parades dates back well over a century. You challenged me to find sources, I found sources. If you choose to believe that I was engaged in some sinister mission to target you because of where I placed my comment, well, whatever blows up your skirt is fine by me, but it seems more like you're just making yet another attempt to shift the focus of the discussion away from the category at hand to make it about the nominator rather than the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that your choice to single me out was part of a "sinister mission" aimed at me, nor did I state that. I just can't figure out why you singled me out for "having it backward", when every participant here other than you has taken the same position that I have. I am equally baffled by your insistence that your reply was not directed at me. My vote was based on my research and never referenced any claim you made. This nomination doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and your blatantly bad faith assumptions as to my motives seem hardly justifiable. This is another example of why you shouldn't bother to respond to my votes, as your responses only appear to solidify my position and generate needless wasted time. Don't let this escalate here and disturb my celebrations of ending my year on Double Secret Probation. Alansohn (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – although I look forward to Otto's explanation of how a bus boycott can be regarded as a demonstration. (I boycotted South African fruit silently for many years, leading inexorably to the downfall of apartheid, but as a demonstration it was sadly defective.) There are protests which are not demonstrations (eg email campaigns against something, such as increases in car tax in the UK) and demonstrations which are not protests. There have been protests, yea even unto the heights of the mighty Arbcom, against the ending of Alansohn's Double Secret Probation, and demonstrations of untrammeled joy and boundless relief thereat in Dunkin' Donuts outlets globally. Occuli (talk) 12:29, 17 June 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.

Overseas categories

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: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. They should be renamed to diaspora categories, like all other nations in Category:Asian diasporas. - impact F = 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. For most people around the world, almost all Filipinos are "overseas" - they're in the Philippines. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match other categories. However the present names are not absurdities: the implication is that they are overseas from their homeland. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 15 June 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:Italian-American politicians

Category:Italian-American politicians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly broad, explicitly referenced at WP:CATGRS.

As is often the case, many do not belong in the category. My favorite is Robert A. Ficano. He certainly didn't run for office on his ethnicity, nor is it mentioned on his official bio! Michigan has lots and lots of Italian-American politicians.... Other states, too. Just another mess of over-categorization.

Previously deleted Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 15#Sub-categories of Category:Italian-Americans.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – what about Rudi Giuliani, who does seem to belong? Also note that deleting this category will remove him from Category:Italian Americans altogether; so I would suggest 'keep' or 'upmerge to Category:Italian Americans' which has no other subcat schemes (I think we can assume that such will be in another 'politicians' category). Occuli (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this category has over 100 articles (presently 185).
Comment William Allen Simpson has edited that policy page today.
Oppose Surely there are many among those articles where the ethnical background plays a role in the person's political career. If any do not belong here, they can be removed (after this discussion is closed).
Comment Perhaps the policy refered to in the nomination should be revised? Debresser (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IF the category is to be deleted, the articles need to be upmerged to their parent, or other appropriate, categories. Articles must not be left with no connection to ethnic group (as appropriate) and politician categories. Hmains (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethnic origin seems to be an issue even in the American melting pot. If removed, but should be by Upmerging, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined and defining characteristic that is rather well populated with relevant articles. Hundreds of newspaper, magazine and book sources address the subject, especially where there are Italian communities that operate as a major voting bloc. There are ample articles that discuss Italian-American politicians as a group, such as this one from The New York Times that discusses responses to stereotypes portrayed in The Sopranos, just one of hundreds in the Times alone. The argument for deletion of an entire category based on one perceived questionable entry is never worth the bytes used to store the words, and has no validity here. I agree that there is often an assumption that any person whose name ends in a vowel is of Italian descent and that there are people of Italian ancestry who prefer not to identify themselves in that manner. It seems hardly surprising that Robert A. Ficano, who comes from a county that Census Bureau stats place as just over 4% Italian ancestry, might be less apt to trumpet his minority status, while those from cohesive Italian communities would be more likely to self-identify. As always, the characterization should be based on reliable and verifiable sources. If you question a particular entry, discuss the category on the talk page of that article and see if you have consensus to remove it there. Other than that, the evidence supports the category as defining. It is truly unfortunate that in his zeal to push this and other categories for deletion, that WP:CATGRS was unilaterally updated without discussion to reflect his own personal views, rather than any consensus on the subject. CATGRS states that "an "(ethnicity) politicians" category should only be created if politicians of that ethnic background constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context.... 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 politicians of that ethnic background happen to exist." As made clear here, there is a "specific cultural and political context" for Italian-American, Irish-American, Jewish-American and African-American politicians (as examples), while there appears to be less if any cultural context for Finnish-American or Maltese-American politicians, despite wording in CATGRS that makes the near racist statement that implies that all European-Americans are alike and have identical experiences. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete triple intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and job. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. The same could be said for any nationality/job category, or which they are many -- and Wiki guidelines clearly suggest that they are contemplated. Is the suggestion that all of those be deleted from Wikipedia?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CATGRS, the legitimacy of such a category is not defined by the mere fact that politicians of a particular ethnic background exist, but by whether there's a real, encyclopedic context for the category. I'm quite certain that there's never been any academic research into what makes being an Italian-American politician meaningfully different from being an American politician of any other European ethnic background — and if there actually has, then the onus is on the creator to demonstrate that it would be possible to write an actual article about the phenomenon of Italian-Americans in politics, not on anybody else to prove that such an article wouldn't be possible. As such, this category is just an WP:OCAT intersection of "people who happen to be both X and Y", which fails the WP:CATGRS rule that the intersection of X and Y needs to be a significant and notable topic in its own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - in order to oppose the censorship and rabid deletionism on Wikipedia in relation to various ethnic and national origin categories. Also, people here need to realize that categories such as these (a multiple intersection category involving ethnic background/national origin plus occupation) should never be deleted...if anything, they may sometimes need to be MERGED with the appropriate subcategories - for instance, instead of this category being nominated for deletion it should have instead been nominated to be merged in to both Category:Italian Americans as well as Category:American politicians...this way NO DATA IS LOST except the multiple intersection between the ethnic/national origin plus occupation. I will also add that these two 'American politicians by ethnic origin' categories were likely nominated for deletion in order to use them as a pretext and/or excuse for the coming nomination of Category:Jewish American politicians for deletion/censorship. --Wassermann (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion != censorship. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree w/Wasserman.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What does censorship have to do with this? We are deleting a category and not articles or information. If someone feels that this intersection is so important, then they can create a list that explains for each entry why this intersection is notable and defining. For most this clearly is not defining. I might have suggested an upmerge to Category:Italian Americans, but I suspect that would just create an unnecessary entry for most of these individuals since they are probably included in that category from several subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument that "If someone feels that this intersection is so important, then they can create a list that explains for each entry why this intersection is notable and defining" does not appear to be relevant to me. That argument could be used vis-a-vis every category. I find it unconvincing, and not reflective of what the test is under Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since for individuals the category needs to be defining we have an issue with imprecise names that become a dumping ground for anyone who meets the intersection. Some editor will say that they will monitor the entries but that is not a long term solution. The only long term answer is to create a list and cite why an intersection is defining for an individual. This is not something you can do with categories. Yes, some of this does apply to every category, however do to the names, some categories are more of a problem then others. I'm not sure what test you are thinking of, but clearly the only one I can think of is being defining for the individual. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bearcat, no indication that the intersection between between being Italian-American and being a politician is anything other than trivial. Accusations of censorship that are without foundation should be treated as bad faith accusations in the absence of supporting documentation and editors who chronically make such accusations should be sanctioned. Otto4711 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if you ignore the reliable and verifiable sources that show that it is a defining characteristic. This chronic refusal to accept reliable and verifiable sources in accordance with Wikipedia policy turns CfD into an IHATEIT game and sanctions on such editors would end far greater disruption. Alansohn (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. This process has quickly devolved into a farce, where bald unsupported statements as to what the test is here, and whether it is met, are given weight and sourced thoughtful statements not. Consistency in the final decision has disappeared as well, with some being closed as no consensus while others are closed in favor of one side or the other, with comparable arguments having been made. The system is not working.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources is still not the standard for categories, otherwise every verified fact in every article would be eligible for a category. This clearly is not how categories are utilized, nor should it be. Your continued claim that anyone who believes a category that you want kept deleted "hates" the category is a lie. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Italian American politics is a well-recognized area of study and this is a meaningful category, as Alansohn has noted. The "America History and Life" database lists some 170 books, articles and dissertations under Italian American politics. (in addition to biographies of top leaders like Cuomo and Giuliani, there are many studies of local leaders --recent full length scholarly books & PhD dissertation include The Lost World of Italian American Radicalism: Politics, Labor, and Culture. (2006); The Italian-American Vote in Providence, Rhode Island, 1916-1948. (2004); Negotiating Gender, Race, and the Coalition: Italian Women and Working-Class Politics in New York City, 1880-1945 (2003); White Ethnic' New York: Jews and Catholics in Post-War Gotham, 1945-1970'. (2002); --plus scholarly articles from Italy like "La Citta Politica: Da Filadelfia A Cincinnati Con Giacomo Constantino Beltrami." (2003). Rjensen (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This section is a useful tool to document the history of Italian American politics by highlighting some notables. Revise if you wish, but at its core it is necessary. Wm.C (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:William Allen Simpson seems to be a rabble-rouser who deletes well documented categories and is also having the same problem in the discussion below. I don't think he should be taken seriously. Wm.C (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German-American politicians

Category:German-American politicians - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overly broad, explicitly referenced at WP:CATGRS.

As is often the case, many do not belong in the category. My favorite is G. Mennen Williams, who I'm old enough to remember. He certainly didn't run for office on the ethnicity of 1 of his great grandparents! Michigan has lots and lots of German-American politicians.... Other states, too. Just another mess of over-categorization.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere do I see the Wikipedia test as being "ran for office on basis of nationality" or "not too many people in this category". I would suggest that we stick with Wiki guidelines as to whether it is appropriate to have this category.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this category has over 100 articles (presently 129).
Comment William Allen Simpson has edited that policy page today.
Oppose Surely there are many among those articles where the ethnical background plays a role in the person's political career. If any do not belong here, they can be removed (after this discussion is closed).
Comment Perhaps the policy refered to in the nomination should be revised? Debresser (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - 'overly broad' and 'OCAT' seem at odds; and how should Henry Kissinger be categorised? And was not JFK always described as Irish-American despite being many generations away from the Emerald Isle? I find it difficult to see why some 'Cat:Fooian American politicians' are OK and others are not. Occuli (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kissinger is missing a lot of citations ({{BLP sources}}), yet has "American Jews", "German Jews who emigrated to the United States to escape Nazism", "German refugees", "German immigrants to the United States", "German-American Jews", "German-American politicians", "Jewish American politicians", and "Jewish Americans in the military"; along with a couple dozen others.... That's more than strictly necessary would be an understatement, don't you think?
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all of these are true, then that is not too much. And even if it were, the solution would be to remove redundant categories from that article, not to remove the category! Debresser (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Agree with Debresser here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IF the category is to be deleted, the articles need to be upmerged to their parent, or other appropriate, categories. Articles must not be left with no connection to ethnic group (as appropriate) and politician categories. Hmains (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial intersection of ethnicity, nationality, and job. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That comment would seem to suggest that all nationality/job intersections be deleted, but clearly that is not the approach supported by Wiki guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could cut and paste my arguments from above re Italian-American politicians, but I will include it here by reference. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CATGRS, the legitimacy of such a category is not defined by the mere fact that politicians of a particular ethnic background exist, but by whether there's a real, encyclopedic context for the category. I'm quite certain that there's never been any academic research into what makes being a German-American politician meaningfully different from being an American politician of any other European ethnic background — and if there actually has, then the onus is on the creator to demonstrate that it would be possible to write an actual article about the phenomenon of German-Americans in politics, not on anybody else to prove that such an article wouldn't be possible. As such, this category is just an WP:OCAT intersection of "people who happen to be both X and Y", which fails the WP:CATGRS rule that the intersection of X and Y needs to be a significant and notable topic in its own right. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - in order to oppose the censorship and rabid deletionism on Wikipedia in relation to various ethnic and national origin categories. Also, people here need to realize that categories such as these (a multiple intersection category involving ethnic background/national origin plus occupation) should never be deleted...if anything, they may sometimes need to be MERGED with the appropriate subcategories - for instance, instead of this category being nominated for deletion it should have instead been nominated to be merged in to both Category:German Americans as well as Category:American politicians...this way NO DATA IS LOST except the multiple intersection between the ethnic/national origin plus occupation. I will also add that these categories were likely nominated for deletion in order to use them as a pretext and/or excuse for the coming nomination of Category:Jewish American politicians for deletion/censorship. --Wassermann (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion != censorship. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Wasserman.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What does censorship have to do with this? We are deleting a category and not articles or information. If someone feels that this intersection is so important, then they can create a list that explains for each entry why this intersection is notable and defining. For most this clearly is not defining. I might have suggested an upmerge to Category:German-Americans, but I suspect that would just create an unnecessary entry for most of these individuals since they are probably included in that category from several subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested test is not the test applied to other Wiki categories, and therefore I find it unconvincing.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about defining for the individual is a problem? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Bearcat, no indication that the intersection between between being German-American and being a politician is anything other than trivial. Accusations of censorship that are without foundation should be treated as bad faith accusations in the absence of supporting documentation and editors who chronically make such accusations should be sanctioned. Otto4711 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking through about 15 articles I note that few of them discuss the role of ethnicity in shaping the political career. That's because "German" ethnicity has a very different status in American politics than, say, Irish, German, Hispanic or black. The Germans were internally deeply split (especially on religion) and did not form an umbrella group as such. Like "English-American politicians" it's an artificial category with little basis in expert scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this is a trivial intersection. Categories such as these are part of a tendency on Wikipedia to over-ethnicise anything and everything. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with Bearcat and Otto4711 that this is a meaningless and trivial category. It needs to be demonstrated that (a.) "German-American politics" is a real phenomenon; (b.) the politicians in question are influenced by that phenomenon; and (c.) that they're German American. I'd further add that almost all ethnic-American categories in WP are meaningless as used, and largely chauvinistic, and should be deleted. --Sift&Winnow 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pollution in Israel

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: Merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Pollution in Israel to Category:Environmental issues in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories duplicate each other. The "Environmental issues..." is the more accepted title for this type of category. Cla68 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge, but... While I agree that there is no need for two separate categories to track this info, I do wonder why rivers belong if either name is used. This category should be used for specific environmental issues, not places with such problems. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 15 June 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:Hydropower stations in Africa

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: Rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Hydropower stations in Africa to Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Africa

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard naming to be in line with other hydroelectric power stations' categories. Beagel (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. As it is part of Category:Hydroelectric power stations, this category should be renamed for consistency. — Σ xplicit 05:36, 22 June 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:Telecommunication companies of Arab World

Propose renaming Category:Telecommunication companies of Arab World to Category:Telecommunications companies of the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: In truth, I'm somewhere to the left of being fully convinced that we actually need this at all (Category:Telecommunications companies of the Middle East, sure, but this?), but at the very least a rename for improper capitalization of "Arab World" and improper pluralization of "Telecommunication" is needed. Rename or delete? Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom as below - we don't seem to have categories for the Middle East economy. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with Arab World We do have an article on Arab World but "Arab World" is not an entity and should therefore not be used in creating categories for grouping things per entity. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - following Category:Human rights in Arab League member countries, suggest Rename to Category:Telecommunications companies of Arab League member countries. Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not address the need for grouping items at this specific level for groups of states. I'm convinced that this is OCAT. But if renamed, your rename was where my digging was suggesting that the articles go. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and carefully merge to their proper by country category -- This tree is already nicely categorized by country. No need to also categorize by a non-existing super entity, nor even an existing one (by continent). None of them appear to be registered or operating as transnational organizations by the Arab League itself (not similar to the EU). Severe OCAT.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should point out that there's also a Category:Telecommunications companies of Africa that should also be deleted and recatted as necessary if we decide against categorizing telecommunications companies by continent. No other continent or superentity categories exist AFAIK, though. Bearcat (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Done.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Johnbod; subcat of Category:Economy of the Arab League. Zain specifically operates in the Arab League and in Africa. There is also Arab Satellite Communications Organization, the second one, clearly a pan-Arab venture. Perhaps sharing a common language might connect these countries in some way ... Occuli (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OCAT. Do we really need to group this level of category by areas? I might agree if it was defining in some way. But this does not appear to be defining in any way. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced it's a good idea to begin subdividing all categories that we usually divide into countries (and sometimes continents) into Arab World categories unless there is a far more compelling reason to do so. None exists here that I can see. We wouldn't do this for the "French-speaking world" so why do it for the Arabic-speaking world? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the 'country' cats do not at present exist except for Egypt, Iraq and the UAE. Occuli (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Oman, Libya, Morocco, Syria, and Kuwait. They just haven't been placed in the "Arab World" category. It was kind of a slap-dash job. I'd be willing to re-categorize these "by country", if loss of data is a major concern. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-spotted - also Yemen. I would concede that this is a weaker construct than the 'Africa' one. (There's a 'Mobile phone companies of Foo' tree as well, which should be a subtree of this one but often is not - more slapdashery.) Occuli (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [2] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009
^ [3] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009
^ [4] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009

[1] [2] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009

[2] [3] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009

[3] [4] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 *'''Comment'''. [[User:William Allen Simpson]] seems to be a rabble-rouser who deletes well documented categories and is also having the same problem in the discussion below. I don't think he should be taken seriously. [[User:Wesley M. Curtus|Wm.C]] ([[User talk:Wesley M. Curtus|talk]]) 03:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
+:* Please refrain from [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] ([[User talk:Otto4711|talk]]) 22:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 ==== Category:German-American politicians ====