- 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: Listify. On one hand there is a case made that the intersection of Jewish and inventor is not notable. On the other a case is made that ethnicity can be notable. The problem here is what it has been in many of the previous discussions. That being that no case is made that this is a defining characteristic and not merely a dumping place for people who have this intersection. Debresser's point about keeping only to hear the case again, while an interesting offer did not have support and I'm not sure that this addresses the problem. The bigger problem is that some groupings are not a good category and really need a list. However in the case here, the list was deleted and we keep trying to establish a category. I don't know what to make of the censorship charge. By removing the category, we are not removing any data or facts from articles. When I started to close this I was clear that this would be a delete. However after rereading this several times I think that the consensus really is to remove the category but keep the information so a listify of this with proper references so that it is clear that the intersection is in fact notable for each individual. It is not acceptable to bounce between CfD and Afd so this discussion and close should be referenced in the creation of the list. I also think that if anyone wants to nominate the list for deletion, the discussion really needs to be here to end the ping pong decisions which only hurts the encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Jewish inventors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Ethnicity is not in and of itself notable (or defining). The policy requirements are:
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage
... thoroughly documented as essential to the occupation.
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living people#Categories (and Wikipedia:Categorization of people)
- The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
- The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
There is no valid connection between being Jewish and inventing something, just as there is not being Christian, red-haired, left-handed, or aborigine and inventing something. It should also be noted that the majority of entries in this category are not
inventors by definition, but rather scientists, discoverers, or businesspeople. It should also be mentioned that this category has been long maintained by POV
-minded individuals, one of whom has been banned as disruptive and seems to have instigated the category's rebirth via email contacts.  Bulldog123
04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- WP:ETHNICITYISNOTABLE. Bulldog123 21:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per the previous keep helpfully linked within the nom. And could we have an embargo for a few weeks on Jewish cfds? There may be no conspiracy but we have had a new one every day for some time (just as if there were a conspiracy). Occuli (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- While an informal and voluntary cessation of Judaism-related CFDs might be a good idea, I oppose any suggestion that such a moratorium be imposed through sanction. Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Your previous CfD only said ""If in doubt, don't delete" sounds OK to me." Where is your policy/guideline reasoning for keeping this category? Furthermore, blame the people who created endless Jewish categories if you're concerned with how many CfDs have come up recently. If they didn't exist, as their counterparts don't, they wouldn't be nominated. If there were Category:Caucasian inventors, or Category:Christian inventors, or Category:Aboriginal inventors - those would all be nominated too. Bulldog123 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- There are Category:English inventors, Category:Scottish inventors, Category:Welsh inventors, Category:Northern Irish inventors, Category:Cornish inventors. Last time I checked none of these were passport-issuing nations. The various arguments for 'keep' and 'delete' have been trotted out ad nauseam for the last several days. Give it a break - this sort of comment is laden with distasteful POV (and wrong since there is Category:African American astronauts). Don't you have anything else to think about? Occuli (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are all nationalities and have been designated as nationalities, were historically once nationalities, and continue to be sub-nationalities. In fact, Welsh people states explicitly....
The Welsh (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation
- If you think Category:Cornish inventors isn't valid. Nominate it, and I'll probably agree with you. That's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS though.
- Your examples are further flawed because a half-Scottish American doesn't get categorized into Category:Scottish inventors but a half-Jewish American can easily be (and is) categorized into Category:Jewish inventors. Furthermore, there is no "Scottish religion" and people who may not be of Jewish ethnicity but are religiously Jewish also get categorized into Category:Jewish inventors. Triple standards for one category. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either make the category distinctly specific to the ethnicity, religion, or nation (Israel) or don't have it at all. But you can't have a three-way inclusion. Also, this sort of comment is completely true and has nothing offensive or derogatory in it. It is a simple fact that there have been dozens of users whose sole purpose on wikipedia is to promote their identity. Have you ever been to Scientology? In fact, the now-banned user who maintained this category is one perfect example. And I did not say that African-American astronauts is not a valid category, I said that it is not one so inclusive as Jewish astronauts. I'll gladly repost the comment here if you wish. I am also starting to suspect that since you do not have a policy-related excuse for keeping the category, you make up for it by pretending to find "offense" in the nomination. Just because its a touchy issue, doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. Bulldog123 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see any inherent notability between ethnicity (or religion) and occupation (i.e.: inventor). Trivial intersection. Resolute 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unsure First of all, I agree that there is reason to suspect pointy behavior behind these nominations. On the other hand, the argument does make the impression of being logical (if we strip it from irrelevant comments). As a compromise I'd say keep for now, and if it needs to be tagged, somebody else will surely do so in the future. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- So what is your reason for "keep"? Policy deems this category non-notable. What is your reasoning? "Keep because it seems WP:POINTy?" Bulldog123 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- religion not essential to the occupation.
- If these are claimed to be "Jewish ethnicity", then the form would replace the nationality; for example, Category:Jewish-American inventors. But it's not ethnicity form, so that argument is moot.
- Looking at the 4 I've met personally (2 living in Israel, so their heritage isn't a surprise to anybody), and 1 that was a old friend of my grandfather (I'm not sure I actually remember him, other than occasional mentions at family gatherings as I grew up), none of them (not even the Israelis) have a reference citing them as Jewish! Certainly the others never mentioned they are Jewish in my memory, and AFAICT didn't marry Jewish women. Therefore, many of these should be deleted for failing to meet the self-identification requirement.
- Looks to me like many are in this category because of possibly Jewish surnames.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- You always want ethnic and national categories deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- And you don't recognize the policy requirements needed in keeping them. Bulldog123 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Jewish is ultimately an ethnicity, though intermarriage with other communities has tended to blur this. It is necessary that those categorised should self-identify as being Jewish or be known to be practising the religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
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 Inventors" 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)
- Delete - there does not appear to be an encyclopedic relationship between "Jewish" and "inventor". Being an inventor is not limited to any particular race, religion, nationality or ethnicity. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep - censorship of valid/factual data and rabid deletionism must be stringently opposed on Wikipedia, especially in relation to all of these Jewish categories which are currently under censorious assault. This is also a well-populated category...to delete it would mean to pointlessly negate years worth of data gathering and leave a gaping hole in the categorical backbone of this encyclopedia which purports to be a gathering place for all human knowledge. I also continue to wonder why so many Jewish related categories continue to be singled out from among the many other identical categories for deletion/censorship? --Wassermann (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- 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.