Misplaced Pages

Category:Hindu mathematicians

Category:Hindu mathematicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Per the same logic as for Hindu athletes. Religious categorisation of professions is unwarrented and pernicious. Another user has also expressed concern over the category on its tak page. thunderboltz 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There is Category:Muslim mathematicians, and Category:Jewish mathematicians, I don't see the need for discrimination. Furthermore the other editor had only three edits at the time of their discussion, and they also seemed to say Hinduism was not a religion.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above.Hkelkar 17:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Partly for the reasons mentioned above. Also because Hindus role in mathematics is important to the History of mathematics.--T. Anthony 14:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. Rama's arrow 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why hasnt this Cfd been withdrawn by the eminent historians. Please delete this Category as soon as you delete the jewish mathematicians. Thanks.nids(♂) 15:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think Hinduism as a way of thinking did play an important role in the evolution of mathematics -- Lost 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Category:Mathematicians by religion. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see why there are suddenly so many Hindu categories for deletion when the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim equivalents have been around for so long. BhaiSaab 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Even Brittanica mentions Aryabhatta as Hindu Mathematician, so no reason why this category should be removed.TerryJ-Ho 23:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. musicpvm 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mathematics is one field in which religious beliefs mean nothing. What you believe about the Vedas or the Qur'an has nothing to do with your position on the Axiom of Choice or the use of diagrams in mathematics. If there are other categories for mathematicians by religion, they should be deleted too. BTW, I have noticed that careless writers often use the word "Hindu" to indicate someone who lived in the Indian sub-continent before the Mughals. Sometimes it's used for contemporary Indians in general, despite the fact that many Indians are NOT Hindus. The fact that a source describes someone as a "Hindu" does not necessarily indicate anything about his/her religious beliefs. Zora 05:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fine for you to feel this way, but it doesn't reflect historical reality. The historical reality is that many people did link their math to religion. Read the article on Imiaslavie and Mathematics. Historical reality is that, for example, Islamic prohibitions on icons is believed to have encouraged an interest in geometry. Historical reality on Christians and math is dealt with at McTutor..--T. Anthony 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You havent made your case. Personal faith can have an impact on, for instance, philosophical thought, but not on mathematical thought. If it is the case that an interest in geometry is stimulated by the prohibition of idolatry, then that is relevant at the level of society and not the individual. Note that the same editor above gives another reason above. Hornplease 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The individual exists in a society, whether they are a mathematician or a street sweeper. The math is not created or proved by a religion, but the reason to look at certain areas of math in the first place can be motivated by religious preference or interest. That matters here as this is a category of mathematicians, not mathematics. Mathematicians are humans and therefore their areas of study can be influenced by non-mathematical aspects. Otherwise there would be no need for Category:Mathematicians by nationality or Category:Women mathematicians. A Category:Women math or Category:French math would be absurd, but Category:French mathematicians is not. Nationality grouping is so accepted there's even a Category:Basque mathematicians, which is over a year old, and it only has one person in it.--T. Anthony 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

By the by my reason did not change. I said above that Hindus were important to the history of mathematics. The statements here are simply an extension of that. It's more about the why these people being Hindu is also an important part of the history and their role in mathematics.--T. Anthony 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert on Hinduism or mathematics but religion does seem to have had an influence on mathematics (various google hits - this for example). Plus there must be a good reason for the Hindu-Arabic numeral system to be named so? Mind you, its different from Indian numerals. -- Lost 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Zora and the arguments rehearsed here and for other cats on this page. Also, someone please bring Jewish mathematicians and Muslim mathematicians to CfD. Hornplease 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There is little logic in the above argument. Hornplease has voted delete on every cat with the word "Hindu" in it. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• NoteAlso Hindu mathematicians generally (not the modern ones) had a basis in Vedic Mathematics which of course is innately a part of Hinduism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I also feel that there is an agenda at work here.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I am a physicist with a strong background in maths. Many mathematicians have been influenced by religion.Ramanujan a devout Hindu. Ramanujan has clearly indicated that his faith helped his insight into the lemmas. The same is true for any number of mathematicians and physicists (Hausdorff by Judaism, Abdus Salaam by Islam). Read Weinberg's interviews and you will learn about Salaam. Weinberg himself is a fairly observant Jew and a supporter of Zionism and he says that his beliefs about God have affected how he looks at elementary particle-interaction processes.Hkelkar 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu athletes

Category:Hindu athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. As Zora pointed out below, Bakasuprman has created many categories that categorise people based on their religion, even when their profession has nothing to do with it. Such categories are unwarrented, and might be politically motivated too. thunderboltz 11:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are. So are the Muslim lists. They're boast lists, of no particular encyclopedic use. Zora 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per precedent of July 25. -- ProveIt 13:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This seems less of a notable intersection. Unless there are specific sports linked to Hinduism I'm unaware of. (Such a thing is possible, Sumo is linked to Shintoism I believe)--T. Anthony 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Category:Jewish sportspeople is a precedent.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a good point; see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_10#Category:Jewish_sportspeople -- ProveIt 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See also Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_5#Category:Roman_Catholic_sportspeople -- ProveIt 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note Most .content is at List of Hindu sportspeopleBakaman _Bakatalk 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Remember though lists are generally held to a higher standard as they're deletion targets. You'll need to source the names and show that they meet the rules of Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists). The coverage of India/Hinduism topics is rather meagre at WP considering how important/numerous they are in the world, so you're heart might be in the right place here.--T. Anthony 14:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as there is no Category:Athletes by religion, which makes categorization by Hindus perhaps unnecessary. Rama's arrow 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There was such a category, it was killed on July 25th. -- ProveIt 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I dont see religion influencing a person's achievements in sports -- Lost 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Listify for now. BhaiSaab 18:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Delete per this - Aksi_great (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per (Aksi) --Ragib 18:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Darwinek 22:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteSportspersons are identified by their countries - on a lighter point why not organise an Olympic event between religions..wonder who will be left to see the results TerryJ-Ho 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Carlos Mencia do that already? :-) OscarTheCat 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per others. Punkmorten 09:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hellenic languages and dialects

Category:Hellenic languages and dialects to Category:Varieties of Greek

• Rename, old title is awkward and has often led to miscategorizations in the past. "Hellenic" as a concept distinct from "Greek" is not standard terminology; and distinction between "languages" and "dialects" is not really a relevant issue in this group; "varieties" is suitably neutral. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Telex 10:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: use word "historic" in the name otherwise it gets filled with link to today slang and local varietes. I feel Hellenic was used to give such a hint. Pavel Vozenilek 11:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: actually, as I understand it, it is in fact intended to cover modern as well as historical varieties, and articles for the historical stages of the language too. We don't have many articles on modern dialects yet (except Misthiotica, Griko, Tsakonian and a few others), but those and any yet to be written should go here. I don't think it'll ever get crowded enough that we'd have to subcategorize for ancient and modern varieties. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I am not sure whether it is good to bring modern and ancient Greek (or other languages) so much close. Pavel Vozenilek 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary, but if anybody wants to do that, I'd have no objections to creating two subcategories: Category:Varieties of Ancient Greek and Category:Varieties of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Having both these categories is more straightforward--Michkalas 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename--Michkalas 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Muslim actors

Category:Muslim actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Per the same reasoning applied to Hindu actors. Acting doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. They're completely orthagonal. I would guess that many actors are basically irreligious. Insisting on categorizing someone as Hindu or Muslim based on name or descent is pernicious. Zora 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to ethnic/religion variant. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- thunderboltz 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know some Muslims believe film is forbidden, but at the same time I believe there are Islamic themed films. Relevant in several ways.--T. Anthony 14:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Category:Actors by religion, and per Category:Christian actors. If christians have their own cat, then Muslims should get one.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, in agreement with ProveIt. Until and unless we clear them all, we have precedent and it would be potentially POV (or perceived as such) to pick and choose. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bakaman. BhaiSaab 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We should keep all or delete all, not just target this one. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Weak Delete: Really saying I agree with Zora - it is difficult to identify the religion of actors.Is there a way we only include those who have affirmed that they belong to a particular faith or have this information from reliable sources.Dilip Kumar for example is a confirmed Muslim while Shatrughan Sinha is confirmed Hindu but not much can be said of the others who never flaunt their religion or are Multi faith.TerryJ-Ho 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC).

• Weak Delete is a better term TerryJ-Ho 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete this and all similar categories. This is a largely irrelevant intersection. Casper Claiborne 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the above and would support a move to delete every single "Actors by religion" category. My opinion is that categorizing people by religion is often more trouble than it's worth, except in cases where it can be shown to be relevent, such as for clergy, theologians, or politicians. However, I will continue to vote against any attempt to single out any particular religion for special treatment. -- ProveIt 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Hindu actors

Category:Hindu actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, One editor, Bakasuprman, has created two new categories, Hindu actors and Muslim actors, and is busily applying them to various Bollywood actors -- and their families! (Shahrukh Khan's wife Gauri Khan is not an actor.) If you know anything about Indian politics, you know that this categorization is mischievous and politically inflammatory. It might make sense to note an actor's religion if that were part of his/her public persona. Mel Gibson, noted Roman Catholic, sure. But to apply this sort of thinking to all actors, even ones that never speak about their religion in public, is just plain wrong. Zora 07:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This speaks to application rather than whether it should exist or not. If the category is added inappropriately you remove. Category:Christian actors survives. My effort to rename Category:Mormon actors to Category:Actors associated with LDS cinema even failed, see Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 22. Anyway that Hindus are not as well represented here should not cause an uneven standard.--T. Anthony 15:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand tagging someone with a Hindu category if that person has put him or herself forward as a proponent or teacher of Hinduism. Tagging anyone who might possibly describe him or herself as Hindu on a census form with the category is just pointless. Setting up sub-categories for Hindu mathematicians or actors, when the religion has NOTHING to do with their occupation and when they haven't made any sort of public fuss about their religion, is singularly pointless. Just how well do you guys think it would work to busily categorize all Hollywood actors by religion? Or anyone notable enough to rate a Misplaced Pages article?

As for the political issues involved here -- just about all of the Indian editors' names I see here as clamoring to keep the categories are of editors who have been involved in disputes over Hindutva, an Indian communalist ideology that believes that India should be Hindu, and sees Muslims and Christians as representing dangerous outside forces. These editors certainly haven't been working on the Indian cinema articles. In fact, Bakasuprman, the editor who invented these categories, is on record as dismissing Bollywood as popular tripe unworthy of his attention (and me as showing low tastes by watching it). Trying to divide up Bollywood on a communal basis is particularly pernicious because cinema is one of the most integrated sectors of Indian society. Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs (or people who might be deemed such, by virtue of descent, even if they show no interest in religion) work together and intermarry. "Hindu" actors play Muslims in films and vice-versa. While there are certainly Hindu religious films ("mythologicals"), they are not currently the mainstream of Indian cinema, and they are not necessarily made by Hindu evangelists. They're a commercial proposition.

Bakasuprman seems to be concerned to sort out the sheep from the goats, the Hindus from the Muslims. I'm reminded of a story about a Northern Irish man who was asked if he were Catholic or Protestant. "Neither," he said, "I'm an atheist." Momentary silence and then the question, "But are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" In Northern Ireland, you can (or could) be killed for being the wrong religion in the wrong place. That is unfortunately still true in India. See 2002 Gujarat violence. Or watch Mr. and Mrs. Iyer.

Frankly, all the tagging and listing of people on Misplaced Pages seems to me to be utterly pernicious. It's done by editors for self-serving reasons and it's not particularly useful for the encyclopedia users. It seems either to be boasting (I'm Arab and these cool people are Arabs and therefore I'm cool) or stigmatizing (watch out for those actors, they're Muslims, they're probably subsidizing terrorism). Hence the many utterly STUPID fights over what nationality gets to claim a famous historical personage for boasting rights. I know that this is a primate preoccupation (in the troupe or out? friend or enemy) and a natural human tendency, but dang it, I'd like WP to rise above that, not wallow in it. Zora 00:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Aha, a guideline, from the biographies of living persons policy:

"Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
• The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life

I don't think that any of the people who were tagged with the categories deserved to be so tagged. Furthermore, I don't see any use for the categories "Muslim actor" or "Hindu actor" at all; a simple "Muslim" "Hindu" "Jain" "Parsee" tag ought to be enough for those people who are in fact notable for their religious views.

I suspect that the guidelines, if followed, would also remove most of the names from the lists of Jews and Muslims that already exist. Zora 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Again this speaks to application. If you want to know the truth I'd prefer Category:Christian actors be Category:Actors in Christian films, etc. However I put the Mormon version of that to a vote and it didn't fly. You seem to see tagging as pernicious, but I think that's just your perspective. I see the blatant ignoring of the religion of historical figures at Misplaced Pages, even when it was vital to them, as the negative. In any case what you said just indicates that actors only be here if they identify as Hindu and being Hindu is important to their public lives. I couldn't agree more with that. If actors are placed here who fail to fit those two standards remove them. Also most of us are not in Gujarat. I've worked very little or not at all on articles concerning Hindutva. In fact I think adding a few of those people to Category:Critics of Islam is about all I've done relating to that in the last 6 months. There's no need to "scare" us into trying to pretend peoples religions don't exist because you've been in some bad discussions.--T. Anthony 03:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a disclaimer. Also I added Aishwarya Rai as her article states "she has described herself as having 'immense faith in its gods' and when at home she attends the Siddhivinayak Mandir, devoted to Lord Ganesh.." Is this closer to acceptable?--T. Anthony 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because whatever she may do in her private life, Hinduism has nothing to do with her movie career. She's famous for her beauty, not her piety. Zora 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah well. As this is going to end up as no concensus, or just keep, I was hoping a compromise with you was possible. Instead you're just going to get a Category with no holds barred. At least I tried to put disclaimers and limitations. I was considering removing most existing names at some point and replacing them with actors who worked on Hindu religious epics, but there's probably no point in that now.--T. Anthony 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A factual response to Zora's hate attack on Bakasuprman. Wow what a sick mind. Its called fairness, and the reason I created Muslim actors along with Hindu actors was in the spirit of fairness, so that all religions would be brought down if one was brought down. Of course using Hindutva and Northern Ireland are merely tools used by to instigate some sort of emotional Blackmail.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont use words like "hate attack" without remarks supporting its applicability. I note that the word 'factual' is up there as well, but without many facts disagreeing with Zora. Hornplease

I will use whatever words I please. Zora tried to say I was "perpetrating massacre" and suggesting that I was turning WikiPedia into WikiGodhra or WikiNorthernIreland. Since you voted delete on anything with the word Hindu in it, I feel obliged to confront the discrimination and misrepresentation of my actions. I know myself better than Zora knows me, so me writing my actions is the fact in factual.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Michael 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 10:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz 10:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Undecided. I would like editors to take a look at Lists of Jews and the extensive sublists of Jews by occupation. Please let me know if you think these lists are inappropriate. --BostonMA 12:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are Hinduism themed movies and actors whose Hinduism is relevant. See Category:Christian actors which survived a cfd.--T. Anthony 14:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BostonMA and T. Anthony.Bakaman _Bakatalk 14:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, at least for the moment. Either we categorize actors by religion, or we don't. It's unfair to target just one. -- ProveIt 15:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, in agreement with ProveIt. Until and unless we clear them all, we have precedent and it would be potentially POV (or perceived as such) to pick and choose. --John Kenneth Fisher 16:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Category:Actors by religion. Rama's arrow 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Earlier I had commented like this: . However, I am amenable to change. I found a series of categories including Category:Jewish artists - Category:Jewish film directors -Category:Jewish historians - Category:Jewish musicians - Category:Jewish novelists - Category:Jewish poets - Category:Jewish politicians - Category:Jewish scientists - Category:Jewish songwriters - Category:Jewish sportspeople - Category:Jewish visual artists - Category:Jewish writers - Category:Muslim activists - Category:Muslim astrologers - Category:Muslim generals - Category:Muslim geographers - Category:Muslim historians - - Category:Muslim jurists - Category:Muslim musicians - Category:Muslim philosophers - Category:Muslim pirates - Category:Muslim politicians - - Category:Muslim preachers - Category:Muslim theologians - Category:Muslim travel writers - Category:Muslim writers - Category:Christian actors. Under the circumstancesa, I think that wikipedians as a group have endorsed creation of such categories. Accordingly, if we decide to delete the two categories under reference, we should seek a mandate of the wiki-community to delete all the above categories and many more such categories. Sorry Zora. --Bhadani 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree. It is inappropriate for us to debate which religions are "Worthy". -- ProveIt 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ProveIt. BhaiSaab 18:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' per Zora. Bhadani hasnt made his case at all. A Cat:muslim activists or muslim philosphers can exist, in as much as all articles in that cat should be of Muslim philosphers whose religion has influenced their thinking. This does not extend to, Muslim pirates, which should also be brought to CfD. Hornplease 18:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If actually the influence of religion is the basis for all categorization, there should be no such categorization. Such an influence will become a debatable issue requiring credible sources. Plus, as a credible precedent and a network of categories classifying people by religion exists, I think "Hindu actors" is only justified. Rama's arrow 21:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In which case, per WP:BLP, you should be voting to delete this and most religion-based categories, or at lease realising that these cats will have to be heavily policed. Hornplease 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ProveIt and Bhadani . Let us not have double standards on wikipedia. Shyamsunder 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Weak Delete: Not all actors flaunt their religions.Dharmendra though Hindu for all practical purposes is a Muslim on paper to marry Hema Malini, similarly Kishore Kumar. In the jungle called Bollywood, it is better to tread cautiosly.TerryJ-Ho 23:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Believe the second phrase better expresses my pov in this regardTerryJ-Ho

If you check Category:Christian actors and compare it to List of Christians in entertainment and media you'll find these categories have traditionally been "treaded cautiously." At the moment this is maybe not occurring, but I think with proper monitoring it can be limited to actors whose self-acknowledged Hindu status is important to their public life.--T. Anthony 04:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The fact that it may be relevant in a few cases doesn't justify categorisation across the board. Those cases can be discussed in the articles. Casper Claiborne 11:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why cant you see that there are categories on Jew Actors. Just try to do some research on the precedents and only then file a AfD.nids(♂) 12:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, precedents are never a sufficient argument. Secondly, I am certain that based on the arguments here, someone will bring those cats to CfD as well. Hornplease 15:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I stick by my keep vote, but Jewish people are an ethnicity as well as a religion. Therefore it's not the same. Category:Chinese American actors will likely be similarly safe as there's less discomfort here on ethnicity being relevant to projects or work an actor does.--T. Anthony 15:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Listify is the best way, without exaggerating their religious aspects for all these categories, all Muslim and other categories should go tooTerryJ-Ho 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Who told you that hinduism is just a religion and not an ethnicity. Moreover, all i am saying is that delete all these categories, or keep all of them. Why are you singling out Hinduism.nids(♂) 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe this is a largely irrelevant intersection, and would support a move to delete every single "Actors by religion" category. My opinion is that categorizing people by religion is often more trouble than it's worth, except in cases where it can be shown to be relevent, such as for clergy, theologians, or politicians. However, I will continue to vote against any attempt to single out any particular religion for special treatment. -- ProveIt 19:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Military operations of Israel

Category:Military operations of Israel contains only one subtopic and nothing links there. -- Kendrick7 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. This is part of the comprehensive new category scheme for military operations being implemented by the Military history WikiProject; see Category:Military operations by country. Kirill Lokshin 06:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep— consistent with uniform scheme of WP:MILHIST#Conflicts and operations. Be parient, there are more military operations of Israel coming... Williamborg (Bill) 23:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Merge with Arab Israel Conflict TerryJ-Ho 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Israel, I believe kidnapped a Nazi from argentina, and liberated its citizens from Uganda. (Countries/purposes may be wrong, but can be verified by more involved users). Therefore arab/Israeli merge would be misleading.Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That might not be a Military but Secret Service operation TerryJ-Ho 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Its under cat Category:Military operations of Israel. Bakaman _Bakatalk 00:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, special forces operations are still military. Kirill Lokshin 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep A standard category-type. Choalbaton 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:NCAA DI Men's Lacrosse Championship Venues

Category:NCAA DI Men's Lacrosse Championship Venues to Category:NCAA Men's Division I Lacrosse Championship venues

Rename. First, "DI" is not transparent to most people in the US who don't follow college sports, much less non-Americans. Second, the unofficial standard for most college championships, when split by sex and division, is "NCAA Sex Division Sport Championship" (this is followed by the basketball tournament articles). Finally, "Venues" should be in lower case. — Dale Arnett 03:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per above. Michael 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename heck I'm from the US and I didn't even know what DI stood for. Whispering 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nabisco brands

Category:Nabisco brands into Category:Kraft brands

• Merge, Nabisco is now part of Kraft. Therefore, the former should either be merged into the latter, or made a subcategory (like "Post Cereals brands" was). RBBrittain 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per merge. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Is the Nabisco brand still used? If it is, this category ought to be retained. You don't need to bring it to CFD if all you want to do is change which parent categories this one belongs to. --kingboyk 12:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Israel Defense Forces

Category:Israel Defense Forces to Category:Military of Israel

• Rename to match all the other sub-categories of Category:Military by country. Kirill Lokshin 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per above. Michael 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and redirect (i.e. reverse existing redirect). I seem to recall the IDF usage has come up before, though I could only find the case of guided missiles in the archives. -choster 14:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Umbrella: Homosexual Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Oppose/Keep. per WP:SNOW and I Know when to step down. DemosDemon 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Category:Queer Wikipedians
• Category:Gay Wikipedians
• Category:Lesbian Wikipedians

Merge the listed categories into Category:Homosexual Wikipedians per Political Correctness and gender neutrality. DemosDemon 01:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, They are well named, and self-selected. As such, Political Correctness should not be an issue. -- ProveIt 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have striked the political correctness from my original statement, but I would like to emphasise gender neutrality. Lesbian and Gay would be describing it as Female and Male homosexuals. DemosDemon 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, the problem may be that there is a cultural misunderstanding here. They actually don't mean the same thing, nor are they merely male and female variations of behaviors. They represent a political/philosophical viewpoints. It would be like trying to simplify things by changing all Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives and Greens to "Member's of American Political Parties". CyntWorkStuff 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Added Note: Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, and Category:Asexual Wikipedians allready exist, merging the proposed categories would help match a precedent. Also, there is not a need for three categories that mean the same thing. DemosDemon 07:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I still think they are well named and reasonable subcats of Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I have no objection if you want to create Category:Homosexual Wikipedians as an additional subcat, and let people self-select into it. Somehow I don't think it will be very popular. -- ProveIt 13:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose offensive. Tim! 08:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Question, how is this offensive? DemosDemon 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The word "homosexual" is considered offensive. LGBT is a possible umbrella term that could be used but not "homosexual". Tim! 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read Homosexuality before diserning that the word 'Homosexual' is offensive. DemosDemon 09:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Try reading workplace diversity literature or similar. Tim! 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Here is one found online: "Lesbian/Gay Men: Lesbians and gay men prefer these terms rather than 'homosexual'. Lesbians also prefer the term lesbian rather than 'gay woman' because it reflects their separate identities and experiences." Tim! 09:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. No way. Let people be whatever they want to be.--Mike Selinker 09:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unduly restrictive. There are many more possible constructions of sexuality, and, as per User:Mike Selinker, we should let people define themselves. Possibly we will see other categories spring up, such as Category:Wikipedians 5 on the Kinsey scale or who knows what. Haiduc 11:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think you have good intentions, but these identities are all essentially different. (Which is not the case for the example at gender neutrality). At the very least, please remember that 'Queer' does NOT just mean 'homosexual', but a wide variety of things. CaveatLector 15:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sure no harm was meant but agree that people should define themselves. Besides where were you proposing to put Bisexual Wikipedians (small joke people do not become overly alarmed). CyntWorkStuff 15:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for multiple reasons. While the overlap of some of these names may be bit awkward to an outsider, that's why we have Category:LGBT Wikipedians. I also don't like the idea of messing with people's self-identification, since they are subtly (and not-so-subtly) distinct. And, as stated above, even putting that aside, certainly I oppose this rather POV name. (Though, as always, assuming good faith.) --John Kenneth Fisher 17:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons already stated. I think this has come up in a previous CfD. We should make it easier for people to check past discussions. Talk pages of failed nominations should be linked to the discussion and categorized. That way people can read old comments before deciding to post a category again. -- Samuel Wantman 19:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Political scandals subcategories

Category:Political scandals

Following this individual renaming, a consensus over renaming all the " political scandals" categories would be good:

( A ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals of {Country}

( B ) {Country demonym} political scandals → Political scandals in {Country}

• Rename all per A. I believe "of" is more conventional in this context...?   David Kernow 01:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  PS I guess the "{Country demonym} political scandals" articles will also need renaming following the end of this debate; I volunteer to set this up.
• Comment I would rather B, as the scandals are happening in their own right "inside" the country, they are not the country having a scandal, the parties to the scandals are all inside the country. However, I am not sure whether that is a common thought. Either way is okay I guess. Ansell 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Both options are acceptable, but based on convention for political parties I'll go with B.-- ProveIt 02:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Michael 06:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Which of the options above do you prefer, Michael; (A) or (B) – or perhaps something else...?  Regards, David Kernow 12:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - One potential problem of B is that scandals are not always contained to one country. While the XYZ Affair would clearly be "of" the US for instance, it would be awkward to state it was "In" the US, since it went down in Paris. --John Kenneth Fisher 17:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an excellent point. Changing my vote to A. -- ProveIt 17:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per A— consistent with general category naming pratice—which was created to avoid the problem pointed out by John Kenneth Fisher above. Williamborg (Bill) 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and go with option A, location isn't as important as association with the political entity they're associated with. Bryan 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose all The current names are more natural English and both of the proposals raise definition problems without conferring any advantages whatsoever. It is completely inappropriate to follow the so called precedent, which only required amendment because of the ambiguities of the word Irish. That renaming was in line with the typical situation where there are a handful of categories in a large group that take the adjectival form because there is no suitable adjective. This is just another such case and should not be altered further. Casper Claiborne 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose A non-improvement designed to address a non-problem (the South African category needs to be renamed to Category:South African political scandals. Twittenham 14:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Casper Claiborne Choalbaton 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Codename: Kids Next Door

Category:Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, An enormous group of detailed lists (read: listcruft) of an unremarkable cartoon show (read: fancruft). I should say the whole thing should be reduced to a modest article; if anyone wants to keep the whole thing, I would recommend transwiki to another appropriate wiki, if one exists.Djcartwright 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know what to say. The subject is notable. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't propose to debate the worth of the TV show (by "unremarkable", I mean that it's no great innovation or a pioneer into some great new genre, anything like that). The point is, Misplaced Pages is Not a listing of random information, which is essentially what these articles are. I suggest they should be moved to a more appropriate wiki: there must be one about TV, or cartoons, or something; if one doesn't exist, one could be started. Djcartwright 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If you are wanting to delete a category for listing things... might as well delete every category on the wiki... that's all categories are for, to list similar articles. DemosDemon 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Reasons: It's in it's 6th season, it's on the cartoon network, it has it's own IMDB article, it is not cancled yet, it has a movie based on the cartoon's story line, it has notable voice actors. The Category links the numerous articles describing each character, episode, and actor. DemosDemon 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I can't see how a show that has lasted for 6 seasons on a well known network can does not deserve a catagory on Wikipeida. Unremarkability in this case a very weak argument. --My old username 03:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This category has forty-five articles feeding into it. I can't imagine deleting it.--Mike Selinker 09:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per norm.Hmrox 14:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be a misunderstanding about the purpose of CFD here. Deleting the category wouldn't delete the articles, it would just leave them homeless. If there's crud in the category send it to AFD. --kingboyk 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Off Topic Reply, heh, you should look at today's AfD list, he's allready done that too ;) DemosDemon 19:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As per the comments above in reply to original post. Dugwiki 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Music; museums

Merge into Category:Music museums. -- ProveIt 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. Michael 06:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy merge C2.1. -choster 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish basketball leagues

• Category:ACB to Category:ACB League
• Category:ACB managers to Category:ACB League managers
• Category:ACB players to Category:ACB League players
• Category:LEB to Category:LEB League

The standard for Misplaced Pages is to spell out all initialisms in category names. However, I believe that these should remain as exceptions because these are Spanish abbreviations which would be less understandable for most English speakers if they were spelled out. That having been said, I believe that all of these categories should have "League" appended to them, if for no other reason to make it a little more clear that the categories deal with sports leagues. I wouldn't object if the consensus determines that "ACB basketball league" is a better destination. — Dale Arnett 00:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Rename all per nom. Michael 06:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as nominated. --Mike Selinker 09:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• I understand the logic behind keeping the initialisms, but why capitalize league? It's not part of the official name. - EurekaLott 18:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the nominator, I won't object if "league" is in lower case. — Dale Arnett 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)