Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 30 May 2 >

May 1[edit]

Category:Howard Stern[edit]

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: create Category:Books by Howard Stern, no consensus on deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Howard Stern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Wait, before I continue to populate this category I just created -- is it worth it or an unnecessary duplication of Template:Howard Stern? I was concerned that a marginal work like Irritation: a radio saga might not belong in the template -- but I could add it at the bottom, I guess. I realize this CfD might reopen a larger and ongoing debate about eponymous categories, but I'd like to know if I am doing more harm than good. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2011 (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:People self-identifying as substance abusers[edit]

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: keep. This is close to "no consensus," but what puts it over the top for me is Mercurywoodrose's statement that a category should not be deleted simply because it can be abused. If we see that it is being abused, then another look might be worthwhile. But for now, vigilance should suffice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People self-identifying as substance abusers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This can be easily used for BLP violations or for ideological purposes (as it may not relate to a person's recent habits or even their habits within the last 20 years.) I don't think this is how we want to categorize people here. Kansan (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article withing the category is ref'd, I see no problem. Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The context is generally within frank public admissions of past abuse as part of their sobering process, newsworthy actions that brought them to that point, or advocacy, such as NORML members. "People self-identifying as alcoholics" is an extant valid category as well. This is not unwilling tabloid expose', this is a valid component that shapes some people's lives, some quite dramatically. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is too open to use to avoid BLP rules. If someone has stated they were a heavy drinker in 1987 but has not had any liquor since then, it would not make sense. The whole thing is too amorphous to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category being questioned is "substance abuse". It actually makes perfect sense if someone had admitted to an earlier use of drugs and then claimed that had, or continues to, inspire their work or negatively impacted their relationships as a result. The Beatles' music changed due to their experimentation with drugs; Paul McCartney was kept out of the US because of past marijuana busts; Robin Williams was with John Belushi the night he died when they were doing drugs and it eventually influenced him to stop using; Woody Harrelson, Rick Steves and Willie Nelson are known pot advocates. This is not a moral evaluation of whether or not their substance abuse itself is good or bad, it is a statement in who they are or have become due to it. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st preference: Delete. Is very unlikely to be defining for a biography.
  • 2nd preference: Rename to past tense. "People who self-identified as a substance abuser" Wikipedia should not attempt to map current affairs, but should be timeless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, i dont think that a category should be deleted simply because it can be abused. maybe there is a mechanism for notifying someone for, when, say, IP addresses add names to this category. (of course, having someone simply watching for changes would work.) There are a number of artists, such as william burroughs, whose (nearly) entire body of work is influenced by his addiction, which makes it highly notable. I would be in favor of breaking this down into subcategories, for when people have more narrowly defined issues (though many addicts are effectively "garbage cans", doing whatever they find, and its probably not worth the effort for the increase in usability here). I do like smokeyjoes idea of changing the tense, it could also be "People who have identified as substance abusers". I think any change in name should also be applied to Category:People self-identifying as alcoholics, which should also be considered in this deletion discussion. why keep one and not the other? both have a moral judgement traditionally attached to them, setting aside legality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2011 (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:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States[edit]

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: keep. Reports are just reports, not statements of fact. This was discussed just a few weeks ago, and while there isn't universal agreement, it's enough to keep the category (and all the others in this tree) for another few months until we see if opinions change. (Nothing prevents a culling, though.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Reportedly haunted locations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pseudoscientific category with very arbitrary inclusion criteria. Gilliam (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term "reportedly" puts far too much weight on pseudoscientific claims, and there seems to be a flimsy ground for inclusion. Local folklore inevitably stems from a few people (or even one) starting a rumor, and this is a relatively meaningless way of categorizing. Kansan (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue was settled as ""No consensus to delete; rename to Category:Reportedly haunted locations" just over three weeks ago at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_March_30#Category:Haunted_houses. I do not see the point of reopening this again so soon. Oppose on that basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your oppose does not relate to the merits of the nominator's arguments at all? Kansan (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nominator's rationale does not seem to me to be different in substance from the one closed as no consensus, just weeks ago. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Do we really need to have this discussion every week? If the category needs cleanup, then clean it up but it's absurd to discard the fact that some places are quite famous for their ghost legends. This is not a pseudoscientific category: it's a category about folklore, just like Category:Marian apparitions or Category:Legendary reptiles. No reader in their right mind would view it otherwise. Pichpich (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as part of an established category structure; see parent Category:Reportedly haunted locations. WP covers all aspects of human endeavor, thought and belief. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reportedly is just as much of a red-flag word as "allegedly". In most cases there is a high correspondence between reported hauntings and the age of the building. This is not an intrinsic quality of a building, and there is no reason to have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be hard to argue that Gore Orphanage, Dead Women Crossing, Oklahoma or Boy Scout Lane have any sort of intrinsic notability other than their reputation as haunted locations. What sort of categorization do you propose for these pages? Pichpich (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the example articles you listed have other categories, such as (local) folklore, etc. Words like "folklore" work better, as that could hardly be in dispute. Kansan (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the first example, I find it really hard to argue that Category:Ohio culture is a good substitute. Note also that Category:Folklore is (wisely) subcategorized according to the nature of the tale and we need some place to categorize ghost-related folklore. Do we really need to write Category:Supposedly magic powders instead of Category:Magic powders? Or get rid of that category lest some reader misinterpret this as a Wikipedia stamp of approval on the magic nature of said powder? I know I'm just repeating myself but our readers are not idiots and should not be treated as such. And to go back to Shawn's earlier point, there's a weird sequence of nominations. The first says let's add "reportedly" so that people don't start thinking these places are actually haunted. I think it's overkill but ok, if that's what people want. Then a few days later it's let's delete the category because "reportedly" is a word we should avoid... Pichpich (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better schema would be to sub-divide folklore by location to a manageable level. It does not make sense to subdivide folklore by alleged phenomena. This is especially so because many places have multiple types of follore connections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two subdivisions can coexist. Why doesn't it make sense to subdivide by alleged phenomenon? We categorize films by genre and many fall under and multiple categories. It's not a problem there, it's not a problem here. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and source or cull entries. My spot checking found entries with no mentioned of "haunt", or a very weak mention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:42, 21 May 2011 (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:List of cemeteries in the United Kingdom[edit]

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:List of cemeteries in the United Kingdom to Category:Cemeteries in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: This is a category, not a list. After Midnight 0001 20:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lists of cemeteries in the United Kingdom as its contents are lists, not cemeteries. (There are probably more such lists.) Occuli (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal. This is not a large enough category to justify its seperate existence. Unless there are a lot more lists than are in the category I see no reason to maintain it as a seperate category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposed merge. No rational in maintaining a separate category of lists. Ephebi (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Neutralitytalk 04:35, 5 May 2011 (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:List of weeping trees[edit]

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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:List of weeping trees to Category:Weeping trees
Nominator's rationale: This is a category not a list. After Midnight 0001 20:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Why is this list of names not a list ? A page "weeping trees" already exists which defines the concept.--Weepingraf (talk) 10:52, 2 May 2011 (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:List of hotels[edit]

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. Dana boomer (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:List of hotels to Category:Lists of hotels
Nominator's rationale: This is a category of lists, not a single list article. After Midnight 0001 20:11, 1 May 2011 (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:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero[edit]

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: keep conceptually, but rename to Category:Albums with cover art by Sons of Nero. The commenters note that Category:Albums by cover artist is an established parent category, and the fact that the artist is the same musically and visually should not be grounds for non-inclusion.--Mike Selinker (talk)
Category:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think this can be considered as a defining characteristic of an album and the association between the various entries is tenuous. This would be best served by a list and conveniently enough, it already exists: List of albums with artwork by Sons of Nero. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree that it is not defining of the album (it might well be defining of the album cover). The Machines We Are doesn't mention the artwork so the category depends upon some unspecified source (links to the list actually take us to the category). Occuli (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Having an album's artwork designed by an established and notable artist who is recognized for designing dozens of other album covers is a defining characteristic. Especially when the artist has a specific and unique style of art. The same reasons hold true for why a prolific album producer is a defining characteristic of an album. This nomination does not mention why Category:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero specifically should be deleted and not every other category at Category:Albums by cover artist. Also, the article List of albums with artwork by Sons of Nero does not currently exist. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad about the list. The blue link in the Sons of Nero article is actually piped to the category. Pichpich (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to strike it from your nomination to avoid confusion. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Under the ground of what you want to delete this category?--Malconfort (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the grounds that "I don't think this can be considered as a defining characteristic of an album and the association between the various entries is tenuous". Pichpich (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No means no.--Malconfort (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we categorize albums by the musicians who make them, not the creaters of the cover art. What next, will we have categories of books by the person or company that designed the type faces used on the cover?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a notable group of artists known for their work as creator of book covers, why not?--Malconfort (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Albums are often remembered for their covers and the cover designer is always noted on the album. Cjc13 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2011 (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:Greek Cypriot villages depopulated during the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus[edit]

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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 16:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Greek Cypriot villages depopulated during the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is unclear what the category is about. Is it about the Greek Cypriot villages abandoned after 1974? I do not think so. Is it about the villages which have fewer population now? I do not think so, since İskele has a population of 3567 now, while it had 2195 before 1974. Is it about Greek Cypriot villages which are now inhabited by Turks? No because Doğancı, a Turkish Cypriot village even in 1960 as wee can see from here has been added to this category. So, I propose this category to be deleted. Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category name is very explicit. None of the reasons disingenuously advanced by the nominator is in scope. Clicking any of the articles in the cat gives the unambiguous reason: "Since the Turkish invasion in 1974, the village has been solely inhabited by Turkish mainland settlers". This is a blatent attempt at "Hear no evil..." by the nominator. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true for Doğancı. As you can see from the link I have given, it had been inhabited by Turkish Cypriots before 1974. And İskele is not inhabited by mainland settlers, but Turkish Cypriots from Larnaca, anyway. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And anyway, "depopulation" means "substantially reduce the population of (an area)" --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Example of inappropriate article categorisation are matters for individual articles. A bad example does not invalidate the entire category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is still not "depopulated villages", so at least, it needs renaming. And some articles do not have references in them at all to show why they have been added to this category. It seems like they have just been added randomly, without verifying, as in Doğancı and other unsourced ones. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is very clear what this category is about and a large number of villages are listed in this category. The subject easily meets WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To replace Greek Cypriot with Turks is still not depopulation. At least, it needs to be renamed. It seems like this category has just been created in response to Category:Arab villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Additional sources are needed to prove that they have been depopulated, meaning had their population reduced. But as this category has been added to a category called "former populated places", it seems like it is just for abandoned villages, which are not much. If this is just about Greek Cypriot villages which are no longer populated by Greeks because they are in Northern Cyprus, it should not have such a complex name, Former Greek Cypriot villages in Northern Cyprus is more appropriate, and Former Turkish Cypriot villages in (South) Cyprus - I do not know how to call that territory - can should be created in response to this. And anyway, it should be "after the Turkish invasion of Cyprus". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could rename it to Greek Cypriot villages ethnically cleansed during the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus. That would work.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Turkish Cypriots also had to leave their villages, but it should not be classified as an ethnic cleansing (but if this category is renamed like that, it should). And anyway, "(Former) Greek Cypriot villages in Northern Cyprus" seems to be more convenient. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This categorises villages which were depopulated in a historic context due to the invaision. If there are issues with specific pages, they should be addreeesed at its own page. Chesdovi (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current use of "de-populate" clearly covers this. Seksen may want to pretend that he does not understand the terminollogy, but his citing of Category:Arab villages depopulated after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War shows that he knows what is going on. This is about villages that were Greek, and lost their Greek population. They may still have the same names, but after the invading Turkis army drove the Greek inhabitants from their home it is clear that they have been de-populated as Greek villages. If Seksen has had the consistency to nominate the category he clearly recognizes as a sister category, I would have considered supporting his nomination. However as it stands this is clearly a nomination to push his POV that what happened in Cyprus was justified, but what happened in Israel was not. This is not an advancement of any consistent criteria. I was going to propose some renaming but then I saw Seksen's claims about this being connected to the Arab villages, and I decided that I will not propose any renaming until we are discussing these two parralel named categories at the same time. Either they both retain their current name, or they are both changed. Other possibilities are Category:Hindu villages in Pakistan depopulated after 1947 and Category:Muslim villages in India depopulated after 1947.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Greek cities and villages in Asia Minor depopulated between 1915 and 1923, and Category: Armenian cities and villages in Asia Minor depopulated between 1915 and 1923, and Category: Maronite villages depopulated during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 ... and it goes on and on.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Created Category:Turkish Cypriot villages depopulated after the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, but if this is deleted, it should be deleted subsequently. The Maronite one will contain only two pages. And it continues: Category:Turkish cities and villages in Bulgaria depopulated in 1878, Category:Turkish cities and villages in Greece depopulated in 1821... So let's give it up and do not make Wikipedia a mess of "depopulated villages", or at least do not mess this CfD with these. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Category:Turkish villages in Greece depopulated in 1821 that were originally Greek villages in Greece depopulated during the Ottoman Empire. I'm all in favor. Let's have more of these categories.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean Category: Armenian cities and villages in Asia Minor depopulated between 1915 and 1923 which were once a part of the Achaemenid Empire. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is relevant to this discussion. But you are playing a game that you cannot win. Category: Armenian cities and villages in Asia Minor ethnically cleansed between 1915 and 1923 which were once a part of the Achaemenid Empire. The Achaemenid Empire was created by nomads. The Turks themselves are descendents of nomads. Empires created by nomads involve invasion and colonisation of lands that are not theirs.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If so, you mean Roman Empire was created by nomads. And British Empire was also created by nomads, for it colonized the land which did not belong to them. And anyway, the fact that a settlement once belonged to another nation does not affect the fact that depopulation took place, does it? And Nicosia (inpedendent from Ledra) was built by Ptolemy I Soter. But this does not make Nicosia an Egyptian city. Now please be objective. --Seksen (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2011 (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:Rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

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: Keep. The consensus seems to be that renaming to the proposed name is unneeded. However, there were several possibilities put forward for a possible rename to something else. If the involved editors can agree on a name, this category can then be brought back to CfD in a new nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rabbis of the Land of Israel to Category:Rabbis in the Land of Israel
Nominator's rationale: They were rabbis in the Land of Israel, which does not mean they were the rabbis of the Land of Israel. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The term "Land of Israel" has many meanings and had different geograpghic scope at different time periods. If the current state of Isral is the intended scope, then the name should be Category:Rabbis in Israel instead of this more poetic name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the category, and you'll see that you are mistaken as to the intended scope of this category. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The connections involved to not have to mean being in any physical land.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't uderstand you. Would you please explain that? Debresser (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the editor may be referring to the vagueness of the phrase LoI. As a religious term, nobody can have any difficulty with it. As a geo-political term, it raises plenty of issues. The article Land of Israel has the following paragraph: "A slightly more detailed definition is given in Exodus 23:31, which describes the borders as "from the sea of reeds (Red Sea) to the Sea of the Philistines (Mediterranean sea) and from the desert to the Euphrates River."". Does the current category include rabbis from Jordan? How many rabbis from the right bank of the Euphrates (i.e. Iraq) does it list? A better name might be Category:Rabbis in the Levant or Category:Rabbis in ancient Israel and Judah or Category:Rabbis in ancient Israel and Judah by century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that "Land of Israel" is such a loaded term. I think we should rename this category to something that does not use that term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that even if you do not support my proposla, the term "Land of Israel" will stay, since it is in the present name. You could at least make it a little better by lending your support. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I suggest renaming to Category:Jewish religious leaders in the Land of Israel with a note limiting the term to the Holy Land as defined by Maimonidies (which inludes Israel, WB and Gaza, Southern Lebanon, Golan region [and possibly Cisjordan] - need to double check) These are the boundaries which have come to to be accepted by Jews as what is refered to the LOI; it ignores the early biblical boundaries as those extra tracts were not sanctified after the return of Ezra, never being instilled in the Jewish inconsiousness as forming part of the LOI. We an then add all rabbis and what have you from ancient Judea, thru Palestine and finally Israel and the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Jewish religious leaders" is "rabbis". That is the word for this function. This long descriptive proposal is too awkward. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So we can include earlier leaders in the region. The term rabbi is used only for people who lived from around the time of the Romans and onwards. None of the earlier Hasmoneans or high preists were called rabbis, but they were the religious leaders in the Land. Basically to have a more encompassing category. Chesdovi (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The term Land of Israel here is not being used in its historical context, but as a term used by Jews to refer to the holy land throughout the ages. It therefore cover many periods of rabbis who lived there. Chesdovi (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because 1. the nominator is imposing too narrow an interpretation of the word "of" since it could mean "of" and "in" and "from" simultaneously also because 2. this category is not merely for recent Category:Israeli rabbis from the modern state of Israel, but 3. it is meant for all sorts of rabbinical leaders over the millennia, before there was a modern state, that were sometimes based in the geography of Israel/Palestine/Land of Israel and sometime not, as the borders of that area changed with time, wars and politics, that to Jews was known as the Land of Israel also known as Eretz Yisrael in Hebrew. Thus, 4. for example, there were rabbis of/from/in Palestine/Land of Israel that were based in Ottoman Turkey or the British Empire and this category is for those broader descriptions and notions. IZAK (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think "Rabbis of the Land of Israel" is more correct in this case, because this is a traditional but loose classification which encompasses both origins and associations. An equivalent would be something like "Trees of New England". Yes, the trees 'of' New England are generally also found 'in' New England, but this is not necessarily the case. The term "of" encompasses both origin and association, as well as more comfortably embracing a span of time than runs into centuries. The category name should remain as-is. Thanks. —Dfass (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As one who discusses the subject from time to time in conversation, the category as stands is how it seems natural to speak of it; the proposed change(s) seem awkward and ill-fit to the actual concept under discussion. Gzuckier (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2011 (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:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel[edit]

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: Keep. As with the above category, it appears that while there is no consensus for renaming to the proposed name, there is some support for renaming to something. I would suggest the interested editors discuss it among themselves, and when they have worked out the details, bring these categories back to CfD in a new discussion.. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Talmud rabbis of the Land of Israel to Category:Talmudic rabbis in the Land of Israel
Nominator's rationale: They were rabbis in the Land of Israel, which does not mean they were the rabbis of the Land of Israel. Also fix the adjective. Debresser (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose. The term "in the LOI" may be used in Hebrew, but the common description used in english is "Palestinian Amoraim", (Amoraim meaning Talmud Rabbis). Propose rename to: Palestinian Amoraim. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Palestinian Amoraim. Although the new version of Encylopedia Judaica more often than not refers to "Erez Yisrael" instead of the traditional "Palestine", it does use it in some instances. Couple this with the fact that a search reveals that no books call them "Talmud rabbis of the LOI". By far, and I mean probably over 90%, refer to these rabbis as "Palestinian Amoraim". We will have to change "Talmud Rabbis" to the Aramaic word for them: Amoraim, as we have do so in cat for Category:Rishonim, etc. I think the most natural, correct and most widely used form here is most definately Category:Palestinian Amoraim. Chesdovi (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was only proposing a minor grammatical improvement. This is a counterproposal, with a completely different scope, rather than a real oppose. I propose to ignore it for the sake of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. The term "Land of Israel" has many meanings and had different geograpghic boundaries at different time periods. If the current state of Israel is the intended scope, then the name should be Category:Talmud rabbis in Israel instead of this more poetic name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the category, and you'll see that you are mistaken as to the intended scope of this category. Debresser (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks i've looked and it seems that the current state is not in scope. All the more reason, surely, for the cat name to define exactly what is in scope? For example Category:Historical Talmud rabbis in Israel (1000BCE - 400CE). Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. The adjective is "Talmudic". 2. The Talmud is already historical. 3. There was no "Israel" yet then, but there was a Land of Israel. Conclusion: the name I proposed fits ideally. Debresser (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments in the proposal above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will support just about any name, except ones that have Land of Israel. Besides what has been mentioned above, it is an irregular form. We do not have "Lnad of" used in any other place in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please notice that even if you do not support my proposal, the term "Land of Israel" will stay, since it is part of the present name. I think you could at least improve the present name a little by lending your support. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "land of Israel" is a direct translation of the traditional Hebrew word for what was once called "Palestine". If you look at books printed before the state, they say Palestine in English, and "Land of Israel" in Hebrew. The preference is that it does not have the political connotations of "Palestine" when referring to Jewish topics; in fact religious Jews who are not Zionist use it in preference to State of Israel. As far as definition, use either the definition in the Torah (Israel, Lebanon, Northern Jordan, and small parts of Syria and Iraq).Mzk1 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Current form seems fine. JFW | T@lk 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain. Saying that somebody is "the rabbi of London" would imply he is the chief rabbi of London. Saying that something is a rabbi in London is a completely different matter. I hope this has clarified the issue for you. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The term "land of Israel" is a direct translation of the traditional Hebrew word for what was once called "Palestine". If you look at books printed before the state, they say Palestine in English, and "Land of Israel" in Hebrew. The preference is that it does not have the political connotations of "Palestine" when referring to Jewish topics; in fact religious Jews who are not Zionist use it in preference to State of Israel. As far as definition, use either the definition in the Torah (Israel, Lebanon, Northern Jordan, and small parts of Syria and Iraq).Mzk1 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the proposer's position and as far as it goes, it is grammaticaly correct. I also note his previous observation about the status quo. So regardles of the success or otherwise of this proposal, I am giving notice of intent to change the name to one of the names suggested here or in the above related proposal to eliminate the use of LoI in these instances. It's not a question of grammar or biblical promises, it's a question of verifiable, widely recognisable and delimited geo-political entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural observation. I don't know what LL means by "notice of intent to change the name", but the way to change a category name is by discussion at CfD. If there is consensus here for a name change, then it will be changed; otherwise it won't. A unilateral "notice of intent" has no place here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Procedural observation. A few of the contributors here have difficulties with the category name. The proposer was correct in pointing out that none of the difficulties would be resolved within the current discussion. As neither the current name nor the proposed name would solve the difficulty, it's clear that a new decision is required. It would be unfair to hijack the nominator's current proposal with an inherently different proposal. Nevertheless, I felt that would only be polite to give notice that such a future proposal was imminent. Isn't every notice of intent unilateral? I've not witnessed many bi-lateral notices of intent in Wiki. I trust that this restores the equanimity of user BHG. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that verbose reply means that you intend to open a CfD discussion to seek consensus on a renaming. If that's what you meant at the outset, that's what you should have said. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to have cleared up your little mis-understanding. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator to clarify the status of the Rabbis.
    The proposal to replace Land of Israel with "Israel" is mistaken, because it would radically alter the scope of the category. The boundaries of the Land of Israel were indeed fluid, but they were at no time the same as those of the modern state of Israel. The notion of a "delimited geopolitical entity" cannot be straightforwardly applied to the historical period in question: it ended 2000 years ago, long before the modern notion of a nation-state as an entity with defined boundaries and central government. I have some reservations about the political connotations of Land of Israel, but I see no sign of a better terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "historical period" here. Look at the category above. It is also called LOI but includes israeli rabbis, ottoman rabbis etc. Not Just rabbis from 2000 yrs ago. This cat was so named b/c the Jewish/zionist creator of it does not wish to call jews who lived in the levant pre-1948 "palestinian", presumably b/c he found it offensive to use a term which identifies Israels enemies of today. LOI was a way of encompassing all historic periods using the Judeo-centric word "Israel", as to use Israeli would connote the modern nation only. These talmud rabbis are referred to in nearly all scholarly material about them as Palestinain, the correct classification for people who lived in a region that had by then be renamed to Palestine. (300-600CE). Chesdovi (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, you make some points worthy of further examination, and there may be scope for a "Palestinian Rabbis" category here to include those in the period from the Roman conquest to 1948. However, it would not be accurate to apply the label "Palestinian" to Rabbis from the period before the area gained that name. It seems to me that there is a need for a much wider discussion of the terminology of the historical geography of what is currently Category:Land of Israel, and that this CFD is not the place to do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and your opinion makes good sense. As the term rabbi only started to be used during the period of the Zugot, I guess rabbis from around 200bce to 100ce would be referred to as Judean rabbis, those after as Palestinian rabbis (see my !vote above), till as you quite rightly mention, '48 when part of the region was again renamed. It all seems very simple to me. We would retain the Rabbis in the LOI cat with the note defining it boudaries (as I have seen in other cats) above so that people (or Jews) wishing to see all the rabbis of the Jewish homeland, in what they call the LOI, can do so in one unique category. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if at one time they were not called rabbis, that does not alter the fact that they were rabbis, and should be called such. The opposite argument is like saying we shouldn't use English, since there was no English language then yet. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They were called Amoraim then. And they are called Amoraim now. Amoraim it stays. Chesdovi (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That another idea. But that is no reason not to improve the English of the present name. Debresser (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because 1. the nominator is reading the word "of" too narrowly, since it denotes of/from/in simultaneously, and 2. this category, together with Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia, is an important sub-category of the parent Category:Talmud rabbis. 3. This designation is part of Talmudic history that divides the rabbis of the Talmudic era between those who either lived in or came from the Land of Israel who created the Jerusalem Talmud (also known as the the Palestinian Talmud by older scholars) as opposed to those rabbis who were in Babylon who created the Babylonian Talmud contained in Category:Talmud rabbis of Babylonia. 4. The divisions between the rabbis of those days was not all that "airtight" as they traveled to-and-fro from the Land of Israel to Babylonia and back sharing their wisdom and teaching. 5. Even when they traveled to Babylonia the rabbis from the Land of Israel were known as rabbis from/of/in the Land of Israel "chachmei Eretz Yisrael" while the Babylonian rabbis were known as the rabbis of/from/in Babylonia "chachmei Bavel". 6. The term "rabbis" should be kept because that is how they are designated in today's general and scholarly terminology. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get your first 5 points here, but regaring point 6, that the term should be kept. Sure that's how they are sometimes refered to, but we are in the business of categorising. We do not a one category called rabbis. We have numerous cats for differenct eras of rabbis, for purpose of categorisation, therefore, while the parent cats will use the term, it would be much better if we were to use the more accurate term for these rabiis, namley amaoraim, like we have for rishomin, achromin, geomin, etc. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Babylonia is very well defined - it had geo-political borders. The same cannot be said for the LoI. For a category that purports to be a geographical area, it contains a term (LoI) that is more aspirational than actual, more religious than political, more agenda advancing than neutral. I'm coming around to the view that term Southern Levant would be a more appropriate term for the category as it preserves the geographic dimension without the politically sensitive baggage this always accompanies the term LoI. I will expand on this in the next proposal when this case closes (on the assumption that it would be inappropriate to hijack the nomination as it currently stands). Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really get the confusion here. Why is Palestine not accptable? That's what they are called. Chesdovi (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be shortly proposing the Southern Levant on the assumption that most Jews will find it distasteful to use the word Palestinian, however accurate it might be. SL seems to be a more neutral, academic sort of word not burdened with modern political angst. How liely is it, do you think that Palestinian would be preferable to SL in any re-naming proposal? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laurel: You must be joking. This category is about rabbis that has to do with Judaism and it is in that context that the term of Land of Israel is 100% accurate because that is how Judaism refers to these rabbinical scholars. To introduce politically correct mumbo-jumbo that would utterly destroy the origin and usage of this terminology would be not just a huge joke, but a dishonest travesty. Please back off. By the way, please note Wikipedia:Competence is required to change accepted terminology and in this case it's Talmudic, rabbinic and Judaic knowledge studies. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I add History, Archaelogy, Geography and Political Science to that list of must-haves? And who died and made you King of Wiki? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Distastful or not, we cannot let personal bias get in the way here. As comteproary sources use the term Palestinian when refering to these early sages, we should aswell. Chesdovi (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel: Just as rabbis' views are not considered in secular matters relating to "History, Archaelogy, Geography and Political Science" likewise secular "History, Archaelogy, Geography and Political Science" has nothing to emote or promote regarding how rabbis should or should not be termed and classified within Judaism, that is if one wishes to understand the teachings of Judaism rather than impose false and silly politically correct POV's violating WP's own guidelines. I am no king and you should not be the joker either, so quit violating WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. IZAK (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the article or category confined itself the metaphysical things such as the teachings of Judaism, then I'd agree that the other disciplnes would not be relevant. However, it seeks, by subterfuge, to introduce non metaphysical terms as well: by adding the term "in the LoI" to the title, it seeks to introduce a very physcical thing - land. Once this boundary has been crossed, then the whole "lay off, this is purely Judaism" argument fails utterly. Crossing the geographic boundary, you are of course into the disciplines of History, Archaelogy, Geography and Political Science. Disguising that boundary shift by using poetic language does not cover up the fact that the boundary has been crossed. The category LoI in its own right is perfectly OK: it's as valid as any topic on religion. Pretending that it is more than the the religious is where the error has come in: this pretense must be uncovered and stopped; anything else would be a connivance at an untruth. Conversely, if you want to assert that it is not a pretense, that it is in fact rooted in firm realities, then you must of course submit this claim to testing in the disciplines of History, Archaelogy, Geography and Political Science using the methodology of the scientist, not the priest / rabbi. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I think "Rabbis of the Land of Israel" is more correct in this case, because this is a traditional but loose classification which encompasses both origins and associations. An equivalent would be something like "Trees of New England". Yes, the trees 'of' New England are generally also found 'in' New England, but this is not necessarily the case. The term "of" encompasses both origin and association, as well as more comfortably embracing a span of time than runs into centuries. The category name should remain as-is. Thanks. —Dfass (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Similar to the category above; as one who discusses the subject from time to time in conversation, the category as stands is how it seems natural to speak of it; the proposed change(s) seem awkward and ill-fit to the actual concept under discussion, with the possible exception of "Amoraim". Gzuckier (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_1&oldid=1074807906"