Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 27 May 29 >

May 28[edit]

Category:Male writers who wrote under female pseudonyms[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge, per recent CFD close where a similar category for females was merged in the same way. I hope this can be a speedy, but am putting here just in case.
Lists that should be expanded from the entries in this list:
--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Considering that some of these people wrote under lots and lots of pseudonyms, the fact that some were female is not really that notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2013 (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:American serial killers of Jewish descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These keep cropping up. Again, I don't see any good reason to divide this by ethnicity. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to make things worse, one of these people was adopted, so calling him "of Jewish descent" is problematic on all sorts of fronts, although he was raised Jewish, so he probably counts as Jewish. The other was clearly Jewish, and his conversion to Christianity does not make him somehow "of Jewish descent". If we are using Jewish as an ethnic identifier, these people both should be calssed as Jews (one of them is in other Jewish categories), so they should be in Category:Jewish serial killers, and it is unclear if that one did exist we should split by nationality. This category clearly should not exist. What next Category:American serial killers of Mormon descent? The way "Jewish descent" is being used in this category just does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom There is no evidence of any defining connection between their religion and their serial killing, nor is there any evidence that the real world groups serial killers on this basis. Alansohn (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of these people were Jews at the time of their killing streaks, so it is not religion, it is ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2013 (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:Attempted assassination survivors[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per recent deletion of U.S._Presidents_surviving_assassination_attempts, I don't think this is defining for the people on this list. Many of these people are political leaders, and as such would have had attempts taken on their lives as an (unfortunate) part of their job, and those attempts may have made it to various stages of completeness. Nonetheless, the List of people who survived assassination attempts is a better way to handle this and to capture the nuance (how far did the attempt progress, was the person wounded in the attempt, what happened to the attacker, what was the motive, etc) so I think both of these categories should be listified and deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category specifically refers to assassination attempts. An attempt is an attempt, and is either successful or not, and does not progress (as in a "plot", a "plan", a "threat", etc.). Please try not to confuse the difference. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being assasinated may be a notable characteristic, being a target of an assasination attempt is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, being assassinated is notable, but, because the assassin missed or maimed the target instead, it is not? The background, reasoning and actions of the perpetrators are the same with the only difference being the assassin bungled the job. Sorry, that is just not logical. Also, the fact that someone actually tries to kill you for your beliefs or notoriety, is quite notable in my opinion. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given how often drones fling targeted missiles around, it's a wonder not every major terrorist on the US list isn't categorized here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to kill the enemy while fighting a war is debatably not assassination. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If attempted assassinations cannot be well-defined, this category needs to go on that basis as well. Similarly, are anthrax and ricin letters assassination attempts? Do you even know whom to ask? It's not only not defining, its not definable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? [1]. Killing an enemy leader, during wartime, would be clearly an assassination in my book. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category specifically refers to people who have "dodged a bullet", so to speak, and does not address assassination plots; people taking pot-shots at residences (the White House, for example); or even politicians attacked during the execution of a crime. There are very few people (and not all are politicians by the way) who survive a serious attempt on their lives. That is a useful piece of knowledge. Furthermore, the stated rationale that the category is non-noteworthy –yet a list article is (or would be) noteworthy– does not sound logical to me.
Also, users John Pack Lambert and Carlossuarez46's flippant opinions seem disingenuous at best, as I doubt there are very many survivors of actual assassination attacks with Wikipedia articles (both criteria specifically spelled out for addition to the category); and neither cite any policy violation regarding the existence of such a category. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: It seems to me that Wikipedia is daily becoming more of a book of lists (and that was not it's original intention). Categories, in my mind, were designed to do that. If we are going to "listify" such categories, then I really don't see the purpose of continuing the categorizing of articles at all. As user Obi-Wan Kenobi puts it, a list will serve the same purpose and "capture nuances", give more information, etc. Well then, let's just do away with categorization as outmoded. (Personally, I'd like to see fewer list-articles, and more categorization, but that's just me.) GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there are certainly many problems with the categorization system, eliminating it isn't the best option either. Every other week, I think, a category here is deleted and listified, so this is quite common - and the reason is the one I gave above - lists can provide nuance, which categories cannot. Whenever something is debateable as to membership, the general feeling is, delete the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There actually are lots of people on the list of assassination attempt survivors not in the category. One is Bill Clinton. The list says this of the assassination attempt "A bomb was planted under a bridge which Clinton's motorcade was scheduled to cross. Secret service officers discovered the plot in time, and the motorcade was redirected." A list is a much better way to cover this, a category lumps people like Clinton, who were never in danger, with people like George W. Bush, who had the grenade thrown at them but it did not go off, with people who were actually injured. Then there is Franklin D. Roosevelt, who may have survived an assassination attempt, but for all we know the people killed in the attempt were the actual targets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lists do a much better job at capturing nuance. Categories work for things like year of birth, year of death, occupation, and lots of other things that are clearly yes or no. However the lines of assassination attempts are too complexed to decide on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (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:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements[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 to Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "minor" name is inherently POV. I'm not sure what we should do about this--maybe upmerge the contents somehow? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should really avoid the use of the term "sect". It is just as pejorative, POV-pushing and meant to deligitimatize as "cult" is. It is a term of derision which we should not be using.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are the equivalent of Category:Anglican realignment denominations and Category:Independent Catholic Churches, most of which are tiny. We should be able to find a phrasing. Propose Category:Eastern Orthodox independent churches, though i've no idea if this is a term used for them - a note is needed either way. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I think we have agreement that a rename of some sort is in order. The outstanding question is which of the proposals should be used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2013 (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:American serial killers of German descent[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 per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: recently created, and I see no reason this is notable. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This is the only sub-division of Category:American people of German descent that is "by occupation", or anything like that, all the other subdivisions are either about being emigrants or subdividing in what way the ancestry was German.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom There is no evidence of any defining connection between their nationality and their serial killing, nor is there any evidence that the real world groups serial killers on this basis. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not nationality, this is ancestry. To be a nationality these people would have had to be nationals of Germany at some point, this category is not limited to such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2013 (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:HVAC manufacturing companies[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: administrative close: the category was just discussed in an earlier discussion. This discussion was opened before the earlier one was closed. It has now been closed. Before closing it, I transferred Vegaswikian's comment below to the earlier discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I believe "refrigeration" should be added to this category as refrigeration also falls under this category in the US. Alvb (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2013 (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:1936 establishments in Namibia[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 per nom. Nothing in this close should be taken to prohibit dual categorization if that is appropriate. If that is done, consider if we need a fully populated tree of if we can provide what is needed by a dual parent at or near the top of the tree. I should also add that the proposed name is used for several years. So this unifies the naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy:
For what it is worth my 1984 Encyclopedia Brittanica has the article under "South West Africa/Namibia", while the 1990 Brittanica, which is largely the same in most respects, has moved the article to Namibia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all South West Africa/Namibia was still under the de facto control of South Africa until 1990 and absent any clear evidence the popular name had changed that's the best cut off point rather than the UN resolution. South West Africa/Namibia used/use English as an official language (the sole one since 1990) but in practice usage has been largely official. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it is worth my Times World Atlas with its most recent copyright date of 1989 on p. 283 with the section "the emancipation of Africa from 1946" has a map that gives as the name of the place Namibia with South West Africa in parentheses. On the other hand Zimbabwe, Zaire and Malawi all have formerly before their in parenthesis names, Benin has changed from Dahomey 1976 in parentheses, Ghana and Burkina Fasso do not have their former names given, nor does Botswana. Libya has Socialists People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in parentheses. So South West Africa is not as clearly formerly as Rhodesia. On the other hand p. 276-277 are entitled "Retreat from Empire". That map uses South West Africa with Namibia in parentheses, and also does not show the country as having gained independence. The map in question also has a section in the key with the heading "colonial possessions in 1983". South Africa is not one of the designated colors, so they do not clearly say if they view South West Africa as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all through 1989 to South West Africa. It seems that the end of South African control is the best cut off point. 1968 is problematic since the UN did not even declare the occupation illegal until 1971.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, keep in Category:Years in Namibia tree and keep category redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Two international current affairs publications index the country under “Namibia” in 1980 (& 1985); Keesings Contemporary Archives (London, loose-leaf) and Facts on File (New York, yearbook), though Facts on File says “Namibia” see under South Africa (Namibia). So perhaps rename from 1968, otherwise I would have gone with 1990 and independence. Hugo999 (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all through 1989 per John Pack Lambert. It's not clear how much actually changed in 1968; while it's clearly more arguable in the 1980s, it's very difficult to find a cutoff point that isn't arbitrary, so the end of South African control works. SnowFire (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do now have Category:1906 establishments in German South-West Africa. It is a sub-cat of Category:1906 establishments in the German Empire, which is meant to be a similar category to Category:1906 establishments in the British Empire, which is a much better developed schema. That category maybe should be renamed to Category:1906 establishments in the German colonial Empire, or something like that. There are also some Portuguese, French, Japanese and French empire cats, but I am not sure we really know what to do with the structure. The British Empire structure is only anywhere adequately developed for 18th-century North America. I am not sure if there is a good place to discuss the issue, but I thought it might be relevant here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For now I added the 1906 category to Category:Establishments in Namibia by year. If we get more German South-West Africa categories, we maybe could just make Category:Establishments in German South-West Africa by year a sub-cat of the Namibia category, but with only one category at present I did not see the point in creating a category to hold just one other category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure we want to put the contents of the South-West Africa/Namibia categories under South Africa from 1915-1990. Was it really part of South Africa to the extent we would so categorize it as such. We don't even generally categorize things founded in the 1930s in Algeria as founded in France, even though Algeria was treated as an integral part of France during that time. Of course Category:1930s establishments in Algeria is not that large of a category, and I am not sure we have ever really considered the matter. I am not even sure where it would be good to bring up the question. I would not think we should actually merge the Algeria category into the France one, since we have separate categories for Martinique and Guadaloupe establishments by year, at least for a few years, so I think we have clear precedents to treat Algeria as a distinct place even when it was considered part of France, but it might be worth to add France as a parent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to :Category:#### establishments and Category:Establishments in Namibia, and Category:Establishments in South-West Africa would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on some specific types of establishments, we have earliest years we split by that, such as Category:Educational establishments by year we only split by year back to 1800. I have long thought there should be some year before which we do not split by place, but there has been no workable discussion on that, and place by place discussions have supported by year by place categories before 1000. In this particular case, all these things were established when this place clearly existed, only its specific name is in dispute, not that there was a place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that there was always a place where something was established, and we could define it as 'established in what is current day Spain', and I think that is what the categorisation in a way means (a bit like 'he is a former president of the United States'). But some older establishments can be linked to a physical set of coordinates, but without there being any definition of country whatsoever at that time - did people like the Maya's in America have strict borders around their area, or were they living in an area, but without real outside borders, since there were no other people living in adjacent areas .. or do we then say "The Maya's were occupying ALL of the Americas, up till where the land stopped and the oceans started" (even if they never ventured into certain parts those areas)? Another problem is, that it is ambiguous. We now assume that the reader is looking for establishments in current day Belgium, but what if the reader is looking for establishments in the Netherlands of the 1730s - they should scour four 1730's categories (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and a corner of France, and probably some parts are excluded as they did not belong to that (Schiermonnikoog was German I think in that time))? It is a difficult thing to categorise correctly, but I firmly believe that 'year' and 'country' are strongly conflicting/mutually dependent properties of a subject, and hence that things should not be categorised in a category that combines two properties which are 'dependent' on each other. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all, until 1989, for the lack of a better cut-off point. The territory started to become known as Namibia sometime between 1960 and 1962.[1] (from Mburumba Kerina, section "Early life and education"). However, until the late 1980s the name Namibia implied a statement of pro-independence[2] (from The Namibian, section "Prior to Namibian independence") and was therefore somewhat POV. --Pgallert (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ndjebela, Toivo (30 September 2011). "'I am politics' John the Baptist'". New Era.
  2. ^ Rothe, Andreas (2011). Media System and News Selection in Namibia. Lit Verlag Münster. pp. 29–32. ISBN 3-643-11194-0.
  • Rename all, since this was the official name of the territory and also a name commonly used for it at the time. Official names shouldn't be used in categories when they're less common, e.g. "Category:2012 establishments in Greece" is much better than "Category:2012 establishments in the Hellenic Republic", but SWA was not an obscure name for what's now always called Namibia by any stretch of the imagination. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all as proposed. This was the name used by the people with actual de facto control of the area during the time in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2013 (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:Deconstruction albums[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 to Category:Deconstruction (band) albums. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:EPONCAT JFH (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure what I was thinking there. I meant WP:SMALLCAT but was not aware of the sub-categorization scheme. --JFH (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete one album, no chance to grow - I don't think SMALLCAT means every artist gets a separate category for their works - it is more meant for things like "Rivers by country", where every country has a category,and if a given country only has 1 river, they can still get a category. OTOH, every band doesn't have a category for their albums, at least I don't think they do, do they? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Category:Deconstruction (band) albums. The band is a defining characteristic of an album, so, yes, every band has a category for their albums (and their songs). Oculi (talk) 23:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename per Oculi. I didnt' realize, but apparently since 2006, instruction has been that even one-album wonders get a category, which explains why Category:Albums by artist has 16,000 sub-categories. Fun. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2013 (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:Antisemitism in the Middle East[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what the best course is here, but for now I'm proposing to delete these, mainly around POV. There are actually three categories which collect a number of muslim-majority countries under the anti-semitic banner - these two, as well as Category:Islam_and_antisemitism. I note that Category:Christianity and antisemitism does not have a list of majority-christian countries underneath it. As such, the existence of just these three categories seem to reinforce a notion that Muslims are more anti-semitic than others. I'm not debating whether this is true or not, I'm just pointing out that three separate categories that group such closely-overlapping countries together tends to give that impression. We already have a whole tree of Category:Antisemitism_by_country_or_region, which has both country categories and continental groupings. As such, I think we could divide Asia up into the standard, neutral, geographically-based categories per Subregions_of_Asia#Regions_of_Asia rather than culturally-based, divisions, especially given definitions of "middle-east" and "arab world" are sometimes varied, whereas "Western Asia" and "South-east asia" are pretty clearly defined. This will avoid any inadvertent POV in category construction for this sensitive subject. Any categories about anti-semitism in majority-islamic countries could also be placed into Category:Islam_and_antisemitism.
Note: both of these categories are recently created. I took a start at populating them further, and I also found Antisemitism in the Arab world after submitting this nomination, so a head article does exist for one of these categories. However, that article has been argued by some to be a content fork of Islam and antisemitism.
Nonetheless, I think having three categories which groups together closely overlapping topic areas and sets of countries goes a bit far - I welcome other suggestions for how to deal with this.
FWIW, I realize that all arabs are not muslim, and that all Muslim countries are not in the Middle east, and that all middle-eastern countries are not part of the Arab world. These are overlapping but not completely identical subsets. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated Flora - i agree that one's quite iffy. I'm generally opposed to container categories other than the standard geographical groupings - the definition of arab world and middle east is also debated for example - which countries are in or out. Culture is an exception, but I'm not convinced on this one. We've somehow managed to muddle through without these two categories until May of 2013, so why now?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Middle East is not Islam, Islam is not the Middle East. The Middle East Category here has an Israel sub-cat, so the gripes against it do not make sense. We have Category:Education in the Middle East and many more. We clearly classify things as part of the Arab World and part of the Middle East, neither of these terms are synonymous with Islam. The most populaous Islamic country is universally agreed to be Indonesia, which no one ever considers part of the Arab World or the Middle East. These are three seperate and distinct topics, and there is no reason to not have these three categories when we have the relevant articles to support them. Then there is the fact that under the Islamic antiemitism heading we put articles that are not only not in the Middle East or the "Arab World", but that are not Muslim-majority countries but do clearly indicate that at least some of what they cover is anti-Jewish violence and hate perpetrated by Muslims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize all that. But we don't have Category:Anti-semitism in Teutonic europe or Category:Antisemitism in slavic-speaking nations or Category:Antisemitism in the Levant - there are all sorts of geographic groupings which exist, but as these are mostly container categories, I don't think we need three to contain almost the same subset (there are I think 8 countries in common between "middle east" and "arab world".) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, unlike your straw men, we do have an article linking the cultural area and the phenomenon, so the intersection is notable, we have no Anti-semitism in Teutonic Europe, etc. and we don't even have a Category:Teutonic Europe so that we have no precedent that such an area "Teutonic Europe" has some significance off this page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We also have categories like Category:Feminism in the Middle East. I see no reason why we can have that ideological category and not this one. There is no good reason to target these particular ideological categories for removal and leave a lot of other ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can see these are contentious categories (with considerable crossover between them), but they also cover a topic that has been the subject of genuine scholarly attention, so much so we have an article on it. Rightly or wrongly, antisemitism and the Middle East/Arab world have been linked by various commenters, and that's enough to justify this category as more than an arbitrary geographical division. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw my delete above I see the reasoning for these categories from the surrounding category structure Hmains (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2013 (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/2013_May_28&oldid=1138398437"