Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:Noble families by nationality[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 debate conclusively establishes a consensus to retain this category, so I hope this is an end to the matter. -Splash - tk 00:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sigh. I am forced to CfD my own category since Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) who keeps depopulating it also refuses to take this here, despite my repeated requests. As far as I see it, this category has a simple purpose: to reduce the clutter at Category:Noble families. It mirrors the existing category structure in Category:Families being its equivalent of Category:Families by nationality and is an uncontroversial missing link in between "Fooian noble families" and "Fooian families" category levels. For example, we have Category:Albanian noble families and Category:Albanian families. Clearly, Category:Albanian noble families should be in Category:Noble families by nationality, just like said Category:Albanian families is in the Category:Families by nationality. Antidiskriminator argues that the category by nationality is wrong because it includes many families from pre-nationality era, but I don't think this arguments hold water, considering that we routinely categorize things by nationality (ex. all the families in the family by nationality category). Noble families should not be denied "by nationality" cleanup. But, since I my attempts to populate this category were reverted numerous times by Antidiskriminator, let the community discuss this so we can avoid edit warring. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless someone has a convincing reason why (for example) Category:French noble families can't be in this category. DexDor (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, and WP:TROUT user:Antidiskriminator for depopulating a category out of process. Antidiskriminator's concerns seem to be about the existence of the by-nation categories, such as Category:Albanian noble families, and zie is free to open a CFD nomination to delete them if zie wishes. However, for as long as these categories exist, they should be grouped together in a container category, which is what the nominated category is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My position is misinterpreted here. I did not oppose existence of the by-nation categories. I opposed categorization of nobility into nationality categories. Nationality is not defining characteristics of nobility requested per WP:CATEGORY because nobility is mostly pre-nationality phenomenon. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Antidiskriminator: That reply is self-contradictory. You didn't oppose the nobility-by-nation categories, you just opposed populating them. What's the point in having the categories if they are not populated? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @BrownHairedGirl: I don't think my reply is self-contradictory. I am not opposed to nationality categorization of individual noble people or individual noble families if they were defined in connection with modern nationalities. Don't you agree that in most cases modern nationality phenomenon is not defining characteristics (requested per WP:CATEGORY) of nobility which is mostly pre-nationality phenomenon? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Antidiskriminator:, noble families did not exist solely at the point of ennoblement. In most cases, they continued to have an important role for several centuries, and are very much WP:DEFINED by their role in the nations which emerged in the following periods.
          If we followed your logic of nationality-only-at-time-of-creation, then Sergei Eisenstein would not be Soviet and George Washington would not be American. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl: Wrong example. Sergei Eisenstein lived in 20th century and was defined in reliable sources in connection with his (Soviet) nationality. Nobility was actually un-nobled by nations in almost all cases because nationality is in its philosophy directly confronted with nobility. General categorization of nobility by nationality is actually self-contradictory, wrong and direct violation of WP:DEFINING. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Antidiskriminator: by that logic, our article French nobility is mistitled. If they weren't French, the article should be called something else ... so open a WP:RM discussion and see how you get on.
              It seems to me that you are equating the modern concepts of citizenship and nationality law with the broader concept of belonging to a nation. The French nobility owed their allegiance to the King of France; they were part of the French nation. The concept of nation has a much broader meaning than the modern nation state, but you seem to be trying to equate the two. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The name of category is Noble families by nationality. Not by nation, national identity or citizenship. I propose not to clog this page to with discussion about dispute over categorization. I will not continue to use this page to discuss general categorization of articles because this page is not appropriate place for such discussion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's very odd to say that a "categories for discussion page" is not the place to discuss categorization, particularly when the logic of your objection would lead to the category's deletion. This is the place to discuss this category; whether to keep it, and which articles or sub-categories belong in a category of this title. Since you are the only editor who has objected to it being a container for Category:Austrian nobble families etc, this is the place to try to raise your concerns.
                  As to "nationality", you still seem to assume that it relates solely to the modern nation state. I see no basis for that narrow view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • My statement is not odd. I am not the only editor who has objected. WP:CFD says :"Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) are discussed." This page is not a place to discuss dispute over attempt to categorize all articles on nobility families into modern nationalities contrary to WP:DEFINING. I really think this page should not be clogged with offtopic discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There may be a need for a wider discussion elsewhere. But so long as the categories-by-nationality exist, this is the place to discuss why you think that categories-by-nationality don't belong in this container. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Per above WP:CFD quotation this is not the place for such discussion. The right place until two months ago was Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard. It is now recommended to use the village pump. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • The quotation from WP:CFD doesn't mean that those are the only things that can be discussed here (again, you appear to have an over-strict interpretation of the wording); it's common for CFDs to discuss whether a category's inclusion criteria should be changed (as an alternative to deletion). The nomination was unusual and there may be other places that this discussion could have been, but it's here now. If you think people at VP should be made aware of this discussion then put a note there pointing here. DexDor (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • There is actually another place this discussion have been before nominator brought it here. Its my talkpage link to the section on my talkpage). Almost all editors who participated in discussion on my talkpage and here agreed on principle (even the nominator) that there is an issue with nationalization of nobility. No consensus was reached how to resolve it. A couple of editors had idea about renaming, but discussion how to resolve the issue here has not yet been concluded. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If some editor still insists to populate this category they should put a note at VP because wider discussion can be only beneficial in case of the problem this category has. That is why this will be my last comment here. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it might have been better to restructure this into nobility by nation, rather than by nationality, but national boundaries have not necessarily been sufficiently constant down the centuries. However their ethnicity will not (or hardly) change. And "nationality" here probably refers to ethnicity, rather than the modern concept of nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categorizing families by nationality works. I have to say the vaguely similar categorization of families by descent (such as Category:American families of German descent) is a horrible idea. I would think in the Obama era, we would realize how horrible this idea is, but I guess it takes a long-standing family like the Romney's to maybe hint at how bad it is. Mitt's paternal grandfather had no German ancestry, nor does Marion G. Romney, who is by some measures the most inter-nationally known Romney, so some of the ancestral claims just do not apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (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:Liberal parties[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: NO CONSENSUS. I think the basic point behind the keepers' arguments is that it matters not so much that the word has had different meanings over time, because it has an understood meaning at the present time (and could of course be changed in decades to come if needed). -Splash - tk 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Liberal" means something different based upon who you are and what country you are speaking of. Kahieril (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep category has a main article of the same name as will as a purpose/inclusion description. WP is not having a problem defining what to include here in this category. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only problem is the United States, where "liberal" means "progressive" and "libertarian" means "liberal", and we can't used libertarian, because it's not used outside the US -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a well understood political concept, and used in the name of parties in many countries. If this is a problem in USA, for once our American cousins must learn to live with other countries concepts. Whether a person is a liberal (other than by party membership) is liable to be a POV issue, as a person may be liberal in one area and not in another. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Liberalism means different things at different times. The free marketplace of Thatcherism seems to make the Tories liberals by 18th century definitions. Alas, Baroness governed in the 20th century so she and her party aren't liberals. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a political concept that means different things at different times to different people. Liberalism to people in 1872 was very different than it was to people in 1972.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. The health warning in the note on the category page is enough, and the parties have enough in common. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2014 (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:Liberal organisations[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: NO CONSENSUS, largely as aligned with the debate just above. -Splash - tk 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Liberal" means something different based upon who you are and what country you are speaking of. Kahieril (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only problem is the United States, where "liberal" means "progressive" and "libertarian" means "liberal", and we can't used libertarian, because it's not used outside the US -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- With one exception (which may need to be purged) all organisations have "liberal" in the name. The issue as to who or what is liberal thus does not arise. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Liberal has a meaning that has changed over time. It meant something very different to people in 1872 than it did to people in 1972. In some ways it has come to mean very different things in 2014 than it did in the 1970s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, same as last one. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2014 (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:Quaker academics[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. -Splash - tk 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this is a defining intersection. I don't see evidence that quakers are a different type of academic, and we don't have a broader tree of academic + religious/spiritual beliefs. I could see a tighter focus on quaker theologians for example if such a cat doesn't already exist, but it's not clear how quaker + academic has influenced the notability of Pauline_Sperry or Kay Williamson for example. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Academics seems to be ambiguous here for me. It can be used to describe individuals and communities. When I first saw the name I did not think of individuals, I thought of academics who were invoked in studying Quakers. But that usage can be correct. Also what is the difference between an academic and a scholar? Because we actually have one category in the tree that uses both names. I don't know if we need to keep this category, but is any upmerging needed before a deletion? If anyone else sees the ambiguity in the name, then we probably need to look at the entire tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AFAICS from looking at the category, it is being used for academics who happen to be Quakers, rather than for people who study Quakerism. The latter would be a valid category, but the current usage is an irrelevant intersection of unrelated attributes (see WP:OC#TRIVIA) which also fails WP:CATGRS.
    AFAICR, there was a decision at CFD long ago not to distinguish between scholars and academics, apart from categorising them by academic institution. I would like to see all the other sub-categories of Category:Scholars and Category:Academics merged into a set of common "Foo scholars and academics" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- In certain areas of study - mainly arts and social science - the Quaker POV of an academic may be very strongly defining. An example that immediately springs to mind is Arthur Raistrick. It will probably be less significant in the sciences. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quaker academics don't do anything differently than their non-Quaker counterparts. Peterkingiron's assessment that they somehow push a POV because of their religion is not only devoid of evidence but offensive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories of religion + occupation are usually limited to clear overlaps. Thus we have categories for hymnwriters by religion, but not more general musician categories by religion. There are too many academics who might be Quakers but that is not relevant to their academics work for this category to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2014 (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:WikiProject Category Suppression pages[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. However, the category is empty as I type, with no non-administrative backlinks, so this is basically moot. -Splash - tk 00:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category of the talk pages of a wikiproject that has been inactive. I checked a few other WikiProjects, and couldn't find any that did this. e.g. Category:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, Category:WikiProject Redirect, Category:WikiProject Resource Exchange, Category:WikiProject Infoboxes, Category:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Even a very large and active WikiProject like Category:WikiProject Stub sorting does not have a category to hold their talk pages. Seven of the nine talk pages in the category have no history other than being tagged as a project page and placed into this category. For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Category Suppression/To-do is a talk page of a to-do list that has never had a to-do item on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a category filled from a template from a WikiProject. It has been established to show which pages have been tagged with the project's template. Instead of deleting the category, maybe the project first should be proposed to become a sub-project of another project that is more active. In that case, a project category would still be useful, as it is now. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this WikiProject (or task force if it is merged) needs a category. I don't agree it needs a subcategory for talk pages, most of which are 'talk' pages that dont contain any discussion - they only contain the tracking template which puts them into this category. All of those pages are already in the parent cat. The nominated subcategory doesnt track anything new; it only tracks talk pages of pages within this WikiProject, including the talk pages of categories within this wikiproject, which is a bit circular: Category talk:WikiProject Category Suppression, Category talk:WikiProject Category Suppression pages, & Category talk:WikiProject Category Suppression templates.
    The template Template:WikiProject Category Suppression puts these pages into the category. It also put pages into many other categories which have since been deleted, or were in fact never created. See the history of the template (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Category_Suppression&action=history) for removals by myself and user:MSGJ.
    This category is not needed to find these pages. They can all be found by Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:WikiProject_Category_Suppression. Even without the template, all the talk pages of the WikiProject can be found by Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Category_Suppression, Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Category_Suppression, Special:Prefixindex/Template:WikiProject Category Suppression, etc. If the WikiProject team is worried they are going to misplace these pages, we can change where the template places these categories, by modifying the template like this. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have provided a long post describing the historical deletions of categories and templates created by this Wikiproject at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#C:WPCATSUP.[1] John Vandenberg (chat) 07:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this WP would become a subproject, then I think that would be the best. Then this category could be deleted. I'm not sure that the deletion should happen before the project gets turned into a sub-project though, because it would become kind of lost, instead of being a useful addition. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Funandtrvl:, what would be lost? The members are all talk pages of pages already in the parent category. Talk pages do not need to be categorised - see WP:CAT#Categorizing_pages. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 13#Category:Talk pages - we do not categorise talk pages unless there is a related maintenance task. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good point, I'll change to Delete category. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2014 (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:Stackridge[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -small eponymous category not needed for the material. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2014 (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:Syracuse, New York disambiguation pages[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. Early close per WP:IAR, since all participants (including the category creator (User:DASonnenfeld) support deletion, and the catefory's purpose is already served by WikiProject Syracuse, New York's pre-existing Category:Disambig-Class Syracuse, New York articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to have such fine-grained categorization for disambiguation pages - it could result in a dab page like Orange being in many categories. DexDor (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category is useful, part of WikiProject Syracuse, New York's efforts to improve the coverage and quality of articles within its area of interest. This practical usefulness outweighs any possible downsides, per nom. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If there is a desire by a project to monitor pages, there is a system of talk page templates and categorization that are more appropriate. Besides, this particular disambiguation page is about many other things besides central New York. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What more appropriate categorization would you suggest? (Also, please note that 10 of 12 disambiguation pages included in this category are primarily related Syracuse/ central New York.) Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, of the 12 dab pages only 5 have more than half the entries about Syracuse NY (although that's not really relevant to this CFD). You don't need a category - just put a note on the project page "The following disambiguation pages contain several entries about Syracuse: ...". DexDor (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, thanks. (Recounting, I now get 7, but agreed...) Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC):[reply]
  • Oh, okay. Excellent suggestion, thank you! I withdraw my opposition. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2014 (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:Estelle (musician)[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 13 January 2014 (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:Bobby V[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OC#SMALL and WP:EPONYMOUS, guidelines that I wish the nominator would link to in these nominations instead of persisting in typing the confusing "too little content". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another one of our way too prevalent eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2014 (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:Lists of scientists known for opposing a mainstream scientific assessment[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 to Category:Lists of scientists. The Bushranger One ping only 01:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created a few weeks ago, before List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy and List of scientists known for opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the cause of AIDS were deleted. Now it only contains one page, making it rather redundant. Thus, I think this category should be deleted; after all, we already have [[:Category:Lists of scientists]]. Jinkinson talk to me 04:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Lists of scientists. This 1-article category seems to be shrinking rather than expanding, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. However, it should be upmerged rather than deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless more suitable lists can be added to the category. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The sole item in the category used to be in "lists of scientists"; with other items in the category having been deleted, it should return there and this category not used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2014 (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 convicted of ABH[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:People convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I have thought carefully about this and concluded that there does seem to be a consensus to improve the name of the category because of the acronym, but that how to do so is a complex matter needing discussion. (On that, I interpret Jim Michael as being content to expand the acronym at the least). Happily, the evidently expert James500 provides very detailed explanation that only expanding the acronym would not produce a legally good name, i.e. it would unclearly combine (at least) two separate offences. Therefore the most accurate way forward appears to be this. As a side note, I find no consensus for deletion nor upmerging. -Splash - tk 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am certain I have no idea what ABH is or what links Cheryl Cole, Russell Packer and John Wayne Glover - three more different people I don't think I could find. Anyway, the abbreviation needs expanding when someone determines what it stands for. Mattinbgn (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, what the abbreviation ABH refers to depends on which jurisdiction you are in. I believe that in parts of Australia there is an offence of "inflicting actual bodily harm" which I think might not be a form of aggravated assault. James500 (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC) See section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). There may be other enactments. James500 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why retention of this category would force us to categorize all forms of assault. Some forms of assault are more widely prosecuted and receive more coverage than others. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is not an obscure offence. Most people in England have probably heard of "ABH" even if they are completely ignorant of what it really consists of. James500 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia should not be in the business of cataloging every criminal conviction in every jurisdiction in the world. A conviction for assault, bodily harm or no, is not defining of the person. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category does not catalogue every criminal conviction in every jurisdiction in the world. It can only be applied to people who have articles and they have to satisfy the notability guidelines. James500 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for god's sake. I didn't say that this single category was doing any of that. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • expand acronym this clearly is meaningless to most people, and "ABH" associated with people are the blood groups. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the offence is Australia (inflicting ABH) is the same as that in England and Wales (assault occasioning ABH). It merely has slightly different wording. ABH is distinct from common assault which is less serious, and GBH, which is more serious. If it's renamed, then Category:People convicted of actual bodily harm would cover the British and Australian offences. Calling it an aggravated assault is not accurate, as neither intent nor a weapon need be involved for a person to be guilty of this offence. It differs from common assault in that significant injury is caused, and from GBH in that the injury is not grievous. Jim Michael (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely innaccurate. The mens rea of inflicting actual bodily harm is different from the mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. To convict someone of inflicting actual bodily harm it is necessary to prove that he was at least reckless as to whether actual bodily harm was inflicted. To convict someone of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, it is not necessary to prove any such thing, as the mens rea of that offence is the same as common assault or battery depending on how the offence was committed. In R v Savage, DPP v Parmenter, Lord Ackner said that "the prosecution are not obliged to prove that the defendant intended to cause some actual bodily harm or was reckless as to whether such harm would be caused". In the offence of inflicting actual bodily harm, the word "inflict" may not require an assault, as there is case law, albeit from the state of Victoria, to that effect. It is entirely accurate to characterise assault occasioning actual bodily harm as a form of aggravated assault and all textbooks on English criminal law that I have read do so. The expression "aggravated assault" does not have the same meaning in England as it does in the United States. To say that aggravated assault requires intent or a weapon is an American definition that has nothing to do with England. Americans do not have a monopoly on the meaning of English words and expressions. James500 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if the offence of inflicting actual bodily harm created by section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 is equivalent to assault occasioning actual bodily harm, section 24 of that Act (which creates assault occasioning actual bodily harm as a purportedly separate offence) would presumably not have been included in that Act. It is fairly obvious that the legislature must have intended the offence under s 23 to be different from assault occasioning actual bodily harm. James500 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sections 23 and 24 both say that the maximum sentence in 5 years, but if it is an aggravated form of the offence, it is 7 years. This means that in the ACT, there is both an ordinary and an aggravated form of each type of ABH. Hence the offence isn't always aggravated.
In England and Wales, assaults aren't described as aggravated. There's only one type of ABH in England, and it doesn't require intent, a weapon, or any other aggravating factors - although obviously the sentence would tend to be longer if the perpetrator deliberately inflicted the injury. The severity of the victim's injury categorises it as common assault, ABH, GBH etc. Jim Michael (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Card, Cross and Jones: Criminal Law says that assault occasioning actual bodily harm is an "aggravated assault". The occasioning of actual bodily harm is the aggravating factor. Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law, another English textbook, also contains a lengthy section on "aggravated assaults". Both of these books are far more believable sources than you.
As for the Australian offences, I can't see any reason why you can't have an aggravated version (assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a pregnant woman) of an offence (assault occasioning actual bodily harm) that is already an aggravated version of another offence (common assault). I don't see why you can't have multiple layers of aggravation. I don't see why you can't have "aggravated aggravated assault" (and that is not a typo). James500 (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Looking more closely, I find that Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law also characterises assault occasioningactual bodily harm as an aggravated assault (13th edition at pp 620 and 621, and particularly footnote 27). James500 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per James500. The classification of assaults into ABH and GBH derives from the British Offences against the Person Act 1861, which was applied (probably by Order in Council) to much of the British Empire. A category such as this can be quite widespread across the world. However, with different legal systems elsewhere, it may be difficult to construct an appropriate container category covering other jurisdictions. However, Question is ABH sufficiently serious to be defining? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant to Russell Packer's life - he's in prison for it and hence unable to continue his career (though he may resume it after serving his sentence). It's so relevant in his case that it's rightly mentioned in the lead of his article. Jim Michael (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Peterkingiron: "GBH" is not a form of assault. See, particularly R v Ireland, R v Burstow on that point. There is no single offence to which the label "grievous bodily harm" can be exclusively attached. There are offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so (s 18), inflicting grievous bodily harm (s 20), administering poison so as to inflict grievous bodily harm (s 23) and causing grievous bodily harm by explosives (s 28). So it would not be a good idea to create Category:People convicted of grievous bodily harm, as it would not be very meaningful owing to the considerable disparity between some of these offences. These offences were not originally created by the Act of 1861, which is just a consolidation (ie a slightly revised compilation) of earlier enactments. Some of those were extended to parts of the Empire by Order in Council before 1861. I don't know if the Act of 1861 was extended by Order in Council, but some local legislatures did enact essentially identical statutes. This certainly happened in Canada and Tasmania: See Criminal law consolidation Acts 1861#Derivative legislation. IIRC, I have seen a statute of New Zealand that looks like an almost verbatim copy.
As to the seriousness of assault occasioningactual bodily harm: (1) Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is punishable with imprisonment for five years, or, in aggravated cases, seven years. That is much longer than the maximum sentence for common assault. (2) In England, assault occasioning actual bodily harm is indictable. Common assault is not. (3) In England, assault occasioning actual bodily harm was an arrestable offence when that classification existed. Common assault was not. (4) The CPS Charging Standard, if I remember correctly, says they intend to reserve charges under section 47 for cases that are clearly more serious than common assault, even if that means systematically under charging the offence. (5) Common assault does not require any kind of "bodily harm". (6) Although the mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is the same as that for common assault, which arguably implies that the level of moral culpability is the same (all other things being equal), in practice many people convicted of the former offence will have intended to cause actual bodily harm, or been reckless as to whether such harm was inflicted, because there are, in England, no separate offences of intentionally or recklessly inflicting actual bodily harm. It seems to me that the worst case that could only be charged under section 47 would be the intentional infliction of injury that falls just short of being grievous bodily harm (and doesn't involve wounding or resisting arrest or poison or explosives or etc, etc, etc). [The logic behind this is that a person who actually inflicts grievous bodily harm is guilty of a section 20 offence and one who intends to inflict grievous bodily harm is guilty of attempting to commit a section 18 offence, contrary to s 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.] (7) The section 47 offence is one of the three main offences that are used to prosecute non-fatal personal injury (the others being sections 18 and 20). [These three are the offences of general application. There are others, but they apply to very specific situations.] So a large number of people have been convicted of an offence under section 47. (8) The actus reus and mens rea of assault occasioning actual bodily harm do not match up. There is no mental element in relation to the infliction of injury. This is sometimes referred to as constructive liability. Constructive liability is not completely uncontroversial. There are people who think that it is irrational and absurd. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm has been characterised as a particularly extreme example of constructive liability. It could therefore be argued that it is not a reasonable basis for classifying people. On the other hand, there are many offences of constructive liability, including murder itself, and it might be difficult or impossible to apply an alternative system of classification in the absence of a change in the law. James500 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand acronym per User:70.50.148.122. Bwrs (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a GBH category were to be exist it would include the different types of GBH. The fact that GBH is not classified as a form of assault would mean that it would not be a subcat of the assault category. The difference between ABH and common assault is that physical harm is inflicted on the victim in ABH. The offence is serious enough for it to be relevant to the convicted person's life. Cheryl Cole's ABH prosecution and conviction received a great deal of media coverage, and almost caused her to be kicked out of Girls Aloud, despite her being the most popular member of the group. Jack Tweed has kept himself in the public eye due to being prosecuted for crimes including ABH, when he would have otherwise been forgotten by the media and public. I think it is relevant enough to keep the category. In England and Wales, the term ABH is well-known. I'm surprised that the nominator, who appears to be Australian, had not heard of it, because it is an offence there. Jim Michael (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A category which included all of "the different types of GBH" would be problematic. The offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, contrary to section 18, is, on the face of it, significantly more serious than a section 20 offence, so arguably shouldn't be in the same category. Sections 18 and 20 also create offences of wounding, and formerly of shooting. To exclude such offences might be confusing, and there is no guarantee that sources will make a distinction between wounding and causing grievous bodily harm, leaving us with individuals who can't be assigned to either category. James500 (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment There are three obvious issues here. First, there seem to be a lot of murderers in this category, who ought to be weeded out. Second, all the other assault categories seem to be by nationality of the perpetrator, not by the location of the crime. This one, since it uses a strictly Australian definition, is the latter. Finally, there's no category for Aussies committing assault.
I'm inclined to say that I don't see the need to differentiate between classes of assault offenses, and it seems to me that consistency would call for either changing all the others to "place of crime", or renaming this one to Category:Australian people convicted of assault and repopulating it accordingly. But I also note that once the murderers are all cleared out, what's left are mostly if not entirely badly behaved celebrities. I would have to question the notability of this and wouldn't oppose doing away with the whole assault conviction category tree. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category does not contain a lot of murderers. Of the seven people presently in this category, only one, John Wayne Glover, has been convicted of murder, and even in his case, the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was in 1962, long before, and not obviously related to, the murders he was convicted of committing in 1989 and 1990. James500 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category is not by "place of crime", it is by "type of crime". The subcategory Category:People convicted of sexual assault is also by "type of crime". This category does not use a strictly Australian definition, it uses a definition of English origin, which is still part of the law of England under section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and which has been exported to many other countries, including, incidentally, Australia. There are only three subcategories by "nationality of offender", which is hardly an overwhelming precedent, and there is one subcategory by "occupation of offender" (police officers). James500 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps not US or countries using Napoleonic definitions? I have to say that I don't see the notability of splitting out by type of assault conviction. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone shouldn't be removed from the category because they have been convicted of other offences as well.
There is a siginificant difference between common assault and ABH, which is why the sentencing is different. Packer wouldn't have been sentenced to two years imprisonment if he'd been convicted of common assault instead (or whatever the Australian version of that may be), as it is unusual for common assault to result in a prison sentence. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably a couple of hundred articles in the whole assault tree, and of the dozen or so I checked, about a third were murderers who had some prior conviction on assault charges, at least aggravated; the remainder were celebrities who got in an altercation with someone. For this second group, this is a kind of shame-tagging. The more I look at this, the more I'm called to question the whole tree. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Police officers convicted of assault is manifestly appropriate because a police officer is likely to be notable solely for having used brutality. I think that "killers with a history of violence" are likely to justify a category because I imagine that sources will be inclined to ask why those killers were not stopped before they killed someone if they were known to be violent. James500 (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this terminology is not often heard in the US - "assault and battery" and different jurisdictions may or may not have different crimes depending on the significance of the victim's injuries, or may or may not have sentencing enhancements based upon the victim's injuries (or the use of various weapons, or motivations - like hate crimes) which are not a separate conviction but merely an enhancement to the underlying conviction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assault occasioningactual bodily harm is not a "sentencingenhancement". It is a separate offence which has to be charged as being contrary to section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. This was settled in R v Harrow Justices ex p Osaseri, which is an applicationof R v Courtie. (Common assault and battery appear to now be statutory offences created by section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, although it has been said obiter that they are still common law offences.) James500 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUpmerge. We shouldn't categorize people by exact crime(s) they were convicted of (which vary by country and by period). People should (where they are notable for having committed (a) crime) be categorized by the combination of their nationality and the type of crime. The current contents of this category are either a celebrity who are not notable for the assault or a criminal who is in other criminal categories. DexDor (talk) 07:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose would not remove celebrities from Category:People convicted of assault. That would require a change to the inclusion criteria for that category. James500 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the articles meet the inclusion criteria for parent cat they should be upmerged - I've changed my !vote. In the longer term we should look at how appropriate it is to categorize as criminals people whose notability is as actor etc. DexDor (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with upmerging because it would portray ABH as being the same as common assault. There is a distinct difference. Russell Packer (whom I had never heard of until this month) would not be serving a two year prison term if he'd merely been convicted of common assault. I also disagree with saying that people notable for reasons other than their criminality should not be in this type of category, because that would make Packer's conviction seem irrelevant, even though it has had a massive effect on his life, halting his career. In addition, if people who became notable for their careers as entertainers, sportspeople etc were excluded from categories based on their convictions, then O.J. Simpson, Leslie Grantham, Gary Glitter and Stuart Hall would not be in any crime-related categories. Jim Michael (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not need to categorize by all conviction people might have had.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2014 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_13

Leave a Reply