28 May 2010

Robinson Gichuhi

Robinson Gichuhi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First I find the deletion of this article presented to quite unfair. I understand and agree that some editing needed to be redone, but deletion simply did not present me with an opportunity to improve the article. On notability, the degree of scrutiny with which I prepared the material was like any other I have done in the past for other organizations. The article contains coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these were not of trivial nature. The article brings in a factual read for readers everywhere who would like to get the facts. I don’t that the articles got a reasonable and fair second look from all editors [aside from one]. I had already started a re-writing process to condense the article but was not given the opportunity.

Second, I used and applied as reasonable standard of notability, per your reliable source guideline and looked at various independent sources to provide an objective view. Robinson may not be the Bill Gates of today or organizations associated with him the Microsoft of organizations, but his community involvement is evident. I find that despite this, the editors deleted the article. This is quite unfair and discriminatory.

Lastly, one of the editors requested a condensed version and revision and I was working on that but was you still deleted before I could repost. Request relist. - Jack. Kenyaverification (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Re-located & re-formatted this malformed DRV. — Scientizzle 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this article bears relation to the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora Movement of Kenya as well as the article Isaac Newton Kinity, currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton Kinity. — Scientizzle 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• When a nominator says, "I understand and agree that some editing needed to be redone, but deletion simply did not present me with an opportunity to improve the article," he should be given the opportunity he seeks. Userfy to Kenyaverification with permission to improve the article. Kenyaverification, when you've improved it—and take your time, there's no deadline—bring it back to this page where we'll examine it again in the light of your improvements.

  In the meantime, I'll endorse Scientizzle's closure as a fair reflection of the debate that took place.—S Marshall T/C 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the consensus was remarkably clear for my close (read: I endorse my own closure), but I think userfication or incubation is reasonable. I've been in contact with the author/nominator in the hopes that these issues can be addressed. — Scientizzle 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but userfy. Consensus was absolutely clear; also an opportunity must be given to the author. --Cyclopia^talk 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure The consensus was clearly to delete the article on notability grounds. This DRV is not really necessary if the closing admin is willing to userfy or incubate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

1. Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent: Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Hungarian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Hungarian descent and Hungary is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Hungarian Jews from Austria-Hungary+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of this decision, this category should be renamed Category:Austrian Jews of Hungarian descent, based on the discussion here, and I intend nominating it for a Speedy rename. However, whilst, having the same concerns as IZAK (see my comments below regarding "American Jews of Fooian descent), I considered that the previous name, Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews, to be more confusing (it could be viewed as referring to "Austrian Jews of Hungarian (Jewish) descent or origin" or "Hungarian Jews of Austrian (Jewish) descent or origin" or "Jews from Hungary and Austria" or even "Austro-Hungarian Jews"). Along similar lines to those discussed by me below, I approve the "Overturn", but suggest renaming to Category:Austrian Jews of Hungarian origin. Davshul (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Davshul: I disagree with you. They are either Austrian-Hungarian Jews or Hungarian-Austrian Jews depending on if they were dominated by either Austrian (Germanic) influences and traditions or Hungarian (Magyar) influences and traditions. A German-speaking Austrian Jew would be offended and very surprised to be called a "Hungarian" and likewise a Hungarian-speaking Jew would be shocked and insulted to be called an "Austrian", regardless of the past Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the lineage here cannot be attributed to "Hungary" alone. This category is somewhat different to the American ones, but it was an attempt by the same re-namers and deletionists to extend the changes into European Jewish categories, so I placed it here with the rest because it reveals the same lack of insight into the specifics of Jews' origins and how they cannot be (re)named as "descending" from Hungarians or Austrians or whatnot because Jews have always been Jews for millenia, regardless of which cultures, empires and nationalities they landed up in over the ages. IZAK (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Izak. Whilst I understand your reasoning, I believe that the subtleties are not conveyed by the name Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews and many users will be confused to the extent that articles will be incorrectly allocated to this category. There already appears to be a number of articles incorrectly allocated. The words “Hungarian descent” is clearly incorrect and this is why I suggested “Hungarian origin” (which I believe covers the concerns expressed by you), but I am open to any other suggestions that are unlikely to be viewed as confusing or ambiguous. Cheers Davshul (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2.Category:American Jews of Mexican descent: Category:American Jews of Mexican descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Mexican American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Mexican descent" can mean of non-Jewish Mexican descent and Mexico is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Mexican American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Category:American Jews of Spanish descent: Category:American Jews of Spanish descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Spanish American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Spanish descent" can mean of non-Jewish Spanish descent and Spain is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Spanish American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Category:American Jews of Portuguese descent: Category:American Jews of Portuguese descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Portuguese American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Portuguese descent" can mean of non-Jewish Portuguese descent and Portugal is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Portuguese American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5.Category:American Jews of Italian descent: Category:American Jews of Italian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Italian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Italian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Italian descent and Italy is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Italian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6. Category:American Jews of French descent: Category:American Jews of French descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:French-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of French descent" can mean of non-Jewish French descent and France is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While French American+Jews is clear and correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7. Category:American Jews of Ukrainian descent: Category:American Jews of Ukrainian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Ukrainian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Ukrainian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Ukrainian descent and Ukraine is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Ukrainian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8. Category:American Jews of Russian descent: Category:American Jews of Russian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Russian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Russian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Russian descent and Russia is mostly Russian Orthodox Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Russian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9. Category:American Jews of Polish descent: Category:American Jews of Polish descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Polish-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Polish descent" can mean of non-Jewish Polish descent and Poland is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Polish American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10. Category:American Jews of Czech descent: Category:American Jews of Czech descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Czech-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Czech descent" can mean of non-Jewish Czech descent and the Czechs are mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Czech American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11. Category:American Jews of Belarusian descent: Category:American Jews of Belarusian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Belarusian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Belarusia descent" can mean of non-Jewish Belarusia descent and Belarusia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Belarusian American+Jews is clear and correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12. Category:American Jews of Slavic descent: Category:American Jews of Slavic descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Slavic American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Slavic descent" can mean of non-Jewish Slavic descent and Slavia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Slavic American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

13. Category:American Jews of Romanian descent: Category:American Jews of Romanian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Romanian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Romanian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Romanian descent and Romania is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Romanian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14. Category:American Jews of Hungarian descent: Category:American Jews of Hungarian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:Hungarian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Hungarian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Hungarian descent and Hungary is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Hungarian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15. Category:American Jews of Swiss descent: Category:American Jews of Swiss descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Swiss-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Swiss descent" can mean of non-Jewish Swiss descent and Switzerland is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Swiss American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

16. Category:American Jews of German descent: Category:American Jews of German descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn to Category:German-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of German descent" can mean of non-Jewish German descent and Germany is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While German American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

17. Category:American Jews of Lithuanian descent: Category:American Jews of Lithuanian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Lithuanian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Lithuanian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Lithuanian descent and Lithuania is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Lithuanian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18. Category:American Jews of Latvian descent: Category:American Jews of Latvian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Latvian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Latvian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Latvian descent and Latvia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Latvian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(repost from category talk page) American Jews of Latvian descent makes absolutely no sense. Most of the persons categorized in this category were born in the time of the Russian Empire, and at the time Jews and Latvians were two different ethnicities, not nationalities. Latvian only became a nationality in 1918 when the Republic of Latvia was proclaimed. The correct terminology for people descending from Jews born in the Russian Empire would be American Jews of Russian descent. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of ethnicity and nationality is somewhat muddled, but in any case, this probably isn't the venue for that discussion. Tomer^talk 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tomer. This is from the Jewish perspective where ethnicity and nationality firmly overlap over centuries and millenia regardless of non-Jewish time-lines. There is no question that there exists and has been a distinct type of Jew who can be called a "Latvian Jew" regardless of the secular politics of the day. They then came over to America like other Latvian Americans but still remained Jews and then even if they assimilated they are known by this name of ethnic/religious/cultural origin, just as fourth generation Italian and Irish immigrants are known as Italian Americans and Irish Americans, etc. Jews settled in all parts of Europe and adapted to cultures primarily by learning to speak local languages while retaining a singularly powerful attachment to their Judaism as a religion/culture/way of life, and then subsequently brought this over to the New World. IZAK (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19. Category:American Jews of Canadian descent: Category:American Jews of Canadian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Canadian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Canadian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Canadian descent and Canada's citizens are mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Canadian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20. Category:American Jews of Iraqi descent: Category:American Jews of Iraqi descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Iraqi American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Iraqi descent" can mean of non-Jewish Iraqi descent and Iraq is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Iraqi American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

21. Category:American Jews of Syrian descent: Category:American Jews of Syrian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Syrian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Syrian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Syrian descent and Syria is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Syrian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22. Category:American Jews of Tunisian descent: Category:American Jews of Tunisian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Tunisian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Tunisian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Tunisian descent and Tunisia is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While "Tunisian American" matches Egyptian American+Jews and Moroccan American+Jews (as cited above and below) as used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23. Category:American Jews of Moroccan descent: Category:American Jews of Moroccan descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Moroccan American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Moroccan descent" can mean of non-Jewish Moroccan descent and Morocco is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Moroccan American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24. Category:American Jews of Egyptian descent: Category:American Jews of Egyptian descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Overturn to Category:Egyptian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Egyptian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Egyptian descent and Egypt is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Egyptian American+Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn All for above reasons, IZAK (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a link to all the CFDs in question please? Stifle (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. They were speedied all over the place mostly by User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) with the help of User Cyde (talk · contribs). They have been notified of the DRV [1] [2], and Users Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) also knows where some of the skeletons are all hidden and has been notified [3], and Explicit (talk · contribs) [4] and hopefully they will show what they did. They hold the keys to this realm, and in spite of no consensus for such an important set of changes, they went ahead with this massive overhaul that has created more problems than it purports to "solve". IZAK (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I'd like to hear the deleters' reasons for the actions before I jump to any conclusions. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi, I've been asked for my input on my talk page. As far as who nominated the categories, Mayumashu nominated most of these categories [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. As far as WP:CFDS goes, categories nominated there can be processed as early as 48 hours after the initial nomination if there are no objections. If no objections are made, it is assumed that there are no disagreement with the nominations. These are then taken to WP:CFDW so be renamed and (usually) deleted by Cydebot (talk · contribs). When admins delete categories that are listed at CFDW, it's usually due to the fact that Cydebot had failed to delete these categories itself. Essentually, we cleanup after Cydebot's cleanup. Why these nominations were made was the result of some CFD to change the naming convention, I believe. It would take me quite a while to attempt to find it, but I would think Good Olfactory may have a better insight regarding this. — ξ^xplicit 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also was asked to comment on this. I don't have anything further to add, really. I was the nominator for this full CFD nomination, which I assume may have been the precedent the nominators had in mind in adding these to the speedy rename queue. Regarding this issue, it would be nice if users could assume good faith and hold back their attacks both here and on my userpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whoa! Now this is both truly fascinating as it is utterly shocking! According to User Good Olfactory (talk · contribs) he set in motion the vast changes for these Jews' categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 17#American people by ethnic or national origin with absolutely NO mention of Jews' categories there and even the 3 Judaic editors who commented were skeptical and were overwhelmed by the sweeping changes. At no time was there a notification placed at either Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism informing of how the sweeping changes would effect them and the work they have put in over many years. Then continuing in this path, User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) went ahead and just posted the Jews' categories as "speedy deletes" without notifying anyone either (yes, Judaic editors do care about, and do regularly monitor, both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism), and then with the help of User Cyde (talk · contribs)'s killer HAL-like "User Cydebot (talk · contribs)" -- something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- dozens of perfectly fine Jews' categories are terminated (i.e. killed off) by being hastily and mistakenly deleted and wrongfully re-named in ways that distorts truth, reality, history, fact, religion, and much more. This is a serious travesty and a good example of why mass nominations and the subsequent mass deletions, especially mass speedy deletions like this should be BANNED from Wikipedia. In the case of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 17#American people by ethnic or national origin EACH AND EVERY ONE of those national/ethnic/religious groups mentioned should have been informed on Wikipedia:WikiProject pages if they have them or any relevant talk pages of articles and categories (that's why talk pages are there, for talking about such serious things), and sought out and requested expert opinions rather than relying on the theories and philosophies of one over-confident user's POV interpretations and ideas (in this case it being User Good Olfactory (talk · contribs)) who has started a massive controversial re-definition of nations, ethnicities, peoples, religious groups, races, etc without there being a massive concomitant discussion SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE for such a massive one-man arbitrary over-haul of Wikipedia initiated by one person, aided by his reliable partner in speedy deletions User Mayumashu (talk · contribs) who then deploy the INSATIABLE and UNSTOPPABLE monster killer bot created and run by Cyde (talk · contribs). If this is not an example of hubris then what is? This is certainly worth lodging a complaint at WP:ANI about, but for now let us concentrate on correcting and rectifying and overturning the travesty they have perpetrated here with these 24 Jews' categories and then use that as the foundation and basis to overturn not just other "corrections/deletions/renamings" of Jews' categories they have taken on solely on themselves to perform but to stop and overturn and monitor, and certainly open up to a wider discussion on Wikipedia the entire set of changes they have stealthily deployed in violation of all the rules of WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lol—a little bit over the top, no? As I mentioned above, it would be nice if users could assume good faith and not overreact. If you want to be taken seriously, this may be a step in the wrong direction. ... You'll need to check with the nominator as to what his rationale was—I was guessing/speculating so before you lay an egg perhaps you should seek for confirmation from those who would actually know what the rationale in fact was or was not. All I can do is guess, which I've tried to tell you a number of times now, despite the fact that you apparently perceive me to be intimately involved in some nefarious plot (e.g., "Good Olfactory also knows where some of the skeletons are all hidden" ... I liked that one especially). ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I figure it has to be a joke. It's not contributing very helpfully to this discussion, of course, but it's funny at least. --Cyde Weys 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • One would think—or at least hope ... But coupled with the tenor of the comments the user has recently left on my talk page, suggesting that I'm party to an unintelligent hasty destruction of the category system and possibly also western civilisation, it makes me start to wonder ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's easy to make light of things, but it took me a relatively long time and some tough love to get you guys to cough up exactly on what basis and how it came to be that these categories were speedied and changed. Too much power concentrated in the hands of very few users, in this case a couple of admins wielding not just sysop powers but the savvy usage of bots that with one or two minor decisions and the decision to deploy the monster Cydebot can change the face of vast numbers of categories built up over many years without those who built them and maintained them even knowing. 48 hours is NOT much time for a slow-moving behemoth like Wikipedia that is now over 3 million articles and it is impossible for users to straddle all the items on their watchlists (like most experienced users I have more than 5 thousand on mine, and that is after I trimmed away a few thousand). Bottom line, as you can tell from those who are taking note now, your decisions in this case were not welcomed by many Judaic editors. IZAK (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, it's quite easy to make light of things when you seem to repeatedly fail to get the message of what we have tried to communicate to you. How many times and in how many different ways can this be said so that you will understand?: these changes were not Cyde's idea, they were not my idea, and we have as much information as you do on what the nominator's rationale was. This was a speedy rename change. There was no formal discussion. There's nothing for us to "cough up" except guesses and speculations, which have been offered. You can discover who the nominator was by searching the page history of WP:CFDS. Why don't you actually do the work to find out who the nominator was and then pester them instead of continually assuming that the wrong people are somehow keeping information from you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your hyperbolic speech isn't helping matters. If you would just calmly address things as they are instead of hysterically misrepresenting things you might get better results. Instead, all you're getting is us laughing at you and leaving us unsure of whether we should take you seriously, because the things you say are so preposterous. Here's a hint: The source code for Cydebot is publicly available. Show me where it's programmed to be a "monster". Go on, point to the exact line of code that causes its rampant monsterism. --Cyde Weys 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To aid User:Stifle in understanding why the speedy renames of these occurred: I listed most if not all the categories in question as speedy renames based on C2.C criteria, that these pages did not follow the naming pattern of the parent category. e.g. 'Category:Egyptian American Jews' has two parent categories - Category:American people of Egyptian descent and Category:American Jews by national origin. Looking at the next layer, there is Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and there isn t Category:Jews by national origin. Given this category parentage, it seemed to me that the pages did qualify for C2.C. Forty-eight hours are there for editors watching pages to 'object' - perhaps this time needs to be expanded? To voice my view on the matter of how to name these pages, I object to overturning these renames because precedent was set for not using double or hyphenated adjectives in naming these categories because of their inherent semantic ambiguity. 'Fooian(-)Booian Jews' could be dual citizens of Fooia and Booia who are Jews, Fooian citizens of Booian ethnic or national origin/descent who are Jews, or 'Booian citizens of Fooian ethnic or national origin/descent who are Jews. Mayumashu (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, we are getting some reasoning here. But it it very faulty because the whole premise here is faulty since "nation origin" and the notion of a nation are latter-day concepts stemming from the time of the French Revolution and the creation of Nation states while the Jewish people has a history that spans millenia and goes back to monarchies, empires, geographic areas, continents, religious groupings and much more. Those who create the original categories were NOT acting like modern-day "passport control" officers checking people's passports and naturalization papers. That is why the Jews' categories should not have been tampered with and messed up. IZAK (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per IZAK. As IZAK points out, these different category labels convey quite different meanings, and some discussion is required before such a change. Frankly, I'm not sure which is better, because a label like "Mexican American" implies to me a first-generation immigrant, whereas "American of Mexican Descent" seems more inclusive of subsequent generations. In any event, someone needs to make a convincing argument as to which system provides the better taxonomy for member articles. —Dfass (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn All — though it can be argued that Jewish identity is akin to the national identity associated with the identities of sovereign nations and their associated citizenries, there are differences as well between these different forms of identity, and we should endeavor to preserve rather than eliminate distinctions relating to identities in these realms. We have to be careful that terminology used is appropriately accurate. Bus stop (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, but to discuss rename to an alternative name. As regards the first category listed, see also my comments above. As regards the others ("America Jews of Fooian descent"), I have the same concerns as IZAK regarding the present name (which concerns also apply to all of the categories of "Israelis of Fooian descent", being the 50 subcategories in Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin). However, I believe that the names suggested by IZAK (the original names) are also likely to create a measure of confusison. For example, "Mexican-American Jews" could, to many users, refer either to "Mexican Jews of American (Jewish) descent or origin" or "American Jews of Mexican (Jewish) descent or origin". A preferable name would, I believe, be "America Jews of Fooian origin". This would appear to address IZAK's concerns, without reverting to the somewhat ambiguous original name. Davshul (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that is a good suggestion Davshul makes, immediately above.

On a related but separate note, I think we have to tease apart and be mindful of the difference between someone "being Jewish" and someone being "of Jewish descent." "Jewish" is a present identity of an individual. "Of Jewish descent" is terminology which sheds light on the identity of the parents of an individual. Bus stop (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I agree with IZAK. Such small pieces of linguistic fudging can result in dangerous misconceptions. --yonkeltron (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Category:American Jews of Fooian origin per User:Davshul. The intention in using 'descent' was to mean either ethnic or national descent (the parent category is Category:People by ethnic or national descent). But I do concede that 'national descent' is rather a contrived phrase. However hyphenated names can easily be wrongly interpreted - dual citizenship? Fooian of Booian descent or origin or vice versa? People by Fooian descent or origin need to spelled out in some form for clarity, and if 'origin' is a more straightforward term semantically, than lets go with it here. Mayumashu (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were you the one to start the suggestions fore mass speedy deletes? If not who was it? Could you point us to the main discussion please. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as per IZAK and Yonkeltron. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone please explain why these categories are necessary at all? They seem overly granular to me. What's wrong with placing someone in both Category:American Jews and Category:People of Hungarian descent?—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. --Kbdank71 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is a valid question. Why is someone who is 1% something need a category for that fact? I can see some sense if they are the first generation removed from the country but beyond that then need is not established. What exactly is gained here? So these combined categories are in my opinion not of much value. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S. Marshal's question is a good one. Your suggestion of "What's wrong with placing someone in both Category:American Jews and Category:People of Hungarian descent" is good too. Indeed I have long-advocated for the deletion of all lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia (see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews). HOWEVER, as long as the lists and categories of Jews DO exist (based on a consensus and desire for them) they MUST be as accurate as possible, and that is why I am taking the time here to ensure that "Jews" do not segue and blend into the mists of history with their former host-countries of national origin. Otherwise this becomes an exercise in reckless mish-mashing. IZAK (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know very much about Jews or Jewishness, IZAK, but it seems to me that if we're to have a Category:Irish Roman Catholics and a Category:Japanese Buddhists then it doesn't seem so unreasonable to have a Category:American Jews. But, if I tried to start a Category:Pakistani Sikhs of Punjabi descent, it would be deleted at CfD on grounds of WP:OC#NARROW, which says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." (This is one of the very few things about CfD that I actually understand!)

What makes these categories different? And if nothing, then should we not send this back to CfD with a request that they reconsider with a view to deleting the categories completely?—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshal: Let's stick with the present situation and DRV here and let's not reach back for even more radical suggestions that no one wants right now and that would create a huge controversy, since as you point out there are other lists and categories by religion and ethnicity for major religions so Jews are no different and no less notable than any others. As I said, there has been a consensus (regardless of my or your ideas) to have lists and categories of Jews and that will remain so for the foreseeable future, that is not even the question here. And given that now that these lists and categories do exists, then they need to be as accurate as possible and not open themselves up to misinterpretations as would happen with the speedy changes for which no consensus was attained. 02:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. American Jews of Russian descent is actually feasible. The Russian Empire and its successors registered their citizens/subjects according to ethnicity, so being Russian of Jewish ethnicity (descent) is a reality. This is possible since Russia has been a sovereign state without interruptions since prior to Jews settled in Russia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Philaweb: You miss the point. The problem with leaving this as a kind of superficial "passport control" or "past borders" issue is not what this discussion is about. The point is that, as in this case, the Russian Empire was a land of many ethnicities and was mostly Christian so the word "Russian" alone could also imply of both Russian and Christian origins in Russia which the Jews there were obviously not. IZAK (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Philaweb has a good point. However it seems a bit much when we have these categories for Mexicans, Hungarians, Romanians, Lithuanians and so on. I think it is partly because it was felt that "American Jews" was getting too big. However, we have the option of "Ashkenazi Jews", "sephardic Jews" and so on. We can even do "American Sephardic Jews" or something along those lines. When some of these people are in categories "American Jews", "Hungarian Jews" and "American Jews of Hungarian descent", we definately have gone to far with categories. The German Jews v. Russian Jews formation had some validity, but when we now have Cuban Jews, Greek Jews, Uzbek Jews, Israeli Jews, Israeli immigrants whose parents were born in Morocco, Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews and on and on, it becomes very hard to figure which group anyone belongs to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not have categories like "American Mormons of Mexican descent", "American Catholics of Slovak descent", "American Catholics of German descent", not even "American Catholics of Irish descent". Some would say "well, Jewishness is ethnic, not just religious". So why do we not have "American Armenians of Lebanese descent" and related categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess because people (editors) are not clamoring for the creation of that category. Bus stop (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer the question tho, does it? Tomer^talk 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess not. I retract my answer/response. Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at CfD. That's where any discussion of renaming/deletion belongs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A bit offtopic, but...: Some time ago I raised this question Category talk:American people by ethnic or national origin#Emigrants who landed in America after long travel and linked it from several projects, but it seems nobody cares. May be people engaged in this talk have an opinion to express. Ralph Saroyan (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn --Yoavd (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Rename per Davshul as American Jews of Fooian origin. I have often written about American rabbis who were born in Eastern Europe, and appreciate IZAK's sensitivity to the implications of "descent". Actually, all Jews really "descend" from Israel at the time of the Beit Hamikdash, so suggesting that they have familial ties to non-Jewish Hungarians, Austrians, Mexicans, Latvians, etc., is incorrect. If there must be a category, "of Fooian origin" is more correct. Yoninah (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List at CFD for full discussion. After a category has been speedy renamed and there is a dispute as to whether the speedy criteria are met, the most logical solution is to nominate the categories for renaming. I haven't seen any real discussion here as to whether the speedy criteria were satisfied in this case, and this is turning out more like a CFD discussion would be. So these may as well be moved to CFD where renames can be proposed. (FWIW, I think the speedy criteria were fulfilled in this case. There just happens to be some disagreement as to whether the standard name format should apply in this case, which is a good reason to have a full CFD about it. At the end of the day, I would basically agree with Davshul's proposed solution, to name these "American Jews of FOOian origin", but I also sympathise with the view expressed by S Marshall that these are probably overcategorizaiton. In a full discussion, rename options and the possibility of deletion could all be pursued.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is odd. First you are party to speeding them then you want to follow normal slower procedures when things don't go your way. There is no difference between "origin" and "descent" but terms are ambiguous and need to be avoided. IZAK (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To repeat what I said above and several times on my talk page, since you are apparently not getting it: These changes were not my idea. I was not the nominator. I did not "speedy them". There is no "my way" that isn't being adhered to. You are (apparently) conflating my participation in another discussion and my participation in cleaning up Cydebot's unfinished tasks of deletion after a category name change and thereby are assuming that I am somehow "behind" these changes to this category. I was not. (Incidentally, I agree with User:Davshul's explanation of how the terms are different. Either is fine with me, but since there is a sensitivity to the word "descent" in this case and a preference for "origin" among other users, I'm fine with that. I find their original form to be far more ambiguous. Just a difference of opinion I guess—but voting on the proper form is not something that should happen at DRV. It's something that happens at CFD, which is why I think ultimately it should be listed there, rather than attempting to make the decision here. This is to review deletion decisions, not to choose the best name. I'd also be quite happy if nothing further were done, but that approach would seem to give short shrift to your concerns that have been expressed in the face of a speedy rename change, which is why I didn't endorse that approach. The normal thing to do if someone opposes a speedy rename after the fact is to nominate them for renaming. A relisting will have this result, just in a roundabout way.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all to use the more prevalent and appropriate term. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy overturn for the sake of DRV and list if required at CFD. The number of bytes taken up by this discussion alone indicates these renamings - and broader issues - need discussion. That discussion shouldn't happen here. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]