Knowledge (XXG):Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 12

6668:

as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The religious philosophy discusses the concepts of religion, philosophical thoughts about existence from a religious standpoint, as well as topics outside the monotheistic discussions. There is going to be an overlap, obviously, but that's embraced, rather than frowned upon in the category system. While I don't think a rename for either categories is necessarily in order, I do think that the Theology category's introduction should more clearly explain this, to clarify for those not familiar with the topics of study. (For further info, check out the

5097:, Nearly one third of the world is "Christian" in some way, rendering this category completely ridiculous. Furthermore there's nothing that should be special about a mathematician being of the Christian religion any more than a mathematician being anything more specific, like a Mormon or Baptist. Are we going to make categories for mathematicians with blue eyes next? This does not appear to be category of Christian followers who are still mathematicians and even if it was its silly because nothing prevents a mathematician from BEING a Christian, so its not something to note. 2924:

strange reasons the nominators always go for the Jews first (if I nominated Greek, Greek-American, British-Greek (yes, it exists) and Greek Orthodox categories and lists for deletion, I would probably be blocked). So, I am voting a strong "Keep" on any of these until every single last category and list is nominated, at which point I will vote "Delete", although that will be fairly pointless, because, the majority of people would vote "Keep". But, as for my "Delete" vote that day - you have that as a promise if you're ever up to it

2103:. I read this in a book on Maroon societies, but it's not meant as any kind of disparagement of Brazilian Jewish people. They were not overrepresented among slaveowners in Brazil and the vast majority of Brazilian slave owners were of course Catholic. The slaves of Jewish people did become noted among some Maroons, possibly because of rarity. Also Jewish slave owners had no urge to convert their slaves so maybe, maybe, they were given greater freedom to maintain African traditional religions.-- 3692:, a long time back, the note I put was "People who are or were players of various forms of draughts, sometimes called checkers. At present the category is underpopulated so does not separate into subcategories like Category:International draughts players or Category:Pool checkers players." I see now this is insufficiently clear and I should have said "People who are or were notable as players of various forms of draughts." After all people who just played checkers for fun, like 5355:, etc. If you'll actually check the names I put in this category you'll find almost all of them were monks, nuns, priests, ministers, and or people who learned math in Christian institutions. If judging by what nationality they learned in is valid why not this? (Besides the everpresent "This is Knowledge (XXG) where it is our duty to ignore everyone's religion at every point.") Added to that we have 3584:(By the way, all of this talk about sociology is silly. New Yorkers are, large and by, not as portrayed by Woody Allen; generally, only the generation of immigrants has clear and strong common traits. When it comes to anybody anywhere else, the label - as an ethnic label - can be utterly misleading. In general, it is a label that is being adjudicated by descent - any descent. 396:. I have never used CFD, so I am unsure of what justifies the deletion here. I was the creator of the category, to group all the Weaponlord characters with the article on the game. However, since then, the character articles have been deleted, and this category will stand with this article (or perhaps one or two others) indefinately, and I simply believe that it is obsolete. 1392:? A general category of Christians or even "Christians known for religious work" could get way overfull, same with Muslims. (Less so with Judaism as it's a much smaller religion) And if you're going to have that plus writers why not a "by occupation" category? Granted the two examples I gave would possibly be better served by say a Category for religion and the arts.-- 1741:, the intersection of two categories that are usually unrelated, and one of which is deeply private. There may be a discussion of the way religion has affected mathematics elsewhere, but a category or a list is no means of gathering information that in several cases is ambiguous or to be withheld - non-inclusion seems to be taken as a statement of exclusion. 5198:. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is comping from someone with deletionist tendencies 2669:. According to beyond, why note gender, birthdays, and birthplace? That too does not affect the person. The answer is that we view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies 6631:(in response to previous comments). Please consider how someone would decide whether something like "Life after death" should be in Theology, Religious philosophy and doctrine, or both. There are a large number of subcategories which contain material applicable to both, and so if they were properly sorted, there would be quite a large overlap. -- 4767:"awfully" complicated; you already see the full depth -- that is, 2 levels, no more. This is not intended to be a specific categorization scheme like LC or Dewey Decimal, where every book has its own number in order. Rather, it's just 100 broad categories of article topics. It could not be much simpler and still have any utility. 3105:"Caring" is not the policy here. Fortunately we have policy, and that is if (a) someone has self-identified as part of a religion and (b) that religion has influenced their notability then the cat is justified. In this case, you have to make an argument that religion can influence notability, and you havent done it. Sorry! 5756:

I don't want to get dragged back into this, but I created this category. I know what I created for and you're wrong. This is not a category for mathematicians who happen to be Christian. This is a category for people whose significance is both math and Christianity. Several of the names are beatified

5342:

I created this because I think it's potentially useful as history as there was a time where Christian institutions were where people learned math or where mathematicians were advocates on religious matters. Also if the others survive I hoped this could. If you want further justification for it that's

3052:

MadJack, if you had so much as bothered to read the discussion on Hindu Mathematicians linked above, you would realise that this cat was being used as a precedent. It should be clear that this means that this one is coming to CfD, without having to assume anything about the motives of the nominators.

2945:

Actually, it's not anti-Semitism at all that I'm talking about. Just paranoia from these people, some of whom are Jewish and some who are not, that these categories are somehow harmful to the people listed or can place them in danger or label them somehow, etc. That kind of stuff. That's why the user

2935:

Let's not get into childish accusations of anti-semitism. Anyone in the right mind can see that it just so happens Jewish categories are among the most ridiculous and overhyped on wikipedia, that's the "strange reason" why a lot get nominated. They're also the hardest to delete because everyone fears

6667:

Religious philosophy is different than Theology. (In the university system, they fall under different headings, Philosophy and Theology.) The explicit difference here is the "theo-" in theology. The theology category is about topics for discussions about the monotheistic abrahamic religions, such

5647:

No, I am honestly saying that I would vote delete once all are nominated, and I'm not the only one saying that. It's grossly unfair to have one category but not the other (ala the Irish - Italian - American politicians as I mentioned above). I don't see why it's such a crazy idea to nominate all of

3767:

per policy. (a) if someone self-identifies, certifiably, as part of a religion and (b) that self-identification is central to their claims to notability, then the cat is justified, as per policy laid down following much discussion. I fail to see it justified here. Thus all arguments to keep that are

5807:

Because I assumed it was obvious that this would be for people who are relevant as Christians and mathematicians so at first I saw no need to put that in. The names being Jesuits, monks, saints, and professors of theology seemed to make it clear. However whenever religion comes up you have to spell

5396:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We shouldn't make categories for every single issue concerning a group of people. I don't see why being a priest and a mathematician or learning mathematics at a Christian institution is so relevant we must categorize it. Maybe its

3718:

doesn't follow that? Even people who were Christian converts are on the list, so clearly it has nothing to do with the religion itself. People will argue "because Jewish is an ethnicity too" but the category doesn't follow any set rules for that either. But most importantly, not everything is worth

3687:

True. I was silly enough to think that it was just presumed we should obey the rules governing lists and categories. (That the category only be of those whose X+Y status is important to said person's notability) I didn't consider that you have to actually explain those rules on the category's page,

1374:

then their faith is obviously important to who they are regardless of their not being ordained or qualified theologians. But to mention the religion of every Tom-Dick-and-Jane makes no sense, especially when there are so many variant ways of doing it and add to it that the very people themselves do

6756:

from the school's official athletics site. If you search the same site for UMass women's athletic programs, you'll find that they consistently call women's teams and athletes "Minutewomen". By the way, "UMass" is a widely used abbreviation for the school, and the school itself uses it for branding

6093:

Possibly. However, it is puzzling that people would make that kind of statement at the end of a long discussion rehearsing arguments on both sides. I think we can, even with the best of faith, assume that that editor did not in fact read the arguments, or else he or she would have had something to

3201:

Given that these categories do not take piety or religious affiliation into consideration, how is this different from saying "Whites have made great contributions to science, as measured by Nobel Prizes"? Could we create a category of "Black Criminals"? After all, this moral talk is just nonsense,

4772:

I did put a fairish bit of work into this and whether it is eventually implemented in its current form or deeper within the engine, I'd not like to see the work done so far wasted. I'd say, move it into my userspace if it offends your eyes but since it's made of Category pages, I don't think that

5898:

or something like that. Nonetheless, it still feels like the category is utterly pointless and burdensome. Simply because its your hobby to category people by their religious influence doesn't make it a valid category to have on an encyclopedia. I'm not suggesting its a bad category just not one

3085:

This debate is getting tiring. If any particular subject is of interest to many other people, if the info is correct and does not violate any kind of copyright or privacy restriction, it should be in Knowledge (XXG). All this moral talk is of no relevance. There is a reason why we don't have

2923:

Well the good things about deleting these categories and lists (all of them), is that I don't have to spend time sourcing them. And, it makes it harder for the "Jewishness deleters" to find these names and delete mentions of their Jewishness. However, when it comes to these nominations, for some

6131:

It being "just any mathematician of the Christian religion" is not what I ever intended. Even before the delete vote I was only looking for mathematicians whose Christianity or religious work was notable enough to be in their articles. At present almost every name is of people notable for their

3848:

May I congratulate you on your mastery of the colloquial, which does, however, imply that I am quite unsure what exactly you are being insulting about. The bit I understand, however, indicates that I have not quoted policy. I have done so elsewhere on these pages, in which (as you perhaps know,

2786:

I don't have a problem with you noting he's a sockpuppet, provided that's actually true, but some of what you are blocking out are simply comments he made to me which I did not find offensive or irrelevant. That said he "crossed the line" by marking out one "Keep" vote, at the Christian one, by

2525:

I'd prefer "notable for their religion" and not influenced by it. Still there were mathematicians whose religion influenced their mathematical work. The most obvious is that they tried to use math prove the existence of God or Gods or otherwise support their religion. There are several Muslims,

5770:

This is a category for those who are known for their Christianity and mathematics. In certain cases it involves those who tried to combine the too, to take one example Pavel Florensky. See Category:Mathematics and culture for other elements of the humanities that have been related to math and

5414:

This isn't indiscriminate. I'm not mixing professions or anything like that. I'm going by what can be a defining characteristic of a person as mathematician is a person. I ask you look at who I actually put in the category. Look at the noted I added to it. I gave support why the subject is of

5924:, I intended the non-list portion to become larger than the list) Also "inspired" would be too subjective and possibly POV, or just confusing. An atheist mathematician could be inspired by Christianity, as in inspired by certain aspects of it or inspired by it to be an activist against it.-- 5310:

Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Christian scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. --

2077:

As for the lack of biographies on Jewish slave traders (or Jewish speculators, say) - that, I am afraid, is due in part to a lack of interest. I certainly shall not write such biographies myself. Let somebody else do as much - for the purpose of having the category deleted, I would hope.

2675:. Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- 1995:. Further, categorization is extremely important for indexing and research purposes. If someone is doing a study on the effects of Hindu or Jewish scientists on their fields, it is natural to search via category, as opposed to a massive text search over all 1M+ articles in wikipedia. -- 720:

20:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. On the one hand, supporting the And Beyond guy's opinion feels wrong, but on the other hand, I'm a professional who knows the clinical meaning of narcissist and I don't like seeing it misused. Moreover, I just hate vague, POV-dependent categories.

741:

character will be clearly labeled "narcissist" by its creator, that labelling would have to be done by WP editors. And with a fuzzy label like narcissism deciding who is one and who isn't would require quite a judgement call. Interesting category, but unmaintainable per WP rules.

1121:, as the content of all "by religion" categories should be reduced according to the German solution and further subcategorizing by occupation would be pointless. For data mining purposes, you can always use the category intersection tool at the tools server (if it's not down). -- 5657:

Well, you and I might not think its that crazy, but I guarantee many, many users will think it outrageous. I don't see WHY it's such an issue to nominate each individually. I also don't see what Italian-American politicians has to do with the Occupations by Religion categories.

2526:

Hindus, and Christians who did this. Another is that they used their respect as mathematicians to advance their religion. For example there were Jesuit missionaries in China who translated mathematical works in the hopes they could gain the respect needed to gain converts.

2008:

And what on earth makes you think that it is valid to classify and "study" human beings in such a way? What will keep a category of, say, Jewish slave traders from arising, other than a (dishonest!) ad-hoc policy? See my comments on Jack O'Lantern's webpage.

3448:

Jewish mathematicians has actual controversy. Hindu mathematicians is merely used by people to denigrate the religion, not because of any lapses in research which may or may not happen in this cat. I dont discriminate so all cats of mathematicians should be

3073:, categorizing by ethnicity and by religion is bad™. But I assume this must be addressed by a more ambitious attack, including better formulated rationale for deletion, comparison with other encyclopedias, and of course listing all affected categories. -- 5348: 4753:. It's intended to be integrated with Watchlist and Search but of course this will require developer work. You see how far I got; then I had an extensive series of chats with some of the dev team on IRC. The reaction was very good but this system 2688:

This is an interesting argument, but you should make it on the appropriate policy page. In particular, if there is an article on Jewish mathematics or Hindu mathematics, these names will emerge in the text. If there is no article, then it is

4762:

For my money, you can delete it if you like -- but why? It's not as though it incurs any significant overhead just sitting there. It's entirely possible that it will indeed prove useful in future when the dev ball gets rolling. I hope it's

3783:

This is more a matter of misuse than anything essential. Show that someone can't be equally notable for being Jewish and a mathematician. To give you examples of mathematicians whose Jewish status is important to their significance I cite:

3728:

The category should be limited to those whose cultural, ethnic, or religious identity is valid to their public life or notability. That this is possibly not being adequately done does not mean getting it done is impossible or unworth the

2121:

Should we make a list of lists of bad Jews that got deleted in the last year or so? Mind you, I am delighted they got deleted. I am not proposing they should be restored. Rather, shouldn't we simply make a list of names of deleted lists?

3573:

Would you vote against deleting the "Jewish spies" category, which was deleted (fortunately!) some time ago? What about the lists of "leading Jewish bolsheviks" or "Jewish members of the Soviet secret police" beloved of antisemites (see

1989:. We view wikipedia as an encyclopedia with unparalled cross-referencing and indexing ability, and to throw out this kind of impersonal and public information is near criminal, and this is coming from someone with deletionist tendencies 5871:

If anything, he should have named the category something more relevant. "Christian mathematicians" gives off the same impression as "Jewish mathematicians' that being, mathematicians who are that religion. Regardless, it's listcruft.

3032:

It's not once a year. A variety of Christian and Catholic lists I worked on were deleted. As were Categories. In fact the massive deletion of any reference to anyone's religion ever was part of why I once left. (I mean the article on

2955:

I'm just saying Catholic lists and categories have been up for deletion many times. Maybe not as many as Jewish, but that's because when Catholic categories are up for deletion the deleters tend to win. As for Eastern Orthodoxy

5667:

I don't think I have to explain that "Jewish" is a lot more than a religion, and that, if we have Italian-American politicians, we obviously must have Jewish-American politicians. (i.e. regarding "Jewish mathematicians")

1765:; I take it you mean to include all the subcats as well, such that they all go, or all stay? If so, it would not trouble me to see them all go, I don't see any compelling need to categorise mathematicans by religion. -- 2047:. However, I am certain that you have the intellectual honesty to realize that a category with at most four or five entrants may be considered a borderline category, and there is less reason for it. Categories like 554:, category is subjective. A large number of criteria for inclusion are listed, however not one of them gives an objective basis for inclusion. It also includes a rather strange selection of characters, such as 5386:

as their math work only seemed vaguely related to science. If this category dies I hope someone will put them in the main cat for me.(And if that's deleted eek) I've also tried to remove a few names that were

3849:

having voted on them) several similar cats are up for deletion. Sometimes one gets tired of typing. Though given that you've taken to replying to everything I've ever said, I suppose that doesnt apply to you.

2441:

Once the confusion was resolved about what I intended Bellbird still disagreed with me. That said this person has every right to vote however they see fit and the stated reason may not necessarily be the only

5606:

I hope you realize nobody in Knowledge (XXG) History will ever do what you're requesting. On wikipedia, we must single out certain categories to use as precedents. Oh and "Christian" is not an ethnicity.

3133:

could be interesting, and there would be enough names for a category, but that doesn't mean it'd be appropriate. I think this is or can be useful and appropriate, but interesting isn't enough in itself.--

5637:

No sane wikipedia user will ever nominate all these lists at once because it will inevitably get a "speedy keep." So you're basically commenting that you're going to vote "keep" no matter what, correct?

1902:

Once again, do you really expect someone to nominate every ethnicity and religion category at once or is this some type of joke? If you WANT them to be deleted, you are majorly slowing down the process.

5217:

I think you misunderstand what I said a lot. According to "me", why not gender, birthdays, and birthplace?? Well, I never posed those questions. We can put whatever is somewhat relevant to their lives

2156:. Categories should be used for primary characteritics of a person, not as lousy database tool. WP is not database and should not provide database services, at least with current MediaWiki software. 5709:- per Provelt and some mathematicians are quite inspired by their religious beliefs. This should possibly be more of an umbrella cat for different denominations who may not be cozy with one another. 5975:

because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see

3495:

because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see

2301:

because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance, see

1318:

because only if famous people are known to be instrically known for their role as religious scholars and leaders, or well-known clergy in their religion, is their religion of any significance see

5672: 5652: 5624: 5597: 2950: 1406:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a tool for you to practice your hobby of categorizing people by their religious practice or background, T. Anthony. Please treat this as what it is, an encyclopedia.

42: 37: 2903: 1897: 3027: 2928: 2946:

who nominated this nominated this in the first place. My biff is that no one ever singles out all lists of, say, Greeks, Greek-Americans and Greek Orthodox people in the same manner.

271: 267: 5908:

My hobby? Since when? True I have an interest in religion and the religion of historical figures, but as far as I can recall the only religion categories I created before this were

3192:, absolutely NO legitimate reason to delete it. Jews have made great contributions to math and science, as shown with the amount of Jewish Nobel Prize recipients. Great category. -- 4995: 5620:

religion. However, certainly we may not have an "Italian American politicians" category but not an "Irish-American politicians category". We either have all or we don't have any.

5166:

if the latter is kept. It wasn't my idea to create this category, by the way; it may be only coincidence that it has been created at the same time that there is a discussion in

3011: 1981:

As with all the previous nomniations, there is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Mathemat

1520:

No s/he's not. I made a sarcastic comment about putting this up for delete and almost immediately afterward it was put up for delete. It's not unreasonable to see that as odd.--

5920:. I usually prefer lists as you can explain inclusion better, but in this case I've already done two or three lists involving Christians and science.(Depending on how you view 3714:

I know it may seem "obvious" that Christian Mathematicians would just mean mathematicians whos Christianity is important to the said personality notability, but then how come

1434:

An encyclopedia people are rarely if ever categorized at all except alphabetically. Please treat this like what it is, a Knowledge (XXG), rather than what you wish it to be.--

1132:

Not all of us are that techy, I'd have no idea how to use that. And although the German system is interesting it sounds like a massive reorganization for little real reason.--

2803:: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that 2274:: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that 1939:: While the users may be sockpuppets, the logic of AfD and CfD is that it does not matter how many votes come down on each side, but what is argued. Given that, I think that 3037:

I don't even think mentioned he was a Catholic royalist until I added it. That omission caused a person at the talk page to ask why he was against oaths to the Republic.)--

197:. Like the "Category:Critics of George W. Bush" which has already been deleted, these categories are vague and inherently POV. They're also not well populated with names. 3053:

Further, I note that you have not marshalled any arguments to keep this other than discrimnation. If all of them are being deleted, then that is an insufficient argument.

6808:

These people have articles, so it only makes sense to group them with similar articles. There's certainly no reason to delete UMass's cats and leave all of its peers in

6080:

It is obviously not a violation of AGF to disagree with someone's argument; to accuse someone of violating AGF in this way might even be construed by some as violating

4757:

be implemented at a much deeper level and involve a radical engine enhancement, which of course will not happen any time soon. So I put it aside pending more dev input.

3919: 2973: 1055: 2740:

The cross out of your initial keep vote has been removed, for now, as it was not done by you. If the cross-out met with your approval feel free to bring it back.--

3864:

Did I remember to vote keep on this? I thought I voted, but I'm not seeing it. (I didn't vote on the Christian one as I created it and feel I should not vote.)--

1353:

This category has subcategories on musicians and writers. There are Gospel or Qawwali singers and Christian writers who are not ordained or deemed theologians.--

6132:

Christianity, in several cases they are more known for their Christianity than their math, and if you find a name that doesn't fit that ideal I say remove it.--

5246: 4773:

will work well. For now, I'd suggest you just leave it until somebody can show it's doing harm. Either way, no big deal -- but please don't lose the content.

2207:

Irrelevant. This category is not for those people, it is for anyone who happens to have a Jewish forebearer. Please make your decision so it reflects that.

6742: 6733: 6585:- There is a difference between religious philosophy and theology. IN looking at the categories, one is very clearly philosophy (read its introduction). 4947: 1342:

In cases where the subject's religion is important to his or her occupation the occupation is usually religion-related. Otherwise the category is clutter.

3162:

I think it is unlikely anyone is notable for being a green-eyed lesbian or that anyone's notability is equally because of their lesbianism and eye-color.

5416: 5368: 1780: 1046: 5662: 5642: 5611: 5320:

People could also be doing a study on how left-handedness correlates with mathematical aptitude. We can't help everyone with their Psychology homework.

3041: 3018: 3006: 2988: 2940: 2918: 1907: 6409: 5190:

There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Christian Mathemat

3156:

Clearly if someone were to create green eyes lesbos, someone does. And the people in Christian mathematicians could have all been added by one user.

3129:

I'm going to have to agree here oddly enough. "Interesting" is a vague term and not enough of a justification. A category of people who had sex with

2936:

appearing anti-semitic if they vote "Delete." Yet, other categories are deleted without much problem. I wonder what "strange reason" is behind that.

2099:. Interestingly in Brazil a small minority of slave owners were Jewish as the former slaves of Jewish people were a segment called the "Julo" in the 1254:

and stuff are all occupations. Also many people really find that their religion helps them in their work. A good example is the relationship between

5295:

Well I said "born" but it was really just an example. We can't make thousands of categories for every state or province a mathematician is born in.

3637:

You should know that this category isn't AT ALL about practicing Jews. It's about anybody who happens to have a Jewish ancestor. Please reconsider.

2914:

Stay tuned. We can and will do that. This CfD doesn't want to single someone out (and not only category by ethnicity, also category by religion). --

5458: 5441: 3624:

I changed my vote. If this is a category of "Jewish mathematics" which it appears to be, I am 100% agains't it! Sorry, Nazi ideology is long dead.

21: 2661:

There is value in being able to identify and cross-reference people by various categories, including religion. The category is not Jewish Mathemat

5987:

important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that.

3808:. That's only six names, but that's a decent start for a category. Can you support the idea that their notability is unrelated to being Jewish?-- 3507:

important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that.

3142:

Well do people care about green eyed lesbos? no. Cat Christian mathematicians has quite a large number of articles, meaning its somewhat popular.

2313:

important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that.

1330:

important person unless that person has done something significant within his or her religion and is famous for having done something like that.

2977: 5515:

Please, vote for this category at the moment. If this one goes, so will others like it. "Don't single out a category" is not a valid argument.

6589:

would seem to be a mix of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theological topics for discussion. I think maybe we should leave this one alone. -

5502:

Either we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. --

2709:

Either we categorize mathemations by religion, or we don't. Singling out any particular religion for special treatment is inappropriate. --

5420: 2957: 178: 3768:

variations of (a) this is discriminatory and (b) some who may have followed this religion has made specific contributions to mathematics

2476: 609:

is successfully AfDed, as it is the parent list of this category. Also note that many similar categories/lists to this have been kept. —

170: 17: 3578:)? Mind you, these lists are large and by true and verifiable. If there is a problem, it resides in the pratice of categorisation itself. 558:. Additionally, if it were to be broadly defined and extended to include every megalomaniac, the end result would be unmanagably huge. -- 6749: 2729:

I voted above in favor of removing them all. My view is they should all stay, or they should all go, either of those is acceptable. --

848: 6738: 6729: 5882: 5178:!). Um. (Of course, I would personally prefer this category to be deleted - but, if it was created to make a point, it is a good one.) 1875:

is trying to implement but it should be completely renamed if thats the case. It still feels like cruft. 01:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

6405: 5239: 4727: 3560: 2378: 1494: 638: 144: 136: 2642: 2635: 161: 1063: 3923: 2791:. I think this was done accurately, but I feel like people should cross out their own keep votes if that is what they wish to do.-- 6328: 6285: 6262: 5976: 5263: 3496: 2302: 1783:, so you know you can keep the pernicious fact some people express their religion in their occupation away from sensitive souls.-- 1319: 6324: 5229:? I suggest you change this to a "comment" rather than a vote because you don't appear to be arguing FOR this specific category. 127: 6492: 6477: 5593:

for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out.

5222: 2899:

for deletion, I will vote Delete. (Yes, that means Italian-American musicians, too). Not before. Enough with this singling out.

2432:

This user appears to be completely confused. Deletion of these categories has nothing to do with that. Please vote accordingly.

1366:

here, because no-one said that people need "ordination" or must be deemed to be "theologians" to qualify as notable. If in fact

102: 6813: 6809: 6648: 6551: 6296: 5942: 4705: 2981: 1713: 110: 5771:

Category:Pythagoreans for how math can be almost indistinguishable from philosophy or religion in certain historical periods.

5259: 5201: 5068: 2672: 2036: 1992: 5757:

or canonized in their respective faith. Would you just actually look at the category I created and the names I put it in?--

3407:- please lets get rid of all these unmanageable and debate-inducing mathematician by religion categories once and for all. 1721: 93: 5475: 5428: 5226: 3789: 3705:(That said I was actually dissatisfied with the original note on rereading it so changed it to something like the above)-- 3212: 2969: 2961: 2749:

You have to opportunity to vote "delete" now. All the mathematician categories by religion are up for deletion I believe.

798: 6546:. Theology is a standard subject area and it is no more necessary to expand the term in this way than it would to rename 5934: 5167: 3719:

having a category over on this encyclopedia; that's why I'm still maintaing the delete vote on Christian mathematicians.

2646: 2602: 1704: 526: 6495:. I don't care which is used as the final title, but I really don't see a useful difference between the two topics. -- 6281: 5471: 5424: 5076: 4685: 4665: 2040: 1385: 239: 6825: 6803: 6786: 6774: 6761: 6723: 6710: