Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 9

2644:

Knowledge (XXG) article. Earning the Ranger tab is definately more notable than earning a Good Conduct Award, and in many cases, especially within the US Military, says more about the individual than other 'awards' or 'achievements'. As a school graduate, it's definately more notable than a graduate of the Pathfinder School, or Airborne School, or the Jungle Warfare School, and I wouldn't think there would be special categories for those, as while they may be specialized military courses, they don't attain the same amount of personal stamina or perseverence as the Ranger school does. Serving as a Ranger after graduation doesn't really make a difference either, the school is so difficult that merely graduating is quite an accomplishment, so much so that many in the US Army who are thinking about making the militarty their career, elect to subject themselves to the rigors of the course as it benefits their careers.

5603:

formula were possible it still would not address the fact that there's no objective criterion as to what constitutes involvement in Esperanto culture. Is writing a single article in an Esperanto-language magazine sufficient involvement? Is attending a single Esperanto-language gathering? Is there some reason why people who do something in Esperanto can't be categorized as that? Esperanto-language writers, Esperanto-language composers and the like, the way that every other language is done? No. Is there some reason why this culture-based category is necessary when it does not appear that any other

5176:. For those classified here whose experience with Esperanto is as a language, social movement, or hobbyist, but still feels a nationality and cultural identity elsewhere it's a disapproved-of category of people by opinion. Esperantists may feel themselves a community but so do Macintosh users, Linux users, video gamers, naturists, who-dunnit enthusiasts, groupies, overeaters, 12-step program participants, book clubbers, sewing circles, campers, and people who stop by a bar on their way home from work - these shouldn't be categorized either. 5350:(continued) I am also annoyed and concerned that you keep attacking and belittling my culture (albeit my chosen one). You've been verbally attacking us ever since you put this up for deletion. Yes Otto, I'm primarily talking to you here, please be civil and stop attacking our culture. Stop putting "Esperanto culture" in quotes like it's a figment of our delusions. The sarcasm drips off the words when you do that. You attack us because you do not understand us. But there are some people I speak for that were born into Esperanto culture. 5367:(continued) I think we all want the same goal: a high-quality Knowledge (XXG). That is a chief goal in the Esperanto Knowledge (XXG) as well. We take great pride in our work, in spite of being a small minority. But I think you should at least judge us on an even keel with other cultures and ideologies. I don't want special treatment of Esperanto. I want even treatment for the Esperanto ideology. I want even treatment for the Esperanto culture. -- 2659:

something about the individual themselves and not just what they've mangaged to earn during their career. It is exclusive for a reason--not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can get one just for breathing. Unlike most 1st tier awards and honors, the tab is worn prominantly on every Army uniform--that alone should give some indication of its worth. Earning it is more than a checkmark on a service person's career sheet; it is a lifetime achievement. --

5480:". In other words, the notability bar will keep out most members of the Esperanto culture as non-notable, while the small size of the Esperanto culture means that the total number of people that can be a member of this category (both past and present) will remain manageable. Maybe Yekrats could give an estimate for how many people could be in this category once the notable members of the culture have had articles written on them? 6056:: "war crime" is a legal term and today is generally understood to be so. None of the events included in this category have ever been judged by any sort of court or tribunal to be a "war crime". Results in POV categorizations—what goes in here and what is excluded?—it's not based on objective facts or the finding of a court but is left to the whim or opinion of editors. Simple example: at the time I am writing this, note that 848:- each category is limited to one or more (and in some instances none) of the subcategories: albums; members; songs; along with in some but not all cases the article for the artist and rarely a discography article. Per precedent this is overcategorization. The category for the youth orchestra does deviate in that it contains a category for conductors, which is nominated further down the page as performer-by-performance OC. 4286:(or any added before the category is repopulated) - seriously, I asked for this at the DRV and I'm not sure why repopulation wasn't done. How can people be expected to seriously discuss a category without seeing the articles in it? The people who have already commented can re-comment once the discussion is restarted. I'm now going to manually repopulate the category by undoing the bot actions that depopulated it. 5883:, which is the sole remaining entry in this category. This has become an unnecessary intermediate category, and its continued existence will only encourage the (re)creation of "current office-holder" categories against a fairly strong consensus and precedent that current office-holders should be documented through lists, not categories. The lone subcat should, of course, be reparented under 1834:- "alleged" anything categories are a bad idea. If there are reliable sources about this particular person's being alleged as a bodyguard then they can be noted in an appropriate article. If there are reliable sources that confirm that this guy is a bodyguard for anyone then add him to the bodyguards category. He should not be added to the bodyguards category on the basis of allegations. 5463:(reset indent)*Nothing "deserves" to be a category. Categories are not rewards or entitlements. And for all of this back and forth, the point still stands that the inclusion criteria for this category are vague because there is no reasonable definition being offered for what constitutes "participating in Esperanto culture" or what degree of participation is required to qualify. 2553:, and that's basically either a 1) congrats, you are a lieutenant colonel or higher award or 2) an award for a foreign dignitary we want to give a shiny object to. The Bronze Star is even more trivial, despite it's public perception as an award for heroism - without a "V" device, it is little more that an achievement medal for being in a combat theater, yet it has a 2577:- not sufficiently defining or notable. While I respect that the Ranger tab is awarded after completion of a tough course, there are many 'tab qualified' graduates of the course who did not subsequently go on to perform in Ranger appointments. I would be much happier to see a category based on service as a Ranger (Colonel Charles Beckwith talks about this in 2490:- not trivial and is defining. To compare it to CPR training or life saving training and refer to it as trivial shows a complete lack of knowledge about what the Ranger tab is and what Ranger School entails. The category is fine as it is - the tab is awarded for the successful completetion of a 2 month, 24-7 course. Overcategorization is 4876:. If there is a gray area, that should be debated on the individual page. Normally, if someone speaks Esperanto, they do it for a particular reason: often to foster worldwide communication, making them a part of our culture. Often, Esperanto speech and Esperanto advocacy are intertwined, and have been so since 5185:

I'm not sure why you think that native Esperantists must forgo other cultural identities. The few native Esperantists I know are all proud of their Esperanto roots. For example, people can be born under one ideology -- eg. Jewish -- and still retain elements of the surounding culture. 2. Google says:

4901:

is rather a slender reed on which to hang an argument, considering that the article does not include a strong definition as to what constitutes "Esperanto culture" and has been tagged as unreferenced for months. The definition of "Esperanto culture" is vague and the definition of "Esperantist," which

4230:

an Esperantist is "someone who knows Esperanto and uses it for any purpose." This is categorization on the basis of speaking or using a language, which is a poor basis for a category. Taken to its absurd extreme, someone who knows Esperanto and uses it for the purpose of trying to discredit Esperanto

2032:

to the Bush administration's position. This is the sort of information that practically cries out for a list in an article so that a neutral assessment of the allegations from both sides can be presented. That sort of assessment is simply impossible in a category, and the sort of note that would need

5602:

First, of course categories are only going to contain Knowledge (XXG) articles. The idea that this is some sort of argument in favor of the category is bizarre. Second, at no point did I suggest creating a mathematical formula to calculate level of involvement in Esperanto culture. Indeed, if such a

5415:

It is my opinion that categorizing people by the languages they speak is a spectacularly bad idea. I am unaware of specific CFDs in which language speakers by language have been deleted because I don't know if any such categories (other than for the constructed langauges) have been created. I do not

4644:

be a defining characteristic. Finally, Otto says "taken to its absurd extreme", which is hyperbole. I have every confidence that this category will be carefully maintained and will not reach any absurd extremes. We should not be deleting categories on the basis of hypothetical "absurd extremes". If,

1994:

When the interrogation log was leaked, showing that this was a highly questionable assertion, the DoD issued a statement, asserting (1) that there were special circumstances justifying the extreme measures that had been used on him; and (2) that the use of the extreme interrogation methods was amply

1915:

nightmare, would lead to ridiculous category clutter. Public figures are routinely alleged to be engaged in any number of acts of varying degrees of heinousness. Slapping an allegations category on them every time an allegation is made would be absurd and unmaintainable. Such a categorization scheme

5667:

for the most important reason of all - there are a large number of pages on Knowledge (XXG) on people that wouldn't be present here were they not Esperantists; IOW, being an Esperantist is the only reason for their notability. Removing the Esperantist category would leave them in general categories

5624:

You must have misread me somewhere, or I mistyped and can't find it. I have no idea what you're talking about here. 2.) I think writing a single article in an English-language magazine is enough to qualify you as an Esperantist. But I knew that once I started listing them, you would deconstruct the

5380:

I'm not responsible for your projections or your decision to read sarcasm into the proper use of punctuation marks. Nor am I responsible for your assumptions about what I do or don't understand. My opposition to this category is and always has been based on its overly vague and subjective inclusion

5340:

You are asking us to define something - culture - which has a slippery definition to begin with. What makes something a part of American culture? Would you know American culture if you saw it? Really, an American culture would immediately recognize American culture, but may have trouble recognizing

4970:

by example. Despite your accusations, our category is pretty well defined. Esperanto culture (to Esperantists) is equally recognizable. If you were a part of it, you would know. I'm not sure what nationality you are, but you probably recognized that something is domestic and something is "foreign".

4316:

also fails to mention any process for how to handle overturned and relisted categories. This is most strange! Surely Knowledge (XXG)'s sprawling bureaucracy doesn't have a gaping hole in it? :-) Am I missing somewhere where the issue of whether an overturned category should be repopulated before it

4295:

OK. There were a few more articles in that category than I remembered. 83 to be precise. As not all those should have been in there (if I followed the Deletion Review properly), I'm going to list them here instead. What is the normal procedure for relisting a category deletion overturned at DRV? Is

4675:

And you have far more confidence than I that the category will be adequately maintained should it be retained, since additions to categories don't register when the category is watched. A list article, on the other hand, will register changes for purposes of monitoring, and has the added advantage

2548:

Actually, that would be a good category. No joke, you should create it. The point is that receiving the ranger tab isn't just a minor qualification; it's a major award. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be - I've been out a while) it is the only award in the US Army that you are required to wear on

2477:

since we're not distinguishing Army Rangers but just those who went to a specialized training, it's trivial and non-defining as I described above and many similar things in civilian life like CPR training, Life Saving/Swimming training, Arbitration/Mediation training, Microsoft developer training,

2027:

The circumstances of the allegations should be discussed in an article which can be cited to reliable sources. Honestly, I do not understand your point at all that the circumstances surrounding the allegations should stand as a reason to have an allegation-based category. Nor do I believe that the

2006:

Whether these particular confessions are reliable is not what counts here. IMO, what counts here is the mere existence of the controversial allegations. Because of the remarkalbe circumstances of the allegations these allegations, IMO, should be an exception to your rule that allegations should

1971:

a bodyguard, for OBL or anyone else, as opposed to there just being allegations of it, then put them in the bodyguards category. I don't consider a confession extracted under torture or duress to be reliable for purposes of Knowledge (XXG). I don't think it's useful to subdivide Gitmo detainees on

1886:

With regard to your suggestion that George W. Bush should be included in this category... I thought I read it was counter-policy to include any article in a category when their weren't verifiable, authoritative reverences, in the article, that supported their membership in the category? Wouldn't

1762:

would agree was torture. At the end of his two months of sleep deprivation, supported by forced IVs, forcefeeding, forced enemas, sexual humiliation, Al Kahtani denounced forty other Guantanamo captives. FBI observers said al-Kahtani was reduced to gibbering in a corner, talking to himself. But

1367:

This seems to be a catch-all category for any critics or criticism of medicine or healthcare. Moreover, it treats the term "medicine" as an equivalent of "healthcare system", which is not the case. The category included three articles: a biography, which I removed (a person cannot be a criticism);

5299:

Untrue! It's an AND requirement, not an OR requirement. They must speak the language AND be a member of Esperanto culture. That's a pretty narrowly defined and easily definable group. Also, I don't buy the "nose of the camel in the tent" argument that we keep getting, that we will have dozens of

2643:

The presence of the category does not mean that Wiki editors go out of their way to find and compile a list of everybody that has ever received the tab. The category is simply used as a further means of categorizing individuals who have attained some other form of notability to sustain their own

4947:

is not a particularly compelling argument. It could very well be that the category you're pointing at is just as bad as the one you're seeking to defend. I have not examined this crop of examples, but off the top of my head Skateboarders should probably be renamed and restricted to professional

2658:

per the justifications laid out by Nobunaga24 and wbfergus. This is not just a "pretty" that personnel get to stick on their uniform like taping your latest good attendance certificate on your bedroom wall. Earning the Ranger Tab is a distinctive and momentus achievement, something that says

5588:

You want us to declare "what degree of participation is required to qualify"? You can't be serious. This is culture; this is not math, chemistry or engineering. What a ludicrous and impossible expectation! There is no scale of 1 to 10 showing how much a person is involved in an ideology or a

5001:

I won't defend Yekrats characterization of you as "intentionally dense". I think he owes you an apology (and he has done so while I wrote this). But it is worth pointing out that it is also considered rude to use an abbreviated term to ask someone to be civil. It is politer to to use the word

4247:

revived category. The speaking/use of an auxiliary language differs from use of standard native languages. It is a non-trivial like any other learned and applied skill and a legitimate attribute to connect using Knowledge (XXG) categories. The category is also embedded properly under both the

2589:

apply. Likewise, completion of the SAS, SASR or Commando Cadre courses is not notable/defining but subsequent service in relevant units may well be. Notwithstanding the justifiable pride with which it is worn, the Ranger tab, as a military qualification badge, is in a subordinate grouping to

2051:, and then in the category page I place, "as alleged by Carlos Suarez". Without references and sourcing allegations are cheap - until these people are tried we don't know whether they will ever be convicted of anything at all, much less something even approaching the sting of the allegation. 4269:

Learning any language, whether it's a constructed language or a natural language, is a learned and applied skill. Are you suggesting that categorizing anyone who speaks more than one language as a speaker of that language is a good idea? Doesn't seem like that good of an idea to me.

1637:

bodyguards. However I am unconvinced by the deletion arguments since on checking the articles they all have the allegations mentioned and sourced, normally to US documents. Therefore I fail to see the difference between putting these in a separate article, and in a category.

2561:. People who are interested in biographies of US Army personnel might have an interest in seeing who has completed ranger training. And to someone not interested in that subject, it probably has about as much interest to them as National Leage batting champions does to me.-- 3637:

agree with Johnbod, but stemme is translated differently for different uses: for municipalities, it's likely to be "coats of arms" for sports probably badges or insignia. Probably should enlist some wikiproject Italy folks to give insight on the most common translations.

5518:

As for which pages should be included in the category, and which should not, that is an argument for the individual pages. Most of them are no-brainers. Since you keep asking the question, participating in Esperanto would constitute some combination of the following:

1738:

Okay -- is there a reason why we should keep track of OBL's bodyguards when we wouldn't keep track of JFK's bodyguards, or Abraham Lincoln's bodyguards? Yes, absolutely -- because an unique controversy surrounds OBL's bodyguards that doesn't surround other leader's

4928:? I'll tell you the answer to these and more: It's determined by a bunch of individual decisions -- based on incremental consensus and discussion on the pages -- in each individual page. Most of them are not even as well-defined as we have done in Esperantists! -- 2598:

decorations. I also consider that decorations below tier three and possibly below tier two level are also insufficiently defining or notable to warrant their own category (hence Bronze Star/Military Medal non-notable but Medal of Honour/Victoria Cross notable).

1847:

I am told by a fellow contributor that there are now more people listed in the category. There was just the one when I looked at it initally. So please feel free to read "this person" as "these people" in my above comment. My opposition to the category remains.

4880:. The important rule is: "Do they speak (really speak) Esperanto?" The second rule -- "Are they involved in Esperanto culture?" -- is a qualifier to make sure that they really do speak Esperanto. It's a good rule of thumb for any subculture, not just ours. -- 5158:. With 80+ members being in the Category:Esperantists, do we deserve our own cultural and identity in Knowledge (XXG)? I think so. Certainly if 80+ Apaches had articles here, they would certainly deserve their own category: Members of the Apache tribe. -- 1864:

another allegations category without specifying who is making the allegations. Perhaps I could allege the George Bush's apparent ineptitude in catching or killing Osama is because Bush is actually protecting Osama, so GWB is allegedly an Osama body guard.

6203:- there is absolutely no rational reason for maintaining both categories. This category has been through a number of CFD actions (all linked to the category talk page). Even after reading through them I'm still not seeing any reason for both categories. 4613:

discussion page. Secondly, I am carefully repopulating the category right now, making sure there is solid justification for every member of the category, to make sure they fit the definition. I will try to note this in the member articles themselves. --

3327:

Indeed, but given the current deplorable trend to usage of "author" as a verb, the distinction is becoming blurred; but in any case we don't have any "authors" category tree, and I see no reason to make this category an exception to the conventions of

1995:

justified, after the fact, by the extreme value of the intelligence produced. His identification of dozens of other Guantanamo captives as bin Laden's bodyguards was the prize jewel of the intelligence arising from the use of extreme measures on him.

5274:

again, the category is not being limited to either those who speak Esperanto (which would be a triviality) or those who promote it (a cat of people by opinion), but is a mish-mash of the two, we will now expect that biographies will be polluted with

4235:. This is a vague and subjective inclusion criterion. What constitutes "participating in Esperanto culture"? This is prime list material, because a list can cite reliable sources as to why the person so listed is properly considered an Esperantist. 4963:

I'll tell you the answer to these and more: It's determined by a bunch of individual decisions -- based on incremental consensus and discussion on the pages -- in each individual page. Most of them are not even as well-defined as we have done in

1883:-- Are you saying that the cateogry name should itself say who made the allegation? If the category name said who made the allegation would your concern be satisfied? Forgive me then, why aren't you suggesting a rename, rather than a deletion? 4317:

has been properly overturned, is discussed, and following on from that, how that issue relates to relisting an overturned category deletion? Is it possible that overturning of category deletions is so rare that this has never happened before??

5400:""the notion that Category:Language speakers by language is a spectacularly bad idea." - please can you provide some support for this notion, rather than just asserting it. Please find other CfDs where "by language" categories were deleted." 5668:

like Scottish writers, communists, etc. that give no clue as to why they're here in the first place. And yes, to preempt any questions about whether other languages should apply, there should be a category for promoters of other languages

5167:

Can you show a reliable source that anyone categorized in this category self-identified as Esperantist as his/her cultural identification to the exclusion of other cultural identities? If so, we can place someone like that in a category

5326:

does not offer any sort of succinct definition, instead simply noting various instances of Esperanto usage in various circumstances, and is unsourced to boot) nor does it offer any guidance as to what constitutes "participating" in it.

2046:

I agree, "allegations of" categories are generally useless; statements that from time to time may be placed in the category are found to be generally not enough to save either overbroad or blp-issue categories. A clear example would be

5625:

list and say "Is this enough?" 3.) I see that most (or all?) of the culture groups in the Category you linked have a corresponding "People from _____" category or somesuch. For example, the first culture in your category I clicked on,

2557:. Compared to the number of articles in those two categories, it should say something about how difficult it actually is to get the ranger tab. It is certainly just as encyclopedic as many of the categories for sports players, such as 5475:

I think part of the problem is that you are thinking that if anyone who is part of Esperanto culture is included, then the category would become unmanageable. But in fact the criteria is "anyone who participates in Esperanto culture

6280:

exists to provide a catchall category for all the articles which are also in the by-month sub-categories. This is useful for editors (or bots) which want to check through a complete list of articles requiring further referencing.

1019:

of crimes against humanity that does not answer the question: Accused by whom? The category description suggests that accusations must be "factually grounded", but this is not for us (editors) to determine (it would constitute

6272:

tags which have not yet had a date parameter attached. It is emptied by the bots add a date parameter, dispersing the articles to the appropriate subcats, and as such it serves both as a aprent category and as a maintenance

1767:

analysts regarded denunciations of other Guantanamo captives, extracted from al-Kahtani, under these circumstances as credible. Credible enough that these denunciations were used to justify the continued detentions of other

4915:

First off, Otto, I want to say that I apologize to you for being uncivil. That being said, respectfully, I think your argument is starting to fall apart and become existentially absurd. Take, for instance, a category like

1815: 1942:

nightmares? We don't know who initially made the allegations. The most likely candidate is probably Al-Kahtani. And while that remains speculation, there is zero doubt who is taking the allegations seriously -- the

6083:

starts with the Hague convention of 1907, but most articles for several countries pre-date this, and are a somewhat random collection of articles about earlier events that might be considered to breach whatever the

1028:(by a court) of crimes against humanity may be more viable, but there is no evidence that the single member of this category was ever charged. In any case, I don't think a category under this title should exist. – 4871:

Otto, please stop being intentionally dense. It will normally be obvious if someone is involved in Esperanto culture, just like in many many cultural categories here in Knowledge (XXG). For a bunch of them, see:

5764:

this category is for me of those which has to be respect and keep on the english wikipedia for a lot of reason. For example, the fact, that esperanto is living tongue with practicant with more than 3 people--

1771:

For some Guantanamo captives the allegation that they were an OBL bodyguard is the only allegation that would support the Bush Presidency assertion that they should be numbered among "the worst of the worst".

5019:. Effectively, Macedonian sportspeople, a group defined by playing sport for Macedonia, are being categorised under Macedonian culture. Categorising those that speak or support Esperanto in a subcategory of 4726:

should be for things written in Esperanto, not people who write in Esperanto. Still not seeing why a list, which can actually include sources which explain why a person is on it, is meeting such resistance.

4803:

is a part of. Esperanto is the largest, most popular aux-lang. If a person with an interest in aux-langs went there, the lack of "Esperantists" in that category would be a glaring and ridiculous hole. --

4640:. That deals with "using a language". Harder to refute is "speaking a language". In most cases, speaking a language is not a defining characteristic, but in the case of speakers of auxillary languages it 5313:

What is the reliable source that provides this definition of "Esperantist," that it requires the speaking the language AND being a "member of Esperanto culture" (however that vague term is defined)? The

5006:

call people out for incivility (as I have just done to Yekrats). That is always much better than doing it yourself, as that can often become confrontational. Getting back to the matter at hand, consider

1966:

I don't think that categorizing people based on allegations made against them or about them is supportable under any circumstances. Period. If there is reliable sourcing that one or more of these people

5142:

Indeed it does address the issue and you just proved my point. You are confusing "country" with "nation". The two are not necessarily the same. Many of those places have (or had) national identities:

5002:"civility" somewhere in your response rather than the abbreviation "WP:CIVIL". The terse use of such abbreviations to criticise someone's behaviour can itself increase tension. Even better is to let 5279:

for every possible language all without any regard for how well one speaks it and what RSes tell us that the person speaks it that well. Imagine how many new categories get added to polyglots like

5358:

Indeed, I've even met a few of them while working on the Esperanto Knowledge (XXG)! I keep showing sources that describes Esperanto culture and you keep ignoring them, doubting that it exists! --

2549:

your utilities/BDUs/ACUs (choose your terminology) if you have earned it (when I was in, if you had it, you had to wear it on your BDUs - any other award was optional) The Legion of Merit has a

42: 37: 4645:

after the category has been cleaned up, Otto has a problem with any of the articles having this category tag on it, that should be a matter for discussion on the article talk page, not CfD.

2003:

Your opinion, which I share, that confessions extracted under torture are not reliable, is not universally shared. You might be surprised how many people think such confessions are useful.

5749:. Some reasons for that are listed above; besides, the category is present at some respected Wikipedias like the Russian one, where deletion of articles and categories is a routine thing. 5318:

defines it only in terms of knowing and using the language. In the absence of reliable sourcing, this requirement that the person also participate in "Esperanto culture" has the smell of

2502:, which are all non-defining. Nominate those for deletion, and I'll agree with you. Alumni wouldn't work because alumni doesn't nessecarily mean graduate - the tab denotes graduation.-- 6546:

Considering that there are 2 articles with Powell's as last name, it is obvious that the links to Colin Powell in those two articles are more then enough so the cat is not necessary.--

6345:

is parent to a dozen or more subcategories. It would make no sense to have the by-month categories as subcats of an "unsorted" category, and that would be the effect of a renaming. --

1735:

Second, an admission -- when I started this category, nine months ago, I didn't have much background in the care and feeding of categories. I am going to add a note about this below

5700: 5231: 4815: 4796: 2734: 2033:

to be written to explain the inclusion criteria for the category would probably have to be article-like in scope to do it justice anyway, so why not just put this in the article?

4662:

already exists then that makes this category largely duplicative. If it doesn't exist yet then it should be created and populated. That still does not address the notion that

4030: 5633:. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in that "Culture by nationality" category that did not have a corresponding people category. Are you arguing in favor of a 1217:

Good point. I don't know how that would be dealt with. Jungian psychologists are commonly known as "Jungian analysts", so I'm not sure. Looking at other categories, there is

4854:

And what, exactly, constitutes being "involved in Esperanto culture"? How involved does someone have to be in the culture to be considered "involved" in it? Might perhaps a

5607:

has a people-by-culture category? No. The only reason this category is being defended this vociferously is because of zealotry. Zealotry doesn't justify categorization.

2725: 1911:

The problem with "alleged" categories in general is that anyone can make an allegation of anything about anyone. Putting people in "alleged" categories, besides being a

138:

Category contains only two articles, both of which are redundant stubs that I have suggested be merged into larger articles concerning the subject of the said articles.

4571: 5133:

Many cultures/languages do not have a country: Breton, Basque, Quechua, Apache, Chechen, Tatar, Kurdish, Yiddish, Hawaiian, so that really doesn't address the issue.

5120:

All of those examples have a national identity to fall back on. A person that is from Japan, generally speaks Japanese, and is a part of Japanese culture. We have a

6277: 6247: 6228: 6192: 4693:

category. What you can do is have a bot periodically take snapshots of the category, or visually review it. As for the writers, the category you are looking for is

1946:

If you are sure my argument as to how these guys are different from everyone else's bodyguards, is there any way you can see your way fit to explain your reasoning?

5622:"First, of course categories are only going to contain Knowledge (XXG) articles. The idea that this is some sort of argument in favor of the category is bizarre." 4609:. Firstly, I have worked a careful definition of Esperantist. If you would like to have any influence on who will stay and who will go, please note that on the 1926: 4920:. How do we decide who goes into that category? Anyone that has ever been on a skateboard? Only professional skateboarders? Who decides who is appropriate for 5751:

A probable compromise could be renaming it to "Esperanto activists", though naming "an activist" an author of a textbook or a writer could be strange thing...

1134:

no consensus apparent at this time. The alternative is to be created as a soft redirect, without prejudice to any future or additional reasoning to rename. --

6337:(note separate oppose merge above). A clearer category name like Johnbod's suggestion makes sense, but per 132.205.44.5 I think it would be better to create 4580: 6342: 6259: 6251: 6188: 5012: 4777:- please can you provide some support for this notion, rather than just asserting it. Please find other CfDs where "by language" categories were deleted. 5341:

other cultures, like British or Australian or Czech. The definition of culture must be "If it quacks like a duck..." and let the editors hash it out. --

4971:

Something being a part of Esperanto culture is understood by us to be a part of our culture, and it may be difficult for outsiders to recognize that. --

2558: 2550: 21: 5683:

They should be in a specific Esperanto-related category that describes what they do with Esperanto, the same way that every other language is handled.

5497:

About 83 or so were in the category before. Have no fear: we're not going to start typing in every Joe Esperantist. They must be otherwise notable. --

5439:

Knowledge (XXG) categorizes many, many cultures; Knowledge (XXG) categorizes many, many ideologies. It deserves to ba a category for those reasons. --

3662:

Professional sports is, well, a capitalist enterprise and logos are part and parcel of brand identity: sports and McDonald's both have franchises. :-)

1998:

That justification of the use of extreme measures, based on his identification of bin Laden's bodyguards, is still the position of the Bush Presidency.

3474: 3304: 3269: 3223: 2150: 6031: 5880: 5124:

for those people. That would be non-notable. But if a person is notable because of Esperanto culture, we should have a group to categorize that. --

4702: 6232: 4795:. On the subject of categories of speakers of certain languages, Knowledge (XXG) clearly makes an exception for speakers auxiliary languages. See: 2173:- trivial intersection. Any number of military personnel serve in Germany at some point in their careers and they are not generally defined by it. 2532: 2142: 2984: 2976: 6064: 6057: 2425: 996: 2742: 2028:

Bush administration's beliefs regarding the value of these allegations is relevant and creating a category on that basis strikes me as giving

17: 6354: 6290: 5941: 5300:

bogus cluttered categories for every language. This is categorization just like the other aux-langs, like the categories for Idists, etc. --

3341: 3289: 2980: 2133: 988: 4301: 4628:- Otto says "categorization on the basis of speaking or using a language is a poor basis for a category" - this is an overgeneralisation. 2499: 6338: 6306: 4676:

over the category of being able to include reliable sources for the inclusion of the person on the list, something the category can't do.

2495: 1696:

there is only one article, if we get more than three articles in the category I'd favour keeping them separate. Support rename, however.

6027: 4921: 2491: 979: 535: 2972: 4069: 2378: 1774:

For some Guantanamo captives the allegation that they were an OBL bodyguard is at odds with everything else we know about the captive.

1556:- membership in student organizations have generally not been seen as defining. An extensive list exists already in the main article. 5884: 5851: 5080: 3118: 1720: 1676: 1626: 1201: 5859: 4858:, that can included information that explains the person's involvement in the culture, be superior to a bare alphabetical listing? 3126: 110: 3879: 3596: 2554: 1525: 118: 5008: 3883: 465: 2316: 1656: 1533: 5842: 5604: 5552: 5090:

for the same reasons as Yekrats above. I do not have an account in the english wikipedia, but use it rather often. Bea Allée --

4745: 4633: 4629: 4499: 4204:, with the consent of the original closing admin, for several reasons, including a revision in the Knowledge (XXG)'s entry for 3109: 3065: 473: 360: 4832: 2324: 2236:

Where someone serves their military duty may have relevance but for peacetime deployments it seems too trivial to categorize.

101: 4403: 3445: 2440:, no, that doesn't work, sadly. Being an army ranger and having attended the US Army Ranger School are not the same thing. 1516: 1197: 1163: 526: 4772: 4663: 1880:"American intelligence analysts assert that dozens of individuals are former bodyguards of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden." 1253:-- Wherever the category ends up, a redirect from the other is critical, else we will end up with both categories existing. 456: 6325:

should be added to the category name. Then split the undated ones off into that subcategory, and keep this as an umbrella.

5738: 3777: 2307: 6215:, because both categories are needed. They have different purposes, which are best understood by examining the templates. 4741: 4723: 4694: 4065: 3781: 3600: 3453: 1381: 1340: 5684: 4698: 4659: 2531:- Trivial, especially to non-US Wiki Users. If we let this stay, then why not have a category for people who have passed 6550: 6538: 6526: 6514: 6502: 6488: 6433: 6374: 6359: 6329: 6313: 6295: 6207: 6179: 6124: 6092: 6071: 6046: 6018: 5958: 5946: 5924: 5912: 5896: 5835: 5780: 5768: 5756: 5741: 5722: 5707: 5691: 5676: 5651: 5611: 5593: 5501: 5484: 5467: 5443: 5420: 5406: 5389: 5371: 5362: 5345: 5331: 5304: 5287: 5266: 5238: 5180: 5162: 5137: 5128: 5115: 5106: 5094: 5057: 5031: 4988: 4975: 4952: 4932: 4906: 4884: 4862: 4847: 4822: 4808: 4781: 4764: 4749: 4731: 4719: 4709: 4680: 4670: 4649: 4637: 4618: 4600: 4466: 4406: 4321: 4290: 4274: 4260: 4239: 4216: 4156: 4101: 4060: 4041: 3981: 3912: 3898: 3870: 3810: 3796: 3768: 3708: 3684: 3675: 3666: 3657: 3642: 3629: 3615: 3587: 3527: 3515: 3503: 3489: 3436: 3429: 3397: 3372: 3360: 3346: 3322: 3311: 3294: 3260: 3242: 3102: 3040: 3028: 3010: 2963: 2903: 2884: 2871: 2811: 2799: 2787: 2773: 2718: 2663: 2650: 2635: 2603: 2565: 2539: 2523: 2506: 2482: 2467: 2448: 2432: 2400: 2385: 2369: 2355: 2300: 2240: 2226: 2217: 2205: 2193: 2177: 2126: 2055: 2037: 2014: 1976: 1953: 1925:

So, why are you suggesting delete, and not considering whether a different name would satisfy your concern? What about

1920: 1896: 1869: 1852: 1838: 1825: 1803: 1790: 1727: 1709: 1700: 1685: 1647: 1574: 1560: 1509: 1454: 1440: 1418: 1405: 1390: 1324: 1257: 1245: 1229: 1222: 1218: 1208: 1182: 1150: 1083: 1071: 1060: 1048: 1034: 972: 917: 895: 882: 866: 852: 239: 179: 167: 156: 142: 94: 6565: 6417: 6393: 6163: 6139: 5997: 5973: 5819: 5795: 4756:

the defining characteristic of the culture is its language. Esperanto is not an ethnicity. It is not a nation. It is a

4313: 4309: 4140: 4116: 3953: 3927: 3849: 3825: 3747: 3723: 3566: 3542: 3413: 3387: 3081: 3055: 2942: 2918: 2850: 2826: 2702: 2678: 2279: 2255: 2110: 2086: 1613: 1589: 1493: 1469: 1401: 1296: 1272: 1122: 1098: 956: 932: 218: 194: 74: 5540: 5155: 4078: 3273: 3253: 1348: 1159: 570: 3997: 3300: 2048: 1409: 1331: 4340: 3152: 815: 543: 5020: 4828: 4412: 4172: 4074: 351: 3190: 2988: 605: 6350: 6286: 5937: 5639: 5385:

in this topic is leading you to make judgments which are unwarranted and are completely your own responsibility.

5016: 4439: 3337: 3285: 3175: 1796: 1754:". Time magazine got access to Al Kahtani's "interrogation log", which documents what practically anyone except 913: 745: 561: 6564: