Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 24

2446:"Armenian" when he was 16 years old), I think it's unlikely that he chose Jewish, given that by that time, his father was deceased and he had changed his name from "Weinstein" to "Kasparov". Kasparov wrote in one of his books that he had been told "that it wouldn't hurt my chances of success in the USSR not to be named Weinstein", and I suspect that he would have chosen to be listed as Armenian rather than Jewish for the same reason. So if Kasparov isn't Jewish by Jewish law, or by his religious practice, or by his self-declared ethnicity, in what sense is he a "Jewish chess player"? No doubt there are other people in this category who clearly can be identified as Jewish, but having a category like this is overcategorization. -- 2562:

should not be surprised if some enthusiastic Hibernian chess-player were to propound that Paul Morphy is decended from ancestors of Irish birth. This of course is mere speculation, but it is a fact that many sons of Erin have emblazoned their names on the page of continental history, risen to a high rank in the military service of Spain, and founded powrful families. Paul Morphy's father was of reputed Spanish descent, and of his mother's family there is no question. She was of French descent, and her family had long been resident in one of the West Indian Islands.

3423:– Having been raised into a particular religion generally is not a defining characteristic, and it is an especially problematic characteristic by which to categorize, so I agree that this category should not exist. However, upmerging to the parent category is equally problematic. We should not categorize individuals by their parents' religion(s), since a person born to followers of a religion is not necessarily a member or follower of that religion. For living people, in particular, per 3015:

definitions such as matrilineal descent. Who is it that then makes these choices? Is it a source without editorial control which doesn't define their criteria for how someone is Jewish? Do you end up requoting unverified claims? If it is relevant to someone's life that they are Jewish the information is still going to be in the article. At the moment you lose important context of the "The Great Jewish Chess Champions" to cite some player mentioned once as a Jewish chess player.

2533: 3411:. Should a child raised in a religion who leaves the religion immediately upon reaching adulthood be categorized as a "former member" of that religion? Most other instances I see of notable people who were "raised as" a particular religion but had nothing to do with it as adults aren't categorized in this way. I would think the former religions categories would be reserved for former adult members? 2528: 4718:

all capitalized), also for 'Deaf Education' for bon-fide educator for the deaf. Naming it to 'communication studies', 'special education', 'deaf studies' and 'deaf education' loses its proper noun befitting of degree'd academic titls. Problem is world-view (Deaf education) vs. US-view (Deaf Education). It is not worthy of a speedy rename toward lower case. Perhaps the

3878:, which is a standard way of organizing categories in many areas. The fact that multiple people died in their 40s is not a linkage by time. So no, my logic does not lead you where you think it does. Maybe you could explain how categorizing together every notable human being who has died in their 60s would be defining for those included, let alone be useful? 4950:

culture. Do these peer-reviewed citations suffice enough in justification for capitalisation of a specific subset of a society? I am not aware of any writing styles that treats such culture in a non-pronoun manner. (Society of africans, Society of asian doesn't quite read easy on Wikipedian eyes.) Citations: --

2095:

that this is an appropriate category for wp, per wp's guidelines, as reflected in the robust RS coverage of the intersection. If you wish to explore your questions further, you might go out and buy the indicated books; perhaps you will find answers there, but in any event they are not relevant to this discussion.-

4272:. I suppose the intent is to categorize companies that are committing fraud. However, that creates serious POV issues, and so far the category has been misused in all but one arguable case. Moreover, the title literally suggests that the listed companies are not really companies at all, so it's also a misnomer. 2928:

chess players who are Jewish but no category. The content of this book is certainly much more balanced than those that are using it to make claims and some highly dubious sources that are also being cited here. Even in this book only 5 people are explicitly described as Jewish chess (master, player, etc).

3014:

can be an immensely complex question of identity that I am not qualified to answer I would expect a Jewish chess player at least to have at some point in their life thought of themselves as Jewish. By using uncorroborated often partial sources this is not happening, going well beyond even traditional

2950:

You're on slippery ground here; be careful. If a Jewish person who writes about Jewish people who he doesn't know is not independent, then we should also rule out Any American sources for studies of American people, French sources for study of French ppl, etc. Unless of course you are saying that it

3466:

this list should never have been created without good sources which (a) indicate that the individual has self-identified as a former member, and (b) this former membership can be shown to be of relevance to their notability. In fact, to take this further, I'd suggest one might need to provide a good

2927:

the points it is being used to reference on wikipedia combined without being mainstream published caused me to prejudge the book as being a list of bios. The book on page 3 basically makes my point that: "There is only one absolute requisite for playing chess: a brain." and that there are many great

2094:

As reflected in the solid majority of reactions to your nom, your discussion points are not reason to delete a cat. Nobody is engaging in discussion of them, because they are off-topic when it comes to CFD discussions. All that is being said here, and indeed the only proper focus of discussion, is

910:: In all four cases, this would mean the category name is no longer the same as the town article. I don't see a difference in the ambiguity for the articles versus the categories. I have no problem adding the County to make the categories less ambiguous, but would favor renaming the articles first. 2954:

As to the suggestion that the book was written "specifically to promote the subject" ... well, that's been one of the aims of many non-fiction writers. There's nothing wrong with thinking that, for example, the sexual history of mutant dwarf frogs in Ruritania is a subject of which the world should

2694:

A category is given undue weight by not allowing context of list to be put into perspective and suggests if you compare equivalent categorisations ie by religion or race. There is the implication that these groups are less important because they don't warrant a category and in some cases implied to

2121:

I am trying to illustrate that the above discussion does not demonstrate that this article can exist. What is the introduction going to say to this substantial article? The wikipedia guidelines recognise that this is a special issue due to potential contraversy, but the guidelines could not be more

4717:

I'm glad you'd asked. It's a matter of identity. One wouldn't called themselves african, nor asian. But that's not the issue here (but it's a start). At the education institutions, they issue B.A., M.S, Ph.D. degrees out for 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', and 'Deaf Studies' (note

4707:

You haven't really explained why changing the capitalization changes the meaning. It's not a proper noun like "African-American" is; it seems to be jargon if anything, with "schools of deaf education" being deemed to be something different than "deaf schools" or "schools for the deaf". But I don't

3445:

is explicitly identified as having been a member of COG during adulthood ("separated from TFI in 2001", aged 25 or 26). The other articles, five of which are BLPs, contain no indication that their subjects identified with COG during adulthood or that their affiliation with COG had any relevance to

2931:

Second point, I was not regarding the author as independent for establishing the subject of notability of the category Jewish chess players because he has never written a chess or sports book or article without the focus being on Jews in sport. When coupled with being described as having "sparked

4949:

Since the proposed category was serving two original purposes: 1. pronoun capitalisation as in Society of the Deaf and 2. titular title of degree'd subjects: Deaf Education. Since #2 no longer applys within Knowledge (XXG) categorisation, we're left with #1. The remaining issue is pronoun of a

3006:

I may be on slippery ground, the difference between a scientific work is that it has to be peer reviewed and fact checked before it can be published, the journal has to make retractions if wrong. This book isn't a scientific work and I was unsure of whether it was a mainstream publisher so I was

2561:

Of Paul Morphy, except as a chess player, we know but little. He comes on the father's side of a Spanish family long settled in Louisiana. The name "Morphy" certainly does not sound like a Spanish patronymic, it rather reminds an Englishman of a name not at all unusual in the sister isle; and we

4841:

Furthermore, educational institution issues degrees in 'Communication Science', 'Special Education', 'Deaf Studies' and... 'Deaf Education'. Problem is that of US-centric view is 'Deaf Education' vs. world-view 'Deaf education'. Renaming it to 'deaf education' would be like renaming 'African

4971:

In fact, most cultural groups are not capitalized, only those which have as their basis a geographic location which is a proper noun, e.g. Asia for Asians, Latin America for Latinos but gay not Gay, women's studies not Women's Studies or Women's studies, Christian evangelicalism not Christian

3909:

per Occuli. This is not a defining characteristic, and we have already deleted plenty of similar categories. Categories are a navigational device, and the overwhelming consensus of plenty of similar discussions is that there is no navigational utility in grouping people together in this way.

2932:

awareness" of the subject, it would suggest that he wrote the book to specifically promote the subject. But there don't appear to have been any follow-up in the literature to show this spark of awareness although I think that the author probably has enough notability for a wikipedia profile.

2445:

had a Jewish father, but not a Jewish mother (meaning that he is not Jewish according to Jewish law); I can find no indication that he practices the religion; and, while I don't know what ethnicity he put on his internal passport during the Soviet era (he could have chosen either "Jewish" or

2483:

So far I had been sticking to the technicallity of the most relevant wikipedia. I am not going to discuss the technicallities of the other wikipedia policies but I will explain in general terms why having an apparently inoccuous category without negative conatations is never the less highly

3081:. This is a notable intersection. Quite a few writers have commented on success of Jews in chess. Sometimes they claim that there isn't any connection, but that in itself makes it notable as they wouldn't bother with that argument unless there was a significant opinion to the contrary. 2756:

That's a very energetic effort by you, in the face of a somewhat overwhelmingly negative reaction by your fellow editors, to delete this category of Jews. At this point, I believe your comments have been already addressed by multiple comments above, and I would simply point you to

5022:: Those are excellent points which I trust is only used to guide the determination for WikiCategories. These justification will proved to be useful next time I have to arbitrate over future categories from within WikiProjectDeaf members. Thank you all. Please go ahead with the 1793:

I am very familiar with the guidelines. However, your nomination didn't provide any valid reason for deletion other than a general objection which is insufficient to single out this category, and was clouded by some irrelevancies about grandmasters (the categ is not limited to

3935:. Age at death generally is not defining, particularly when differences in life expectancy over time and across space are not considered. It is, to quote Occuli, "merely a factoid" that is interesting in the context of one article but not meaningful in a broader context. -- 1226:

Looking at the categories, do Bray and Birr need to be categories? The entries are already referred to in the articles for each town and included in relevant categories for their counties. The other two are county towns so there is more of a case for keeping as categories.

2568:

This shows the desire for sources to claim players so for a source to be considered independent of the subject requires that they either don't share the heritage that they are defining or are writing in a general objective manner without the focus of the book being the

2955:

be more aware, and writing a book on it. Unless of course you think that it's wrong for a Jewish writer to want the world to know more about the achievements of Jewish people in a particular field of human endeavour, and I'm sure you would not want to suggest that.

2399:

to include only individuals verifiable as "Jewish chess players" by the provided sources, not merely "Jewish" and "a chess player." Can't have your cake and eat it too. It does seem that "Chess" is a cultural topic amongst Jews, making this a valid category

3892:– age at death is not defining; it is merely a factoid usually included in a notice of death. (On the whole we categorise by defining characteristics: we also categorise by a few 'factoids' such as year of birth, year of death and where someone is from.) 2805:. I don't know whether Tetron76 posted without reading the discussion, or simply hoped that nobody would notice; but either way it doesn't help in forming a consensus if an editor posts an assertion which they should have known is demonstrably false.-- 4842:

studies' to 'african studies', 'communication studies', 'special education' of which they are not proper nouns to reflect the degree'd academic studies. I proposed that we keep it, capitalized it to US-centric 'Deaf Education' or shuffle it back to

2337:, is not an automatic assumption from the production of the above sources, there are substantial newspaper obituaries on some of the players in this "category" with no mention of the phrase. I agree that the sources have been produced to have 2013: 704:

This is the problem with English spellings of Arabic names; there are many variants. Honestly, I'm not sure which spelling is the most prominently used. For now at least, I recommend we use "Touqan" because the main article is named "Touqan."

2778: 2522: 2502: 2492:

There have been several people who are chess players and Jewish but a category would require there to be instance in the category. Ths would be shown by preceeding the category with the indefinite article or clear collaboration as a group.

4677:, oppose the renaming. It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning. The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American studies). 3869:

I'm not sure why the distinction is difficult for users to understand. People research particular years all the time. The occurrences of a year are an encyclopedic topic. If two people died in the same year, they are linked as having died

2595:

Too often on wikipedia the content of the material is ignored when considering its reliability. If a scientific work has no citations other than by the author this is normally an indication that a work has not undergone proper scientific

4147:(its parent), covering shared Christian and Gnostic topics, but the main article indicates some drift— 13th century is not "early" in either church by a long shot. Admittedly, the later figures are not categorized here. On a side note, 2278:

there have been over 2 years since the last CfD and there has been the opportunity to create the article not a list to show how this is not just the case as exactly detailed in the wikipedia guidelines on categories. I could have added

4897:

Ok, here are the citations that treats this (arguably largest) ethnocentric society in the world, the "Deaf people". One example from Chicago Manual of Style is given here. Please see my additional response to BrownHairedGirl below.

3983:

I see no encyclopedic value, just category clutter. There's also limited value in the death by year categories (because they're all huge and hard to search through) but at least they may be useful for the few people who use CatScan.

1245:

Both are significant towns in their area, and both usefully exceed my usual minimum for such categs (which is 5-10 articles). I doubt that they are anywhere near fully populated with existing content, and they will expand over time.

3315:. The one subject who was a member into adulthood is already in the Former members category; there's no indication that the others' childhood membership meets the criteria. Individual articles can be added on a case by case basis. 4990:

So, re-stating your words that Knowledge (XXG) guideline is using ethnics as the primary criteria for its capitalisation requirement? Looks to me that Deaf is an ethnics/ethnos/society as often cited. Are we saying they are not?

1750:, which is that these are categories by ethnicity rather than religion. In the absence of any reason to treat this category as an exception, it should stay unless the other similar categories are also nominated for deletion. -- 4819:

If this suggestion were to be implemented, it would change the meaning to education of the deaf which is like 'educating deaf teachers in something not necessarily in the desired area of deaf education', which would not be our

4682:

2404:, but it's not an excuse -- as Tetron mentioned above -- to used this as a navigational platform for "everyone who may be referred to as Jewish by someone." If Garry Kasparov would not call himself "a Jew" then he certainly 4326:

per nom. I considered a rename to "companies convicted of fraud", but that still leaves it open to abuse applying to companies which have not themselves been convicted, but where one or more personnel have been convicted.

2162:

I would have cataloged the books and other works that show that this is deemed to be a defining intersection, but EF has largely beaten me to it. The existence of book-length works such as those already listed, along with

2584:. There are many profiles where the heritage of the father is mentioned but no mention of any other heritage, such as on the mother's side. In effect, it is stating that having a Jewish relative is always a notable event. 2136:

The opposite has been demonstrated. As reflected in the comments of the 7 editors who have responded to your nomination here. The consensus is, I would think, somewhat clear with regard to the community's views on the

2301:. You seem to have missed that it says "Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.". There may 962:

In those cases the main issue was to disambiguate the city/town from its eponymous county, but in these cases the disambiguation is from other towns of the same name, which is why a county disambiguator is needed.

1778:

which explicitly covers this very situation. Categories are not lists. The category for a religious subdivision has to have specific meaning with an article that should exist (even it doesn't already) just on the

1709:, this is the tip of the iceberg but a subcategory should convey additional information such as a person can be a grandmaster and a chess player but not necessarily a chess grandmaster this is not the case here. 4815:

It was suggested that the word 'Deaf' be lowercased. This would changed the scope of the category's intended meaning. The intent is to categorized the 'Deaf education' studies (much like African-American

2465:

Jewish person category, ones that will have to be argued out, I suspect. But despite that, we still are faced with an array of published works suggesting that this is a relevant and defining intersection.

4867:

as a simple capitalization fix. In categories, we don't treat academic subjects as capitalized proper nouns unless the word is otherwise derived from a proper noun, as with "African". A quick perusal of

2935:

Final point, I cannot see how the controversial inclusion criteria of who is a Jewish chess player can be resolved even with pruning when the only inclusion criteria seems to be who has traceable Jewish

1893:, Jewish chess player is purely a religious / ethnic category without seeming even to require that the person shares the faith or would technically count as Jewish from their mother being Jewish such as 2654:

Some segments still have problems with chess using abstractions from christian iconography such as the cross on the King and Bishops. Even the Isle of Lewis chessmen have crosses on the Knight's shield.

3779:). Categories for year of death make sense, but not categories for age at death, because there's nothing at all that links a person who died in 1411 at age 50 with a person who dies in 2011 at age 55. 2356: 5009:. "Asia", "Africa", and "Latin America" are always capitalized because they are proper nouns. Therefore, adjectives that are derived from these terms—Asian, African, and Latino—are also capitalized. 2741:. But it is points 6 & 7 that give me most concern and why I have done several hours of research to support the case for delete. it leads to information and implications that are unencyclopedic. 2636:

Bogus publisher deliberately obfuscating legitamacy by using name "Oxford Academia Publishers" google autocorrets this assuming that you are looking for one of the best known publishers in the world

4884:

are capitalized only because they are first letter in the article/category name! When the term appears in the middle of an article or category name, it is properly written without the capital-"D".

3432:

Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to their

3772: 1735: 3085:(David Spanier, 1984) devotes chapter 3 to Jews in chess. The first two world chess champions were Jewish, and in fact 5 of the first 8 and 7 of the first 13 champions had Jewish ethnicity. ( 2644:

Claims about the history of chess in Spain within the book can be countered with any number of chess books, even translation claims are at odds from scholars such as early confusion between

928:. Howver, ambiguity causes many more problems in category names than in article titles, so it is now common at CFD to disambiguate such titles in category names. See for example the city of 3029:@Tetron76: if you look for scientific works as the basis of reference on cultural topics, you will nearly always draw blanks. It's not a relevant test, becuase we are not discussing science. 2951:

is acceptable for a French writer to specialise in French topics, but unacceptable for a Jewish writer to specialise in Jewish topics ... and I'm sure you don't want to go down that path.

952: 3760: 4779: 3764: 2433:

had a Jewish mother, making him Jewish according to Jewish law (and possibly a Jewish father, too), but he certainly did not self-identify as a Jew for most of his life; he joined the

1537: 1054: 1031:

does indeed need disambiguation. Since there is some discussion of the options here, I think it'll be work better if I create a new nomination for it rather than add it to this one. --

940: 42: 37: 4658: 4607: 3768: 1739: 956: 948: 944: 689:. (FYI, there are currently articles about 7 individuals whose article names include the name. 3 use "Touqan", 3 use "Toukan", and 1 uses "Tuqan". So if you include the main article 3347:. Aren't all people raised "as children"? Alternatively, we could delete this category, as it seems to be the only one that categorizes people by what religion they were raised in. 1774:

The existence of other categories doesn't mean that this category should exist. Chess player doesn't mean that it is someone's career. I assume that you didn't follow the shortcut

2606: 2761:. No WP-guidelines-based reasons have been presented, in the eyes of the commenting editors as a whole, that would warrant deletion. This is clearly reflected above.-- 3809:

I didn't really suggest creating anything, since what I was referring to already exists. I said "categories for year of death make sense", as in what already exists in

1372:

There are not so many US tall ships that the category is really in need of splitting, and association with the west coast is really only of interest to vacationers.

1823:

BHG--I'm pleased that, after 239,000 edits, you are as you say familiar with the guidelines. Kudos on coming up to speed, with so little time spent on wikipedia.--

3776: 3007:

evaluating it instead as GNG "independent of the subject" mainly brought about by the impression given by people citing without context both on and off wikipedia.

4823:

The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized

4686:

The real goal is to list the schools that offer 'Deaf education' as a study or as part of College of Education or School of Education (I'll take all capitalized

4919:

per Good Olfactory as a simple capitalization fix. We don't capitalise academic disciplines, and the evidence is that this term is not routinely categorised. --

2060:

there is no mention of any of the players as being Jewish and he is in this category. I have never seen a chess encylopedia have the entry Jewish chess players.

3966:. Valueless. Another group of categories that apply to many, many thousands of articles, will only be added to a fraction of them and are pointless anyway. -- 4458:? That can be interpreted several ways, as can "Euroleague Women winners". The "Euroleague Women-winning clubs" cat is pointless because it doesn't contain 2076:

but a category. There could be a book on French chess players without there being an article on French chess players. Although, it could be argued that the

171:

all omit the word "The", so it seems to me that this categ is correctly named and it's the subcats which should be changed to match the WikiProject name. --

4144: 2684:

The basis for decisions being made seems to be based on an ethnic heritage in some cases on the surname or relatives that the person will have never met.

21: 4309:

What about a rename to "companies indicted for fraud" or "companies convicted of fraud" (or whatever you would properly call a successful civil suit?)

2028:

written on it to be recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic, this nomination even has that. Clearly, not what WP:OC#EGRS is all about.--

1409: 1364: 545: 399: 2827:

No it is merely a problem of TLDR. Point 4) explicitly covers the self published book and 2) secondary sources. The quotes I was using because of

685:. This family name is spelled a variety of ways in English (Tuqan, Touqan, Toukan). I suggest that we should spell it the same way as the article 89:

The "quality" categories will need to be nominated separately. If they were in this nomination, they would be renamed to have the leading "The."--

2382:. Considering that several books have been written specifically about the Jewish contribution to chess, this category seems perfectly relevant. 3332: 2115:

If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created

17: 4931: 4824: 4687: 4654: 4603: 4339: 4152: 4010: 3922: 3398: 3048: 2982: 2914: 2892: 2817: 2317: 2214: 1849: 1813: 1762: 1552: 1521: 1258: 1208: 1069: 1043: 975: 895: 744: 183: 2198:

per Epeefleche (changing my !vote). The refs provided demonstrate that this is a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right", per

1127: 2695:

be inferior without the opportunity to put the analysis in context. Even to defend against common propoganda gives unencyclopedic material

2853: 2625: 2616:

from their own website "Magnes Press is a privately owned commercial firm." There is no review process essential for any scientific work.

867:. These eponymous categories for towns in Ireland are all ambiguous, and the alternative meanings in each case include other places: see 264: 5088: 4827:

as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same. --

1674: 1392: 1000: 933: 1996: 5113: 4423: 3383: 3362: 3174: 854: 4431: 3336: 2069:

It is not a notable overlap the categories still show someone as Jewish and a chess player no information is lost from the profile.

4690:

as a poor alternative (BTW, Deaf Education is US-centric, Deaf education is world-wide, the intent and meaning would be the same.

1111: 827: 3728: 3693: 3658: 3623: 3588: 156: 4414: 4110: 4034: 3256: 2497: 1591: 3736: 3701: 3666: 3631: 3596: 2681:

There are no clear qualifying criteria to decide what makes someone Jewish for this category, let alone a Jewish chess player.

4481: 2874: 2021: 2005: 1992: 1979: 1966: 1890: 1869: 138: 3719: 3684: 3649: 3614: 3579: 2848:

I realise I have not responded to the first book that BrownHairedGil mentioned. Although having a genuine niche publisher

2587:

So a collection of articles that only comment on a single aspect of heritage and doesn't give the full context is not a RS.

160: 4869: 3553: 2077: 1665: 1123: 836: 260: 106: 4114: 3837:"because there's nothing at all that links a person who died in 1411 at age 50 with a person who dies in 2011 at age 55." 2792:; but I note for example that Tetron76 says "there have been no secondary Reliable sources produced to show an intersect 2513:

The overlap has no meaning in terms of chess ie no matches for Jewish chess style, movements (as you get for art), etc...

4241: 3183: 2507: 2338: 2080:

exists wikipedia recognises the difference as it allows for dividing large categories based upon geographical locations.

1743: 1731: 1150:. It does not seem to be necessary to change the others as the other uses of the name are not of great significance, eg 1019: 845: 164: 5276: 5141: 4572: 4548: 4516: 4476: 4454:. Poorly named, barely populated, and pretty confusing to be honest. What does "Euroleague Women-winning coaches" even 4384: 4360: 4204: 4180: 4078: 4054: 3771:. Categories for various entertainers and sportspeople by age of death have been deleted often, as have categories for 3516: 3492: 3300: 3276: 3138: 3114: 1635: 1611: 1458: 1434: 1328: 1304: 789: 765: 638: 614: 509: 485: 363: 339: 228: 204: 74: 3561: 3089:

is sometimes claimed to be Jewish but this is disputed and may be an error. He isn't included in the 7 of 13 count.)

2471: 1747: 395: 168: 110: 3544: 2181:, show a connection between being Jewish and playing chess that clearly satisfies categorization policy on religion. 541: 5035: 5013: 5000: 4981: 4959: 4936: 4907: 4888: 4855: 4836: 4791: 4767: 4749: 4731: 4712: 4702: 4665: 4635: 4593: 4532: 4495: 4471: 4408: 4344: 4318: 4304: 4285: 4226: 4164: 4133: 4102: 4038: 4015: 3993: 3975: 3958: 3941: 3927: 3901: 3882: 3864: 3825: 3804: 3783: 3538: 3476: 3452: 3415: 3403: 3374: 3351: 3324: 3260: 3239: 3222: 3203: 3162: 3098: 3053: 3024: 3001: 2987: 2945: 2919: 2897: 2843: 2822: 2770: 2750: 2599:

There are several pay-to-publish books that get wrongly used to establish notability such as the above given books:

2475: 2453: 2421: 2391: 2368: 2350: 2322: 2292: 2266: 2252: 2236: 2219: 2190: 2146: 2131: 2104: 2089: 2037: 1938: 1924: 1906: 1881: 1854: 1832: 1818: 1788: 1767: 1718: 1659: 1595: 1574: 1557: 1526: 1482: 1418: 1400: 1381: 1360: 1352: 1288: 1263: 1236: 1213: 1163: 1131: 1099: 1074: 1048: 980: 919: 900: 813: 749: 714: 697: 662: 598: 584: 565: 533: 469: 455: 438: 419: 387: 323: 309: 290: 252: 188: 147: 127: 98: 4404: 4249: 4232: 4098: 3320: 3158: 2408:

in this category because there seems to be agreement here that "Jewish chess playing" is a cultural topic that not

2333:

if you read my above responses you will see that I had already acknowledged that in brackets but the point is that

1682: 1655: 1478: 1348: 1193: 1173: 1151: 915: 880: 809: 726: 658: 580: 529: 434: 383: 305: 248: 1872:. Subcategorising by nationality is normal. Intersecting sports and hobbies by religion or ethnicity is not. -- 4927: 4335: 4314: 4006: 3918: 3394: 3044: 2978: 2910: 2888: 2813: 2313: 2210: 2050:

or conversely that there should be non-Jewish chess tournaments in the way that there are women only tournaments?

1845: 1809: 1758: 1548: 1517: 1254: 1204: 1065: 1039: 996: 971: 891: 740: 179: 5275:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4547:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4359:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4179:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4126: 4053:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3491:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3275:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3170: 3113:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2796:". Yet Alansohn posed above a list of three reliable secondary sources to show that the intersection is notable 2675:

publically requested on his website that wikipedia be corrected after wrongly calling him a Jewish chess player

2580:

Information can be factually accurate but by not presenting all equivalent facts you in effect make an argument.

1610:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1433:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1303:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

925: 764:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

613:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

484:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

338:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

203:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4571:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4383:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4203:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4077:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3515:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3299:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3137:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2450: 2305:

be such an article, but that's fine, because the test is not whether it does exist but whether it can exist. --

2047:

Are you arguing that it is much more difficult for a Jewish chess player to succeed than a normal chess player?

1634:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1457:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1327:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

868: 788:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

637:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

508:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

362:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

227:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

4148: 2855:, it is not clear that this is anything more than a list. The author and hence book is clearly not secondary 1143: 4881: 4512: 3810: 3235: 2637: 2539:

A niche published book doesn't show that there is a category merely that there is an overlap see 2) & 3)

2434: 1147: 94: 5076: 3433: 2925: 2862: 1114:

makes sense to me since it is likely that a person could miscategorise an article relating to county using

1007: 939:

This has already been done for many other eponymous categories for Irish towns and cities. see for example

5152:

People who use sign language constitute a distinct ethnic group, complete with its own history and culture

5084: 3472: 2467: 1396: 710: 674: 2758: 4400: 4094: 3316: 3218: 3154: 2856: 2723:

could lead to discussing the parentage of living chess players when there is no relevance to notability.

1651: 1494: 1474: 1344: 1177: 1169: 911: 876: 872: 850: 805: 670: 654: 576: 525: 430: 379: 301: 244: 5137:, URL: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38664/deaf_or_deaf_can_a_capital_letter_make.html?cat=5 2429:. Too problematic a category to include. To take two people who are currently listed in this category, 4708:

see how changing it from "Deaf education" to "deaf education" makes any difference in meaning at all.

2966:, and not just to this category. If you want to pursue them, please do so in relation to the whole of 2849: 5158:

Sabatello, Maya, "Reconsidering the Deaf Community asa Cultural Minority", in Sabatello, Maya (ed.),

4920: 4328: 4310: 4223: 3999: 3971: 3911: 3848: 3535: 3387: 3037: 2997: 2971: 2903: 2881: 2806: 2766: 2438: 2413: 2306: 2203: 2142: 2100: 2033: 1838: 1828: 1802: 1751: 1541: 1510: 1284: 1247: 1197: 1058: 1032: 1028: 992: 964: 884: 733: 172: 2676: 2658: 5010: 5005:

It's not the mere fact that a group is an ethnicity that leads to the capitalization. It's because

4885: 4709: 4662: 4623: 4130: 4030: 3879: 3822: 3780: 3412: 3348: 3252: 3199: 2447: 2386: 2262: 2232: 1934: 1920: 1877: 1587: 1189: 841: 694: 4279: 3989: 3954: 3231: 3020: 2941: 2870: 2839: 2746: 2364: 2346: 2288: 2248: 2186: 2127: 2085: 1902: 1784: 1714: 561: 451: 415: 286: 90: 5219: 2581: 1742:. The nominator offers no reason to treat this category as an exception to the general rule of 2710:

It encourages unencyclopedic material to support the case as to why it is a notable intersect:

5240: 5110: 5080: 5031: 4996: 4977: 4955: 4903: 4851: 4832: 4787: 4763: 4745: 4727: 4698: 4631: 4589: 4160: 3937: 3860: 3844: 3468: 3448: 2782: 2018: 2002: 1989: 1976: 1963: 1185: 722:, because transliterations from Arabic take many forms. Whichever title is adopted, created a 706: 143: 5104: 4843: 4719: 2789: 2738: 5191: 5066: 4528: 4491: 4467: 4300: 3897: 3840: 3370: 3214: 2713: 2613: 2548: 1570: 1377: 1139: 1115: 1107: 1095: 1015: 924:

The articles are correctly named: in each case, the topic is ambiguous, but the town is the

823: 4755: 4295:

per nom. I think I can see the rationale behind the category's creation, but it's too POV.

3463: 3424: 5253: 4220: 3967: 3532: 3442: 3094: 2993: 2762: 2283:

What is meant by Jewish, do you mean an ethnic group? or do you mean religion or cultural?

2138: 2096: 2029: 1824: 1797:

As other editors have subsequently noted below, the topic is clearly notable, so it meets

1280: 1232: 1181: 1159: 275: 123: 2793: 2730: 2298: 2280: 2199: 1798: 1775: 1706: 2624:

0 citations (1 citation shown due to error ie 1956 work cannot cite a book from 1990's)

2437:, made numerous anti-Semitic statements, and demanded to have his name removed from the 1985:

Chess Among the Jews: A Translation and Explanation of the Work of Moritz Steinschneider

4877: 4873: 4026: 3248: 3195: 2657:

Sources with agendas will almost always be shown not to be independent and effectively

2442: 2383: 2258: 2228: 2057: 1930: 1916: 1894: 1873: 1583: 1490: 279: 2734: 1538:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 22#Category:People_from_Sligo

4520: 4274: 3985: 3950: 3800: 3086: 3016: 2967: 2963: 2937: 2866: 2835: 2742: 2672: 2430: 2360: 2342: 2284: 2244: 2182: 2123: 2081: 1898: 1780: 1710: 1413: 1119: 832: 593: 557: 464: 447: 411: 318: 282: 5159: 5027: 4992: 4973: 4951: 4899: 4872:

indicates that this is the case. "Deaf" is not derived from a proper noun, not is "

4847: 4828: 4783: 4759: 4741: 4723: 4694: 4627: 4619: 4156: 3853: 3033: 3011: 2959: 2543:

2) Partiality (because of motivations to claim a player without definite evidence)

1506: 4511:

I don't expect to find categories for every competition won. (Although I do find

4025:

per nom. People live longer than they used to; it isn't a useful categorization.

2053:

I think it is safe to assume you agree with me that neither of these cases apply.

1958: 1196:

may be too small for consideration, but the others look fairly clearcut to me. --

1126:

in order to avoid the similar problems with regard to the Brays elsewhere? --RA (

4524: 4487: 4463: 4296: 3893: 3366: 2552: 1566: 1373: 1091: 1011: 3759:. Can we put a final stake in these types of categories? We've already deleted 2970:

and all its sub-categories, rather than trying to pick off one sub-category. --

2257:

I meant not only this specific category, but all of the Jewish cross-sections.

3090: 2737:. It is impossible to categorise people in this way while maintaining balance 2733:. No one on the internet has ever described themself as a Jewish chess player 2501:

No one on the internet has ever described themself as "a Jewish chess player".

1929:

Epeefleche’s sources below trumps the opinion of non-notable intersection. --

1228: 1155: 929: 119: 5206:

Abstract: Evidence of systemic audism experienced by the Deaf staff was noted

2729:

There have been no secondary Reliable sources produced to show an intersect

2645: 4565: