Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 17#Category:People of Jewish descent

:{{DRV links|Brett Kimberlin|xfd_page=|article=}}

This page was speedily deleted twice by the same administrator, once in 2010 and the other time in 2011, both times for being a negative unsourced biography of a living person. (The second time, the article was protected against re-creation.) However, the page was in fact sourced to reliable sources such as [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574161,00.html this Time magazine article]. I asked the admin about this, and he responded that the article "was quite well-referenced" but that there was "a rather large back story involving a harassment campaign against Mr Kimberlin" and the fact that the editor who re-created the article in 2011 was banned, and that he could not explain further in public. Regardless of any back story, though, I believe that the article ought to be judged on its own merits and the reliable sources it cites. I note that the 2010 deletion was based on an OTRS ticket; therefore, I would be satisfied just to have the 2011 revisions of this page restored and leave the pre-2011 revisions (the ones implicated by the OTRS ticket) deleted, if necessary. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• I presume as a sysop you have reviewed the deleted article. I'm slightly surprised you would countenance undeleting such an unbalanced article that only reflects on the negative elements of this man's life. I would be willing to consider a draft article that puts the negative aspects into some context in the totality of their life and works, but a page that just highlights negative elements is pretty much a classic case of WP:COATRACK, WP:BLPVIO and WP:UNDUEviolation. Sorry but I can't agree to this material being restored. By the way, I also reviewed the OTRS ticket and I believe that the OTRS deletion is undoubtedly relevant to the current deletion too. Endorse. Since this has been deleted as an attackpage, I hope noone restores this for the purposes of the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have read the deleted article. Regarding its most recent version, I would not say that it does not only reflect on the negative aspects of Kimberlin's life. It mentioned his two current activism projects and had links to them. It mentioned that he was once represented by former Harvard Law School dean and Solicitor General Erwin Griswold in his legal defense and suggested that the accuracy of the witnesses against him could be called into question because they had been hypnotized. It listed Kimberlin in :Category:American activists. Yes, the article also discussed Kimberlin's criminal convictions, but it would be hard to write an article about him without explaining that. Otherwise, for example, it would be impossible to explain what he was doing [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16453486002265035422&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr filing a lawsuit against prison officials] that went [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6014581579155129784&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr to the U.S. Supreme Court]. WP:BLP doesn't mean that the negative aspects of people's lives -- especially people who have [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=TqkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qmMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6739,1431673&dq=kimberlin+quayle&hl=en sought to thrust themselves into public controversies] -- are supposed to be covered up by Wikipedia. It means that when we write about living people, we need to do so with attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Restore This is negative, but sourced. The subject of a book is notable enough to justify an article. The proposed criterion would prevent all articles about living criminals. Unfortunately, I agree with Spartaz that this cannot be restored for purposes of discussion here, so I urge other admins to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• That article needs to be fundamentally rewritten if we are going to post it in the encyclopedia. The way it is written is just not at all how we should be writing articles on Wikipedia. There's no real policy I can point to to explain what I'm saying; you just have to read it for yourself. I think it would be OK to provide a copy of the article to experienced non-admins who wish to view the article during this DRV, so if anyone wants to, drop a note on my talk page. NW (Talk) 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Please note that the page is currently protected against re-creation. I would appreciate it if those editors who oppose restoration of the article as it was would indicate whether they would at least support unprotecting the page to allow any interested editor to write a new, neutral version. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Restore There was no cause for deleting this as G10--several problematic phrasings could have been cleaned up, and I agree that the net overall tone was negative, but the sourcing looked either appropriate for the allegations listed, or sufficiently close that a discussion and repair would be appropriate. Note that I'm not commenting on the initially deleted version. Fact is, the man appears to be a notable criminal, so per NPOV, he should be portrayed negatively to the extent that reliable sources portray him negatively--even in such circumstances, it's still possible to write an appropriate article that meets our standards. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• I haven't seen the deleted article, but even a cursory search for sources turns up [http://www.abebooks.co.uk/9780679429999/Citizen-Deeply-Weird-American-Journey-0679429999/plp this] and [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1574161,00.html this], which implies that there's an article to be written. Our BLP policy is about negative unsourced information concerning a living person. BLP policy does not say "whitewash everything" or "protect convicted criminals from the consequences of their actions". Therefore there's clearly a strong case to unprotect. Nevertheless, any hypothetical article would need to be sensitively written by experienced editors.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• NW was kind enough to send me a copy. I didn't run down all the sources, but it does appear that while a quite negative BLP it is sourced. And doing a news search, I'm not seeing a whole lot of non-negative stuff to add. I think we should have an article as he's clearly way past "notable". I think the deleted version is acceptable as long as all facts are in fact sourced as they seem to be. A bit more of an introduction about where he was born, etc. would be welcome of course. So basically restore and trim as needed or allow recreation if there is some specific problem with the current article that causes it to violate our own policies and that information is hidden from us because of OTRS. If the OTRS issue is solely that someone doesn't want this article, or a mainly negative article, to exist, that I have little sympathy for. As long as we are accurately citing sources and we don't put UNDUE weight on anything, I think a generic complaint shouldn't prevent us from covering the topic. If there is a specific problem with a source or sources or something else that is unambiguously an issue with our own policies/guidelines I'd hope those with OTRS could repair rather than delete the whole article. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• As the deleting administrator, I don't have a problem with an article about the subject per se - however, it is a nearly-all-negative BLP created once by a stalker and once by a banned user. As such, I think it should be started from scratch. There's no doubt that he is notable, however. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:::I should also note that both deletions were based (mostly) on the same OTRS ticket. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

::::A quibble. I would like to point out that this wasn't an unsourced article and so deleting it with a comment indicating that it was is fairly problematic. I realize edit summaries are optional but they shouldn't be misleading, especially for things that non-admins can't double check. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. I've read the emailed content (thanks NW). I do not think it meets CSD#G10. It does not disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. It is a sourced, negative BLP. There may well be NPOV issues. An attempt at a balanced fresh restart is probably a good way to go. I'm not surprised that someone associated with the subject would write to OTRS and request deletion. This takes us into the area of how much we listen to BLP subjects who don't want to be covered. There was once discussion on this, but I don't know what happened to that discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Restore This is an undoubtedly notable individual for whom an article should exist, and where there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support its restoration. Issues with content should be addressed at the article level, not through deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Restore. WP:NPOV does not require equal weight to positive and negative statements. The coverage of the subject of this article appears to be mostly negative. I agree that there are some sentences in the article that could be stated with more neutral language, but I see no reason to delete a negative BLP that appears to reflect the weight of the sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• There is an article to be written here. The deleted one, however, is not it. NW is entirely correct. Keep deleted. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Moreover, since the creator of the most recent version ({{user|ZHurlihee}}) has been blocked for block evasion, WP:CSD#G5 applies as well. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse I'm with T. Canens and NW here. Yes, the article is sourced. But at the same time it is an unduly negative BLP. Mini-phrases like "is a felon" (the opening phrase), "was back in the news", "gained notoriety" and "became something of a cause célèbre once in prison" demonstrate the thinly disguised hit job that this article is. Additionally, given the back story alluded to above, the OTRS complaint (which I haven't seen) and the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked by Arbcom without public reason suggests that we ought to trust the judgement of those who have taken action here.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Category:People of Jewish descent|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_9#People_of_Jewish_descent|article=}}

Deletion of a necessary needing category which would include / cover the following ones:

:Category:Christians of Jewish descent

:Category:American people of Jewish descent etc.

There are other categories for other ethnicities which begin with the same words: "People of X descent"

I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_9#People_of_Jewish_descent two flawed arguments for deletion] isn't compelling enough to delete this category, there are so many articles that can be added to it, just to like other categories designated for other ethnicities. Jewishness is also inherited by ethnicity. There are a lot of people who are of Jewish descent and of other descends, like David Duchovny. Please, do review it, this category clearly lacks arguments for keeping it. I don't know what other two users persecuted by wanting to keep down this category, a goal or just being biased. I don't know, but I think it's clear that this category better off be kept. ChaChing! (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, throwing a bunch of ad homs at those overwhelmingly voting to delete something and offering no policy based reason to overturn the close looks pretty much as something doomed to fail. How about you refactor the nomination to remove the ad homs and offer some policy based reason for this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• I also see checking your history that you have failed to discuss this with the closing admin but did take the time to canvas the only user voting keep in the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMayumashu&action=historysubmit&diff=450918106&oldid=449805715]. Please can you explain your behaviour? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm also curious as to why he didn't !vote in the original CSD discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• I didn't "throw" ad homs as you claimed, no need to make it about me and not the subject. I suggested there might be one because this is such a clear case that it'll be ridiculously offensive not to point out the obvious [possibility]. As for 'canvassing' I already explained it in rationale - it's lacking arguments for support and besides an admin or any other closing user must look forward arguments, not votes. It's a known rule of WP. So how about you stop throwing ad homs towards me, by your own logic, and provide arguments on your own to this matter? For a start you could try countering these ones: Jewish is an ethnicity, I don't need to bring up various sources, polls including jews as ethnicity, you can simple look up infoboxes of these known persons: Mark_Zuckerberg, Cindy Margolis wherein it's written that their ethnicity is jewish. Now, this category will be coming handy at many situations, like when it's unclear whether a person in subject had a great gradfather who was of german-jewish descent or hungarian-jewish one. So putting a simple cat "of jewish descent" will be appropriate. I could go on, but seriously, if you're not trying to sell a crap that jews aren't an ethnicity then it must be clear to you, that jews are an ethnicity and this category should not be removed. ChaChing! (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• This would need a wider discussion to resolve on fundamental issues, but because of the different and incompatible definitions of being Jewish, there is very unlikely to be a satisfactory resolution, which is why I for example generally no longer engage in debates on the matter. In previous discussions at Wikipedia there have been those advocating that people who fulfill any of the possible definitions of Jews are Jews; there have been others arguing that only one or another of the possible definitions was correct. Fortunately, there is at least one clear issue on the basis of which to reject this category, which is that the name of the category is hopelessly confusing. In contrast, Christians of Jewish Descent is relatively unambiguous--there are numerous individuals who clearly self-identify as being in this category, and all variants of the Jewish religion, and I think essentially all Jews, are agreed that someone who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. This matter is frustratingly simple. People can be of Jewish descent (i.e. have Jewish ancestry) and not be Jewish. Such a person has one or more Jewish ancestors but is neither practicing Judaism nor self-identifies as being a secular Jew. So, as long as there is the category tree :Category:People by ethnic or national descent there needs to be this category as a fundamental part of it. Mayumashu (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::Note to closing admin: This vote was canvassed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu&diff=prev&oldid=450918106] 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::how far back do you propose to carry it? and how do you propose to judge if a claimed Jewish ancestor was Jewish? The problem is recursive. I shall give you an]] concrete example. Suppose in 1800 a person who was previously a practicing Jew and lived as a Jew converted to the Christian religion. After his conversion he married a non-Jew and had children , all of whom he raised as Christians. Suppose we have an article about his great=great=great-great-grand-daughter, all through the male line. First, assume she carries none of the proposed Jewish genomic markers. Then, consider her brother, who carries his ancestor's Y-chromosome. Would you list either or both in this category? Reducing this to the admittedly absurd, every human has African ancestors. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A user here stated that "I think essentially all Jews, are agreed that someone who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew", and I would just like to point out that nothing could be less true than this statement. Many if not most Jews would consider someone who converts to another religion to be a Jew nonetheless. Consider for example the entry on the philosopher Edmund Husserl, among the categories for which are the following: "Jewish philosophers"; "German Lutherans"; and "Converts to Protestantism from Judaism". This is entirely consistent and proper. Even though he is a convert, it would be entirely wrong to say that Husserl is not also considered a Jewish philosopher. It may well be true that there are thorny definitional issues for a category such as the one under discussion here. But it is equally true that the concept of "Jewish descent" is meaningful and comprehensible (hence the existence of the "Jewish philosopher" category). Additionally, it is very unclear how arguments along the lines of "the problem is recursive" are capable of establishing that "Christians of Jewish descent" is a more meaningful category than "People of Jewish descent": surely such arguments apply equally to both categories, as both equally imply the meaningfulness of the concept of Jewish descent. Furthermore: it may indeed be absurd to categorize as being of Jewish descent somebody whose distant ancestor was Jewish if none of the intervening generations considered themselves as Jewish, but this is not a convincing argument against the category, because it denies the possibility of contributors to Wikipedia being capable of sensible judgment about such questions. The so-called "recursive problem" is really hardly any problem at all, and where problems arise, they will almost always be solvable problems. I should add here as a qualification that I have no awareness of the previous discussion that led to deletion, and thus cannot comment on that, nor do I wish to comment on the necessity or otherwise of a category specifically for those who do not recognise themselves as Jewish. My intention is rather to point out that the Jewishness of somebody who has converted to another religion may well still be an important element of their notability, as for instance in the case of the aforementioned German Lutheran convert and Jewish philosopher, Edmund Husserl. FANCOPE (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:I don't think this decision should be overturned. We have numerous, well populated categories for every stripe of Jew. this category was by its name nearly identical to :Category:Jews, but was given an absurd definition as being only those people who don't identify as jewish. Absurd in that this definition in no way flows from the name. To address DGG's concern, i dont think we would stop at any point IF such minute fractions were ever noted anywhere, which they usually arent. Sure, Mao was part african, but its not noted by anyone, so its not notable. its usually someone with jewish parents, one jewish parent, and rarely one or two jewish grandparents. I dont know how many individuals were listed in this category before deletion, but i suspect that most of them are just fine in the subcategories that remain for people of various religions and of jewish descent, as thats usually what is noted about non practicing jews. Add to that, say, athiests of jewish descent, and we have all we need. category is redundant, and the definition given for it doesnt fit the name, and we dont need a :Category:Nonpractitioners of Judaism of Jewish descent as a container category for the small number of subcats remaining. interesting discussion, though. very rabbinical:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the CfD. I don't see the strong need for such a parent category. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)