On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: In and of itself, if they are/have identified as Jewish, no harm. Being Jewish is not a bad thing, or being identified as a Jew if that's what you are, ditto for whatever other religion. But it opens the door to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholics_in_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslims_in_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestants_in_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atheists_in_politics Probably better as a category? And what politics, for that matter? English? American? Dutch? Taiwanese? Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com

On 5/31/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would interpret it as meaning that Wikipedia editors *aren't* "outing" people, but only reporting what they find in other (published, reliable) sources. Kind of a "don't go digging into anyone's grandmother's birth records to see if they're Jewish" sort of thing. Of course, that would make it redundant with, you know, the site-wide policies it refers to. Though I imagine that a not-so-gentle reminder might be necessary for such a list. I am amused by the "(Includes non-Jewish politicians)" next to Israel, though. -- Jonel

There's a similar set of LGBT articles, and both they and the Jewish articles have been bouncing across CfD of late, along with a huge laundry list of "X-ish Ys" categories. There seems to be a tug-of-war between one group which wants to claim people out of some sort of ethnic/religious/sexuality pride, and another groups which is nervous about such lists. I'm coming to the opinion that the category hierarchy scheme isn't working, and that we would be better served by some sort of dynamic facility which would produce the intersection of two (or more) categories on the fly. That leaves open, of course, the issue of whether we should identify people as Jews or homosexuals or what-have-you in the first place. My inclination would be "not", but someone else will have to fight that battle.

On 31/05/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes. Anyway, I just removed it because of the guideline about Wikipedia self-references ([[WP:SELF]]). I also changed the first sentence to make the box less silly (as Joe Szilagyi comments, it might as well have been a template that says "This is an article"). -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/