| Revision as of 20:27, 9 February 2013 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →Meagan Good: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:50, 10 February 2013 edit undoAnd we drown (talk | contribs)10,985 editsm Blanking page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Love the username == | |||
| "Till human voices wake us... " --] (]) 08:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I came here to say the same thing. I do love that poem.--] 07:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::+1 ] (]) 02:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2011 == | |||
| ] Please do not add unreferenced or ] information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about ], as you did to ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-biog2 --> ''There is nothing in the reference attached to the sentence that supported your additions. You need a better reference.'' ] (]) 22:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| His brothers' pages all say the same information, and his page says he has the same parents as all of his brothers, therefore he is of Irish, Italian, Cherokee and German descent like them. ] (]) 22:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Then add the references used on his brothers page to this one to support the additions. Minus the references ethnicity cannot be added. Other articles on wiki are not ]. See ] and ]. ] (]) 22:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Categories == | |||
| Hi. I don't know if you realise this, but if an article is already in a subcategory of a category, you don't have to add the article to the top category. For example, "American singers of Native American descent" is a sub category of "American people of Native American descent", hence making any inclusion of the latter superfluous and redundant. ] <sub>]</sub> 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Leonardo da Vinci== | |||
| I have just removed him, yet again, from the list of LGBT people. The reason for this is that there is no solid evidence that he was homosexual. | |||
| He is properly listed in the section Pre 19th century LGBT history, and also in the list of people prosecuted under homosexuality laws. | |||
| The evidence that we have is that in 1479 someone anonymously dropped into the town council's letterbox an accusation that several young men (including Leonardo) had solicited a male prostitute, ]. The charges against the four young men were dismissed. | |||
| Subsequently, people since ] have looked for evidence that Leonardo was homosexual. There is absolutely no evidence in the thousands of words that he wrote, of a sexual relationship with anyone. | |||
| His artworks provide a picture of John the Baptist (ascribed to Leonardo) that has an expression that is alluring and might well be interpreted as sexual. There is a drawing associated with that painting which shows the same figure with an erection. The erection is drawn in a different colour to the rest of the picture, which suggests that it has been added by a different hand, but for some reason this fact seems to be ignored. We don't know that Leonardo did the drawing, and some people doubt that he did the painting. | |||
| People who want to make a case for Leonardo's homosexuality cite the fact that the biographer Vasari said that Leonardo took great delight in the beautiful long blonde curling hair of one of his pupils (the same young man who years later appears as John the Baptist.) However, as an artist, I can state categorically that admiring the beautiful hair of a member of the same sex is not an indication of homosexuality. It is merely an indication that the person has beautiful hair which an artists might wish to paint. Artists are bound to delight in that sort of stuff! | |||
| Leonardo might have been homosexual. But the fact is, the case for it is shaky. There is a much stronger case that he was celibate. | |||
| Michelangelo, on the other hand, left clear indication that he was homosexual, in a series of poems. However, when these were first translated into English, they had all the pronouns discretely changed to the feminine, thereby creating a lie about the man. It appeared, because of the poems, that he was passionately in love with some woman, generating much speculation as to who it might have been. | |||
| ] (]) 11:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==21st-century actors== | |||
| You have helped expand Category:21st-century actors for quite a while. But the category is currently under discussion, with someone calling for splitting it into categories by nationality. Perhaps you should add your input to the discussion. ] (]) 07:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Actors == | |||
| Thankyou for adding various actors to the actors-by-century cats.] (]) 18:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Redundant Categories== | |||
| Hi. I noticed that you added women in ] into ]. As ] is a subcategory of ], it is not neccessary to do so. The categories in the articles are supposed to be as narrow as possible and redundancies are to be pruned. Don't be embarassed, I made the same mistake myself when I first started editing. Also, please try to put the categories you add in alphabetically. Thank you. ] (]) 05:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Buggery not Sodemny == | |||
| ] was executed for buggery not for sodomy, so why put him in a category "People executed for sodomy"? -- ] (]) 02:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :If you read the article for the act he was prosecuted under (]), you'll see it was "the country's first civil sodomy law" and included "anal penetration". Sodomy and buggery are the same thing in this context. Buggery is a British term, and sodomy is used throughout the Anglosphere. Also, take a look at the article on ] where it states that "he British English term buggery is very close in meaning to the term sodomy, and is often used interchangeably in law and popular speech. It may also be a specific common law offence, encompassing both sodomy and bestiality." He wasn't prosecuted for bestiality, he was prosecuted for sodomy, i.e. anal penetration. -- ] 11:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Two points the act did not define buggery as specifically as you are implying, that came about through case law, and as the first person tried for the offence it is not a all clear in the sources I have seen what it was that he was supposed to have done. So as he was tried for buggery why not put him into a category for buggery rather than sodomy? Secondly how do you know that he was executed for buggery and not for the far more serious charge of high treason? -- ] (]) 18:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Sexuality based Categories== | |||
| You cannot add people to categories based on sexual identity unless the article includes sources showing that they identified as such - this also goes for historical persons such as H. C. Andersen (whose sexuality is only an object of speculation) and Johan Winckelman.]·] 22:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I was just coming here to your talk page to essentially state what Maunus stated to you about this. I don't know if you saw the hidden note, which is next to categories in the External links section of the ] article, but it states that "Religious and LGBT categories are not to be used in bios of living people unless they publicly self-identify with the label in question and it is relevant to their public lives." This is based on ]. Take the time to read what that policy states. It's because of that policy that I at the Janice Dickinson article. ] (]) 17:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==Category:Survivors of the 1918 flu pandemic== | |||
| ''']''', which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 22:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Category :Postmodern feminists == | |||
| There are some problems with the way you've categorized some of the biographical articles in this category. I've eleborated on this over at ]. ] (]) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Undoings == | |||
| ] is undoing your ] without sources or explanations. Would you have a look at it?--] (]) 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Actresses and Actor cats == | |||
| Thankyou for adding relavant actress and actors categories to articles.] (]) 22:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Can you please explain why you seem to be over-applying this category, most notably in ]. This goes against ]. There is nothing inherent or defining in the contralto voice that is ]. Contralto is simply a voice type, determined by a particular range and timbre. Some ] singers had this voice type, but the roles they played were not androgynous, they were unambiguously male or (less commonly) female characters. Female singers with this voice type have been known to play male roles, but the roles themselves are not androgynous at all, they are unambiguously male characters. Note also that in some operas, sopranos can also be assigned to unambiguously male roles. ] (]) 09:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've started a discussion at ]. ] (]) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, I noticed you added various African-American categories to this article, but did not back them up with text in the article or ]. Some sources are provided on the talk page, where there is discussion about the categories. As you may know, categories added must be supported in the article prose and with reliable sources or they cannot be applied. This is especially important for the racial categories such as African-American. Thank you. ] (]) 17:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nonagenarians == | |||
| ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please read ] and then revert your last edit to the article, or I will report you for a violation. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't want to get banned, so I will comply, but to me you and the others are vandalizing her article by denying she is both African and Jewish in her ancestry when she says she is both. The Jewish categories do not specify a blood quantum or anything else and there are already people who are comparable to Meagan (people of African and Jewish ancestry who do not practice Judaism) in the category ] such as ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Can you explain to me where you're coming from? (because this is really inconsistent to me) — ] 03:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please review ] and ]. Where are the sources that say Good is a Jew? If you think there should be a category for "People in the African diaspora of Jewish descent", maybe you need to create one. | |||
| :::Also, who is the arbiter of whether a Jew is "practicing" Judaism? You? To call somebody a Jew, all Misplaced Pages requires is a ] that says the person is a Jew. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You also might want to read ], expecially "What is ''not'' vandalism". Referring to edits you don't like as vandalism is not appropriate. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 03:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::First of all, I think we're talking past each other a bit here. I'm talking about Jew as in of Jewish ancestry, and you are talking more about Jew as in a practitioner of Judaism. Second I'm not the one saying she's not practicing Judaism. Her article says she is Christian. Religiously she isn't Jewish. That's not me saying it. And in the ethnic sense of being a Jew, she herself is quoted in her article saying she's Jewish ethnically. The sources are numbers 1 & 2 in her article. Lastly, it's not that I don't like the edits, it's that they're factually inaccurate. She is ethnically African and ethnically Jewish, therefore she is a Jew in the African diaspora. — ] 03:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I don't agree with you. It's the same as the discussion you are engaged in at ]. The category "Jews in the African diaspora" refers specifically to black Jews from Africa, indeed from specific parts of Africa, according to ]. Does she truly fit that category? Or is she merely a person who happens to have some ancestors who are black and some who are Jewish? -- ] (]) 03:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Many of the people in the category are simply people who have some Jewish ancestry and some African ancestry. Also, it doesn't define it as being specifically Black Africans. And anyway, "he ] refers to the communities throughout the world that are descended from the historic movement of peoples from Africa — predominantly to the Americas, Europe and the Middle East, among other areas around the globe. The term has been historically applied in particular to the descendants of the West and Central Africans who were enslaved and shipped to the Americas by way of the Atlantic slave trade, with the largest population in the USA (see African-American). It also covers historic dispersal through voluntary migration, as represented by the black conquistadors, among others." Maybe the category needs to be more clearly defined? To me she clearly fits it as it currently is presented. — ] 03:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: It looks pretty clearly defined to me: If you click on ], it says across the top: ''For more information, see ]'', which in turn says '"Jews in the African diaspora refers to black Jews living in the African diaspora". I think you may have misinterpreted what the category is supposed to include, as you propose to include anyone who happens to have a Jewish ancestor and a black ancestor. -- ] (]) 03:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Then why the subcategory ]? The key word being American, as opposed to Black Jews living in Africa. That's why it's a diaspora though, they dispersed, moved out to other places. Again, "he African diaspora refers to the communities throughout the world that are descended from the historic movement of peoples from Africa — predominantly to the Americas, Europe and the Middle East, among other areas around the globe", not people who stayed in Africa only, thus the confusion amongst us here. — ] 03:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The subcategory is for ''African-American'' Jews, not those elsewhere in the diaspora (Canada, the Caribbean, South America, Europe, etc.) — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::Yeah, and that's what I'm saying, it's a diaspora, it includes African-American people of Jewish ancestry and African-Americans who practice Judaism, Black Canadian people of Jewish ancestry and those who practice Judaism, etc. Dianna was saying it only refers to Black Jews in Africa. Not Black Jews in America, Canada, South America, Europe, the Caribbean, etc. — ] 04:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::No, it doesn't include "African-American people of Jewish ancestry", or at least it shouldn't. It should only include people who have been reported by ] to be both African-Americans and Jews. Not "of Jewish ancestry", but Jews. That's not what I say, that's what ] and ] require. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::But one is still a Jew (ethnically speaking) even if they aren't Jewish religiously. Otherwise how do you have categories like ], ], and ]? Therefore one can be African-American and a Jew (ethnically) without practicing Judaism. Take for example ], she is of Russian-Jewish and Scandinavian ancestry (as opposed to African), but she's still a Jew even though she's an atheist, and is listed as an LGBT Jew. Is she not an LGBT Jew because she's not a Jew relgiously? Of course not! — ] 04:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I tried to fix the description at ] and you reverted me, remember? As you note, being a Jew can have nothing to do with "practicing Judaism". | |||
| :::::::::::::::] doesn't include any ] that indicate she is Jewish, so no, she is ''not'' an LGBT Jew or a Jewish atheist—as far as Misplaced Pages is concerned—unless sources are added to the article that say she is Jewish. Right now, there is no reason for her to be categorized as such. In fact, it's a ] violation. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::Ok, well then I'll revert it back or you can and I won't change it back again. But my issue there was that it seemed to be intended as a religious category only, but I see no reason why it can't be changed. And then couldn't Meagan go under African-American Jews in that context? — ] 05:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::'''NO''' Good is not a Jew. She is a Christian. She does not belong in any category of Jews. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 19:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::But you said yourself there is more to being a Jew than religion. If she's Jewish in ancestry then she's a Jew. She's a Jew in the ethnic sense. Also see the article ]: "Generally, in modern secular usage, '''Jews include three groups''': people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have '''some Jewish ancestral background''' or lineage (sometimes '''including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent'''); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion." — ] 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::This is getting tiresome. Where are the ] that say Good considers herself a Jew? Without them, you cannot categorize her as a Jew. See ], ], and ]. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::Good herself says, as quoted in her article from two reliable sources, that she is of Jewish descent. Therefore she is a Jew because she has "'''some Jewish ancestral background'''". No one's interpretation of the facts matter. Only the facts matter. Do we need a quote saying she "considers" herself African-American in order for her to be classified as such? No. All we need to know is that she is of Afro-Bahamian and African descent. — ] 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Being of Jewish descent does not make one a Jew. As a matter of fact, being a Christian means one is not a Jew. That's why Good belongs in ]. | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::As I wrote at the outset, if you wish to create categories for people of Jewish descent, please feel free to do so. However, it is ] for you to assert, as you do, that having Jewish ancestry is sufficient to make one a Jew. It isn't. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Nat King Cole == | |||
| Hi. I have removed your addition of the for that very same reason but you added it back without a source or any content. The only thing that would sort of support the category is the fact that his funeral was held at St. James Episcopal Church. Since we can't infer anything, that's not enough to categorize someone as being a practitioner of a religion. If you want to include the category, you need to find a reliable source that states he self identified as such and write some content about it so the category is supported and isn't questionable. Thanks. '''<font color="MediumSlateBlue" face="Tahoma">]</font><sup><font color="Black">]</font></sup>''' 12:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I just meant to add back the ones that were sourced in the article like the big band-related categories and Japanese-language singers. Thanks for catching that. I must have misread the article when I added that category. — ] 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | |||