User talk:Johnpacklambert
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Index
|
|||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Category:Philosophers by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion[edit]
Category:Philosophers by ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Psychastes (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
American expatriates in Liberia[edit]
Hello. I wanted to ask about a recent edit you've made, this one. Why did you remove the 'in Liberia' part of the category, moving the James Hall article to a diffuse category? James Hall served as governor of Maryland-in-Africa, now part of Liberia, and before then, he served as a colonial physician in the colony of Liberia. I don't see why the category 'American expatriates in Liberia' would be inappropriate. RoundSquare (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- The key is "now a part of Liberia". It was not a part of Liberia then. It was a distinct polity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess since he was a physician in the colony of Liberia I will restore him. However people should not be placed in such categories unless they lived in the polity in question based on the boundaries of the polity at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- JPL that is not the universal opinion. The rule is whether that person is DEFINING by that nationality. Mason (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot be defined as a national of a polity you did not live in. People who died in 1940 were not Israeli, nor could they have been Pakistani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- When someone is regularly described as being Israeli, that's that's defining.
- At the very least, if there isn't a more precise category (with the actual nation), they shouldn't be removed from one that is less accurate, using your term. The purpose of categories is to help navigation. Removing people from approximately right categories thwarts that purpose. Mason (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I challenge you to find any source that would describe anyone who died in 1940 as an "israeli", or any source that would describe someone who died in 1940 as Pakistani. Those categories are not "approximately right", they are just plain wrong. It is ahistorical and anachronistic to describe people in 1940 or earlier as Israeli or Pakistani. If the people died in 1950, it is getting into ambiguous areas, since most people who died in 1950 would have done most of their life work before 1940, let alone 1947 and 1948 when those countries were formed, but it is at least somewhat arguable based on other issues, but someone who died in 1940 was not Israeli or Pakistani. Just like someone who died in 1910 does not belong in a Soviet, Czechoslovak or Yugoslav category. There are some things that are fuzzy and debatable, but all of these examples above clearly do not apply to people as described.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- You cannot be defined as a national of a polity you did not live in. People who died in 1940 were not Israeli, nor could they have been Pakistani.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I guess since he was a physician in the colony of Liberia I will restore him. However people should not be placed in such categories unless they lived in the polity in question based on the boundaries of the polity at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think the most egregious I have seen is I saw today someone who died in the 1840s put in a Pakistani category. That was before the person who invented the term was even born. Plus I put him in the Durrani Empire category, because at least some of his life he lived there. That is basically the predecessor state of Afghanistan, although it controlled more area than just Afghanistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- The other is I saw someone who died well before 1900 (he was born in 1801, I forgot when he died) in a category for Czechoslovakia in some way. Czechoslovakia is formed in 1918, and has not existed since 1993. So that has the oddity of being wrong then, and not even being an anachronistic imposing of the present on the past, but an odder assuming that a status of thinks that is no longer in existence is actually the natural and correct way things ought to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with many of the examples you've included. However, I think you're missing the point. "Removing people from approximately right categories thwarts th[e] purpose [of categories]." I think it would be helpful for you consider the alternative view of why it might be helpful to keep people in such categories.Mason (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
We should not be more precise than we can be accurate[edit]
I have found multiple articles that declare a birth year for their subject when there is a discrepancy in the birth year listed in sources. If sources disagree, we should at least indicate the birth year listed is only approximate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Russian scientists[edit]
The Category Russian scientists should probably have close to no direct contents, since we diffuse scientists as geologists, physicists, chemists, biologists etc. It instead has a few hundred articles almost all of which are in diffusing sub-cats, often multiple ones. We need to start diffusing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)