Talk:Shmuel Erlich

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Scandalous reversions in the name of policy

I added the category Jewish psychanalysts and Mr David Eppstein cancelled it twice in the name of policy. He pretends that even Sigmund Freud was not Jewish because was secular. That is not the policy of Wikipedia.Ewan2 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

Dear David Eppstein! You again reverted the Category:Jewish psychoanalysts. Your reason: it would violate WP:BLP. But: there I will find nothing about jewish people! Erlich definitely is Jewish and an important part of his work was about jewish identity! What does him make different to the others in the Category:Jewish psychoanalysts – for instance Otto F. Kernberg or Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel? --Andrea014 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT is very clear that we can only include categories like this if (1) the subject himself explicitly and publicly identifies with the Jewish faith (not just has a Jewish family background and even less having published about Judaism) and (2) this faith is relevant for the subject's notability. If that criterion is not met for others in this category then the correct response is to remove them, not to add more violations. As for Erlich, if it is such an important aspect of his biography to state that he was Jewish, then find the reliable sources that say so and use them to explain that faith in the text of the article, don't just use inappropriate categories to cover up your lack of depth of coverage of this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the special link. I do understand „are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources“ different from you! In his case it seems to me „relevant“ with „reliable published sources“ as he is one of the fathers of the Nazareth-Conferences, working about the impact of being Jewish or not. But part of your answer is not inviting me for an ongoing diskussion. So I give up. Have a nice day! --Andrea014 (talk) 07:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Founding a conference about being Jewish is something that could easily have been done by someone not Jewish (although doing that would certainly be a mistake). So in itself it provides little light on the question of Erlich's own religion. Perhaps you can find something he wrote about his religion in connection with the conference, and mention it in the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Jew (or Muslim or Christian) is not only a question of religion but also a question of culture. And that is, what the conferences (linked in the article) were showing. --Andrea014 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I now checked six more jewish psychoanalysts, some of whom I know, and no one of those shows in the article what you want to see there: Charles Brenner (psychiatrist), Robert C. Bak, Robert Langs, Lewis Aron, Ernst Kris, Jessica Benjamin.

Could it be that you misunderstood the WP:BLPCAT? Could it be that there will remain nobody in the category if you are right?

For me my statement above (07:56) is important. But I am not fit with the rules and with categories in the enWP.

The category was created on March, 9th 2018 by Ewan2 and in a few days there were 92 persons in that category. As far as I checked it: done by Ewan2 (not being online since April, 7).

It seems to me there should be a general diskussion with the creator and others who are fit with categories and not in a certain article.

--Andrea014 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if other people are miscategorized, please remove them from that category; do not take this as a license to create even more miscategorization. Or, you could document their personal commitment to the Jewish faith and by doing so make the category relevant for them. I don't understand why you refuse to take this step for Erlich. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]