Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 16

June 16

Category:Sportspeople by city

• delete

Category:Sportspeople by city - Template:Lc1

• upmerge
• Category:Sportspeople from Birmingham, England to Category:People from Birmingham, England
• Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio to Category:People from Columbus, Ohio and Category:Sportspeople from Ohio (there is no precedent for 'people in', only 'people from' loosely defined
• Category:Sportspeople from Louisville, Kentucky to Category:People from Louisville, Kentucky and Category:Sportspeople from Kentucky
• Category:Sportspeople from Manchester to Category:People from Manchester
• Category:Sportspeople from Oxford to Category:People from Oxford
• Category:Sportspeople from Peoria, Illinois to Category:People from Peoria, Illinois and Category:Sportspeople from Illinois

Nominator's rationale: not against the idea in principle but do not see it as necessary and wish to fell this tree while it s still a sapling. (There is a precedent of catting sportspeople by state and province, so doing so by English county at some point would make sense.) Mayumashu (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio; as the different wording (not to mention its contents!) indicates, that has nothing to do with where people are "from," but rather groups together players by team categories for teams that actually play in Columbus. I don't think any of the "Sportspeople from Foo" categories should exist at the city level, because they don't target where they actually played, so those could be merged per nom. But a better solution would be to rename those to "Sportspeople in Foo" and prune accordingly. Postdlf (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'people from' cat pages have included those resident to a place, even if rather temporarily. (I wonder if 'people of' is not a better wording to include both people from and people in}. Actually, the contents of the 'sportspeople from' pages also tend to list, along with sportspeople native to the place, players for sport teams (as sub-cat pages) in the place in question Mayumashu (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I couldn't believe how well-populated these categories are and how well-organized they structure athletes from each city. This is a model that should be used for all major cities. Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio appears to summarize players on teams based in the city, and I'm not sure how widespread that is. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I created it to lead by example, so it might be the only one at present. I'd like to see all of the city-level categories focus on players who actually play in the city, leaving the "Sportspeople from Foo" structure at no deeper than state level. Regardless of the outcome of this CFD, there should be one place to find all of the players by team subcategories for a given city. Postdlf (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/Upmerge. I understand the principle here, but it's covered by category:Sports in Columbus, Ohio, et al. I don't think giving the teams their own categories is a good idea, and I think categorizing the individuals by city is too specific. But I could be wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose and probably expand category scheme. I created Category:Sportspeople from Peoria, Illinois because the proportion of sports figures was so dominant. Currently, there are 24 articles in Category:Sportspeople from Peoria, Illinois vs. 91 for Category:People from Peoria, Illinois — that's about 21% for Peoria. One could probably assume it's a similar percentage for other locations. That's just people whose hometown is allegedly Peoria, not those who played on some Peoria team. At the time I created the category and populated it, it seemed more between a third and a half to me. From an editor's stanpoint, the sportspeople articles are often basic statistics pages generated by templated article generators, and finding non-statistical information for these people often involves a lot of extra work trying to dodge the endless, duplicative statistics sites on the web. It creates a lot of work for non-sports editors. And from a general encyclopedic standpoint, clearly that profession so dominates biographical entries on Wikipedia that it's sustainable for any city that, for example, is big enough to be the name city for a United States metropolitan area or media market. I'm surprised that there aren't similar categories for most larger cities already. It has certainly made Category:People from Peoria, Illinois more managable. I can even see why there ought to be both "from" and "in" categories: in addition to Category:Sportspeople from Peoria, Illinois (which are for people whose hometown is Peoria), there are already several categories for team personnel in Peoria, Illinois: Category:Bradley Braves men's basketball coaches, Category:Bradley Braves men's basketball players, Category:Bradley Braves soccer players, Category:Peoria Chiefs players, Category:Peoria Pirates players, Category:Peoria Rivermen players, Category:Peoria Rivermen (ECHL) players, Category:Peoria Rivermen (IHL) players. But those can probably go in a new Category:Sports in Peoria, Illinois, which I'll create now. --Closeapple (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delele or Upmerge per nom and Mike Selinker. Also the logic of creating this from data in Category:People from Peoria, Illinois is not sound when you expand it to the broader wiki. Clearly that 21% does not hold for Category:People from Las Vegas, Nevada when people are notable for other reasons like Andre Agassi as a philanthropist in the community, or Danny Gans as an entertainer. This category structure shows the flaws we have in all of the people from where we don't really consider what makes them notable in a place. Then we could look at Ernie Gonzalez who would wind up in a Vegas sports category, but probably has no Vegas related notability, much less in sports. In the end the concept has too many issues and will be used to further OCAT for many individuals, hence another maintenance nightmare. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's why I created Category:Sportspeople in Columbus, Ohio to tie the notability to the place, unlike the "from" categories, which should also be renamed to "sportspeople in Foo" or upmerged. Postdlf (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Jewish actors

Category:Jewish actors - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Per [1] (which was nominated for deletion and deleted because Judaism "is not a nationality"), such categories are to be deleted. There is no encyclopedic relationship between Judaism and being an actor. BirgerOJ (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree Many places have and have had their Jewish theaters. Just type "Jewish theater..." in the search box. There are actors who use their Jewishness as a main theme of their acts, like Woody Allen and many others I know. If the nominators argument is sometimes correct, this is a case where it surely isn't. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • People known for their work in Jewish theatre belong in a category on Jewish theatre. It does not mean we have to have a category of any actor who happens to be Jewish, Judaism and Jewish theatre are two different things. Most of the people in this category are not known for work in Jewish theatre, but are, mostly American, actors who just happen either to be Jewish, or in many cases not be Jewish themselves, but have a Jewish parent, or perhaps a Jewish grandparent. Some of the people included aren't even religious but could rather be described as Category:Atheist actors. Some of them are even Category:Christian actors. BirgerOJ (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nb Category:Yiddish theatre performers is a sub-cat of this one. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what Birger just said? Bulldog123 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Didn't some editors ask for a pause in the "Jewish nominations"? Debresser (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Yes they did. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. If the "community" has no uniform opinion whether the adjective refers to a nationality or ethnicity or culture or race (?!) - better erase any mention of it and salt it, until a firm and unequivocal policy appears... some day. This is exactly the case of no consensus on core subject, but a particular nomination may turn out slightly pro or slightly contra depending on the noun in the cat name. Fraudsters are bad, actors are good, and the circle continues. NVO (talk) 11:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The community has a clear opinion, expressed by the creation of these categories and their long existence and many articles. It is some "revisors" at Cfd that try to raise objections. They seem to forget that their arguments should always reflect community consensus. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The community has a clear opinion that Judaism is not a nationality, as demonstrated by several recent deletions of similar categories. It's much easier to create than to delete a category. The fact that certain contributors create "Jewish" categories en masse, doesn't mean they are valid. BirgerOJ (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – this seems to be connected with User:Beganlocal's bizarre pointy nom of 2 days ago - see this diff. These seem to be 'one-track.mind' editors (or 'few-tracks-mind') (I do not include otto in this description - his mind is multi-facetted and his cfd noms wondrous in their scope and variety). It is not clear to me why we do not await the closure of recent similar cfds to see where consensus lies as of June 2009 before listing more. (There is much contention but no consensus on these that I can perceive.) I agree with Debresser's comments - this intersection is not trivial; and this category has been around since 2006, has attracted no attention until now and can thus be deemed to reflect consensus. Occuli (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rebuttal -- Seems to be a very strong consensus, over many years (at least since 2005). A huge number of these Jewish categories were created by Eliyak. Easy to create; long process to delete. Recently:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 6
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish jurists
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish United States Supreme Court justices
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish American activists
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish children

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 11
  • Proposal to delete Category:Americans of Jewish descent
  • Proposal to delete Category:Poles of Jewish descent

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 13
  • Proposal to delete:
    • Category:Argentines of Jewish descent
    • Category:Australians of Jewish descent
    • Category:Canadians of Jewish descent
    • Category:Dutch people of Jewish descent
    • Category:English people of Jewish descent
    • Category:French people of Jewish descent
    • Category:Italians of Jewish descent
    • Category:Mexicans of Jewish descent
    • Category:Russians of Jewish descent
    • Category:Slovenians of Jewish descent
    • Category:South Africans of Jewish descent
    • Category:Spaniards of Jewish descent

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 20
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish libertarians

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 1
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish bankers
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish journalists
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish philologists
  • Proposal to delete Category:Jewish physicians

• Note that those groupings were nominated a week apart. All were deleted. No need to endlessly prolong the process, since policy is well established (more than 4 years). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is irrelevant without a corresponding list of the many that have been kept or renamed. Occuli (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I resent the implication that I am involved in the creation of large numbers of spurious categories. I have created a few of those in Jews by occupation, which I felt were especially notable, and this is one of those. The involvement of Jews in the entertainment industry is a phenomenon which has been noted and discussed very often. --Eliyak T·C 00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How about the involvement of Christians in the entertainment industry? I suspect there are several of them as well. This category is a prime example of categories without any encyclopedic interest, and which are only bragging on behalf of a religion (see how many Jews who are inventors, actors, Nobel Prize laureates etc.). We don't categorize other religions like that, we generally don't categorize Jews that way either, at least not when the category cannot serve the purpose of bragging (Jewish fraudsters got deleted, despite the fact that fraudsters is an established category with a number of other national/ethnic categories). BirgerOJ (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A long time ago on a policy-discussion talk page, somebody (can't recall the username now) mentioned that these Jewish categories (and lists) were created by users who were trying to assert a POV of a new way of thinking about Judaism - a religion/ethnicity/race/culture that encompasses everyone and applies to everyone's career regardless of their individual situations - that's why (unlike any other categories on wikipedia) as soon as a rumor props up that someone is of Jewish descent, it only takes a couple of minutes until one of these users adds a dozen Jewish categories to their page. Given the sheer massive amount of these lists/categories that have sprout out over the years, I'm beginning to think they were right. Bulldog123 07:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Occuli, and because for once it is one of a well-developed category of similar ethnic or sub-national categories Category:Actors by ethnic group. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Actors by ethnic group is a recent Hmains creation. Not well developed at all. Just a few subcategories, such as Category:Pornographic film actors by ethnicity, as fine an example as any....
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Footnote: I created this category Category:Actors by ethnic group one year ago (recent?) when cleaning up the category Category:Actors by nationality as these were not nationality cats; they were ethnic. Hmains (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cleaning up is a good thing. Accidentally adding a religious category to an ethnic groups category is a bad thing, leading to complications. (Yes, 1 year is relatively recent.)
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- religion not essential to the occupation.
  1. If these are claimed to be "Jewish ethnicity", then the form would replace the nationality; for example, Category:Jewish American actors, long deleted. But it's not ethnicity form, so that argument is moot.

Looks to me like many are in this category because of possibly Jewish surnames, without any references to either Judaism or its intersection with their occupation.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Johnbod and Category:Actors by ethnic group. Acting is one area where one is often defined by ethnicity and "type," for better or for worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Leslie Howard (actor) didn't seem to spoil Gone with the Wind (film) as a being cast against "type" as a Jew playing a Gentile, but perhaps that view isn't uniform. And no doubt thousands of other examples could be cited, either way, but WP must keep its stereotypes and prejudices I suppose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There are dozens to hundreds of sources that address the subject of the Jewish actor as a strong defining characteristic and the fact that other vaguely similar categories have been deleted has no relevance to mandating deletion of this category. The problem with the deletion process is that it takes seconds to nominate a category and delete it, hile undoing the damage from bad deletions can take hours. Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As Alansohn says, Jewish involvement in the entertainment professions (as producers, directors, writers, AND actors), is a subject of extensive popular and scholarly interest. The nominator may be of the opinion that there is no "encyclopedic relationship" but numerous writers would disagree. Here a few, for starters:

• Henry Bial, Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen, ISBN 9780472069088
• Marline Otte, Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 ISBN 9780521856300
• Paul Buhle, From the Lower East Side to Hollywood: Jews in American popular culture, ISBN 9781859845981
• Jonathan C. Friedman, Rainbow Jews: Jewish and gay identity in the performing arts, ISBN 9780739114483
• Ted Merwin, In their own image: New York Jews in Jazz Age popular culture ISBN 9780813538099
• Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, ISBN 9780385265577

--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thesse all refer to Jews who perform in Jewish-themed, Jewish-based performing arts. I take it that if this is your argument, you'd be fine with me pruning Category:Jewish actors to only include such actors, right? I'll gladly do it, but you have to understand that means 80% of the current entries will be gone. Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's incorrect. A consistent theme in Jewish studies is that Jewishness (in all its great varieties) impacts the experiences of Jews and non-Jews in the "outside" world. In performing arts, Jewishness is expressed (according to the academics) in all sorts of ways, in everything from the Marx Brothers to Seinfeld. Much of it isn't explicitly religious or ethnic at all. The first book cited above talks about "a double-coding by which performers enact, and spectators read, Jewishness in contemporary performance-and, by extension, enact and read other minority identities."[2] Another talks about "the formative Jewish influence upon the rise and development of American popular culture"[3] You don't have to agree with this thesis, or like it, and you are free to ignore these categories, but the fact remains that they reflect serious and long-lived academic and popular points of view, and that's all the evidence it should take to support the maintenance of encyclopedic structures at Wikipedia that are devoted to assisting those who are interested better understand and organize these points of view.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So because there exists an academic theory that as soon as Jewish blood touches someones lineage they're all part of the same acting experience, we bundle everyone together in this category? So Helen Hunt (who is a quarter Jewish) has the same "Jewish experience" in performance as the Marx Brothers? Bulldog123 08:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Judaism is indeed not a nationality, but it is an ethnicity; if not why is anti-smeitism a form of racial prejudice (or worse)? Is not some one conducting an anti-semitic campaing within WP? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep.

1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to do anything, there need not be a "Jewish" way to do anything for there to be a category. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

2. Heritage. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish ___" is clearly contemplated, saying ...

Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

Per Wikipedia:Categorization of people, Wikipedia also "supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Also, as it states "People are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation, such as Category:Ethiopian musicians."

Furthermore, per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, "General categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality is permitted', with the following considerations:

1. Terminology must be neutral....
2. Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
3. Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.

Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, there was no valid reason to delete Category:Jewish fraudsters (prime example: Bernard Madoff, well known as not only an observant Jew, but who also financed the bulk of American Jewish institutions with his stolen money) and the category needs to be recreated. Either keep both, or delete both. Simple as that. I really don't care as long as the same policy is applied to both. BirgerOJ (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[sarcasm] You can't have that, Birger! Jewish fraudsters is a negative category! [/sarcasm]. Bulldog123 08:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete ethnciity/racial/religious category that's WP:OCAT - Jews play non-Jews and vice versa and nothing seems amiss ; and some Jews act and some don't, so this seems a trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reminder: This is not an ethnicity category, this is a religious category!
  1. All ethnicity categories would be paired with a nationality: Category:Jewish American actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was once an example on the policy page (long deleted).
  2. All other religious actors categories have been deleted:
     • Category:Christian actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Category:Mormon actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Category:Presbyterian actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Category:Hindu actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Category:Muslim actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
     • Category:Sikh actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• There have been no refutations of the policy and/or guidelines for religious categories.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is manifest nonsense - see Category:Actors by ethnic group, to which this belongs. As pointed out above Jews share characteristics of a nation, ethnicitry and religion. I don't think Jewish actors are noted for their devotion. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only "manifest nonsense" is that this is an ethnic category. Proof by assertion isn't a good argument. All ethnicity categories are of the form Fooian-Barian Fooers. This isn't following the ethnicity naming convention, it's following the religion naming convention. Since you agree that these folks aren't "noted for their devotion", then it's clear that this is an improper categorization. If you find some Jewish actors that are notable for their religion acting, then the category could be recreated at some future time.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY! Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep - censorship of valid/factual data and rabid deletionism must be stringently opposed on Wikipedia, especially in relation to all of these Jewish categories which are currently under censorious assault. This is also an extremely well-populated category...to delete it would mean to pointlessly negate years worth of data gathering and leave a gaping hole in the categorical backbone of this encyclopedia which purports to be a gathering place for all human knowledge. I also continue to wonder why so many Jewish related categories continue to be singled out from the rest for deletion/censorship - for instance, why was this one nominated for deletion/censorship before all of the other subcategories found in Category:Actors by ethnic group? --Wassermann (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete All the "keep" arguments refer to Jewish actors who somehow perform/deal-with "Jewish-themes" in the performing arts. This is not what this category is for. This category is for anyone with Jewish background who also happens to be an actor. Take note that Adam Lambert was recently added, for god's sake. That is not a defining intersection. See: Wikipedia:EIN for more information. Bulldog123 03:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Gardening hypermarkets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: DELETE. Postdlf (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Gardening hypermarkets - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: There's no such thing as a "gardening hypermarket". The term turns up 8 hits on google. Not likely to expand if it isn't even a real term, eh? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, an improbable combination. NVO (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. لennavecia 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.