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 has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
WP:Categorization of people#General considerations instructs us to "Categorize by those characteristics that make the person notable" - We don't even have a source to support the claim that Dobruska was a Freemason, so his membership in the fraternity is secondary (or even trivial) to what made him notable. The category should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with citation but if that's sorted then the line "one of the main conspirators of the “Knights of St. John the Evangelists for Asia in Europe,” " seems to belie the idea that this was a trivial fact in his life. Are you reading these articles before you take the categorisation out? This is the second example I've seen where you say it's secondary or trivial but this is belied in the article. JASpencer (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps... but if that is the case, the categorization rests on two bits unsourced (and potentially unverifiable) information... 1) that Dobruska actually was a member of the "Knights of St. John the Evangelists for Asia in Europe", and 2) that the Knights actually were a Masonic group. We definitely should not categorize people based on unsourced information. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
