Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky

Category:Jewish_People

Richard, I'm wondering why you removed the "Jewish People" category from the article? --Eric2009 17:56, 3 February 2009 (EST)

his books sold to the science fiction audience-- his "belief" in them I think was part of his game. He was not important as a Jew and doesn't deserve that category, I think. RJJensen 18:45, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I believe the category "Jewish People", refers to "people who follow the Jewish religion", not necessarily whether he was an important Jew? One of Velikovsky's biographer's considers his Jewishness important enough to write an article "The Jewish Science of Immanuel Velikovsky", Aeon vol.2 No.6, 1991. Between 1947-1948, Velikovsky had published over 40 articles in the N.Y. Post editorial page, dealing with the Middle East and the new state of Israel.(ref) Velikovsky begun the Scripta Academica series "as a basis for a Hebrew Academy based in Jerusalem."(ref) --Eric2009 08:11, 11 February 2009 (EST)

I think "Jewish people" is a useful category only if the person played an important role in Jewish affairs. You make the case that he did so, so I agree w the category now. RJJensen 12:32, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for the reconsideration, I'll update the category. I wonder whether there should be different categories for (a) just being Jewish (b) playing a role in Jewish affairs? --Eric2009 13:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Category:Authors

I note that the category "authors" has been removed, and was wondering what the rationale for this is? After all, he was an author of 8 books, his first being a New York Times number one best seller for 9 weeks, and top ten best seller for 27 week, and initiating a "controversy" that lasted many years. (ref) --Eric2009 13:25, 14 February 2009 (EST)

The categories, it seems to me, ought to lead readers to the most important articles about leading people students should know about. (A category with 10,000 names is no help at all) V doesn't make the cut as author, and just barely makes it as a Jewish leader, in my opinion.RJJensen 00:06, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Won't different students need to know about different authors? Someone who is investigating "catastrophism", "pseudoscience", "mythology", and perhaps other subjects, may find Velikovsky a relevant author? I'll see if I can get a second opinion on the general use of categories on conservapedia.com. It seems to me, that you're either an author, or you're not. --Eric2009 09:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I agree thyat a student looking at say "catastrophism" or "pseudoscience" would find V a very useful case study. I suggest the "author" category should guide students to finding the great writers of world literature. RJJensen 10:51, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I'd say that "Authors" is a good top-level category for all authors regardless of level of success. Included amongst its subcategory could be "Great Writers of World Literature". A problem I see, however, is edit or talk page warring about who fits in said subcategory. WesleyS^Hello! 10:57, 15 February 2009 (EST)

My suggestion would be to subdivide the "Authors" category into either genres or eras, because as it stands, that category has 3 subcategories and 362 articles. I personally agree that V merits being listed amongst the authors, but we're going to have to do some work in subcategorizing the authors category. WesleyS^Hello! 10:53, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Currently there are seven subcats, three on the first 200, and four on the second 200. I agree with the need for more subcats. --DeanS^talk 10:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Oops, you are correct. Currently we are looking at Essayists, Historians, Journalists, Playwrights, Poets, Slavic Authors, and Women Authors. We could break what is left in the Authors category down by, say, Science Authors, Science-Fiction Authors, Religious Authors, Novelists, etc. WesleyS^Hello! 11:13, 15 February 2009 (EST)

It would make sense to sub-categorize "authors", and all sorts of categories are possible, including their subject (science writers, science fiction writers), No. 1 best-sellers, etc etc. --Eric2009 11:29, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Category:science fiction

Not Science Fiction, just bad science. I removed the categorization as SF, because Velikovsky was serious about what he wrote. Canuck 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)

Agreed, his books may well be wrong, but they have never been place in the Science Fiction category, and they were never written as SF. --Eric2009 05:11, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I also disagree with the "science fiction" category. The comment above that the books "sold to the science fiction audience" is not justification even if it's a fair assessment, which I doubt. Philip J. Rayment 02:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

I think there are two issues here (1) Was the book "sold to the science fiction audience" (2) Even if it was, is the science fiction category justified based on the audience? After all, the book was read by numerous scientists that criticized it; do we add the "science/scientist" cagegory? --Eric2009 09:59, 15 February 2009 (EST)