Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep.

There was no consensus to support the argument that the list was not notable. Coverage was presented and only a few editors, admittedly quite forcefully, took issue with whether the coverage of the topic of Jewish Nobel laureates was significant. The pro-notability arguments were quite strong (see for example Christopher Connor and Jayjg). The arguments raised on the delete side generally concerned issues other than notability.

One general concern was the maintenance of the list: that it may be subject to the inappropriate inclusion of persons who do not identify as Jews, or that it would be susceptible to BLP violations or POV pushing. These are legitimate concerns but it has not been shown that they warrant the deletion of the article.

Another argument was that WP:BLPCAT precludes the list because it is based on religious beliefs. The principles of BLPCAT are explicitly applicable to lists. The argument therefore has some force. However, it is also pointed out that Judaism is more than a religious belief, and that BLPCAT does not exclude ethnicity. This argument also has force and there is no consensus either way.

A further argument was that being Jewish bears little to no relationship to winning a Nobel Prize, being a prize awarded without reference to religion or ethnicity; therefore, it is an entirely random and inappropriate intersection to support a list. This argument also has merit, but is balanced on the other hand by the valid arguments that the intersection has received significant coverage, and the argument that Jews have received a disproportionately high number of Nobel prizes.

A further argument was that the coverage in sources would only support a prose article instead of a list article. It's a valid point and I suspect many of these lists have arisen without accompanying prose articles simply (and with all due respect to WP:FLC) because it is easier to create lists than write prose. But it hasn't really been explained why we can't have both other than by reference to policies such as BLPCAT, the applicability of which is disputed.

The above summary is necessarily succinct as it can be, and doesn't cover every single argument, subargument and rebuttal made. So I apologise if some feel the summary is overly broad or misses some points made. I assure you I have read the AfD in detail and my health is none the better for it. Suffice to say that in my view, the arguments supporting the deletion of the article do not have consensus support, either individually or taken together. Nor is there a consensus to keep: a number of valid deletion arguments were made and supported by a large number of editors. The headcount here is about 9354235-9354234 and is affected by a number of partisan and reflexive !votes on either side, so the focus has to be on the arguments, all the more so given the allegations of canvassing. It's a firm no consensus if there is such a thing: nothing remotely approaching a consensus to keep or delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. There is no inherent connection between the topics. We do not have other lists of Nobel laureates by religion, no List of Christian Nobel laureates, no List of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc. There is no reason this could not be handled by a category, such that the regular editors of the biographical article could ensure accurate inclusion. Many of those editors may not even be aware of this article, and the repeated inclusion of Andre Geim despite being a living person who does not self-identify as Jewish shows the problem here. There may be many other invalid inclusions, better to use a category and let knowledgeable people about each subject maintain inclusion. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Yworo, I beg you to acknowledge that Jews are also an ethnicity before somebody comes on and says "!keep ethnicity is notable." Bulldog123 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, but also not a valid intersection on which to build a list. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that several of the people on the list do not selfidentify as jewish is the big problem in my opinion. It seems a little like applying the Nuremberg laws retroactively.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be attempting to classify every Nobel laureate by their Jewishness; of all the current AFD Jewish lists, this is by the most problematic. It's just not as far as it should be from putting little yellow stars into List of Nobel laureates. Rd232 talk 11:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this article was deleted in 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). I find no evidence that this deletion was ever officially overturned via process, so technically this is a recreation of a deleted article. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was nominated on deletion and kept. Second nomination in less than a year is simply a waste of community time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is for the community to decide what it considers a 'waste of time'. Given the number of participants in this discussion, I'd suggest there is little evidence that your suggestion is of merit. Argue the case, not the history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe recreating articles is allowed unless expressly prohibited (except when done in a disruptive way). --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the previous list, so I don't know how different they are. Perhaps an admin can enlighten us. But if they were nearly identical (which I think is unlikely), then the early 2010 AfD would have effectively been a review of the 2007 deletion of this list, and could be interpreted as having overturned it. --Avenue (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You realize the only reason this list exists is because a CATEGORY like this would be put up for CFD and deleted immediately per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list has to have something encyclopedic to justify its existence. "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. Yet, list of blonde actresses would still not be an eligible list on wikipedia. I'm not saying these lists are equivalent. I'm just giving an example. There's a reason other wikis don't have this list yet (nor are they pining for it). Bulldog123 15:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven't read the sources in the article because if you did you would see that most of the sources don't actually provide a (full) list and do actually discuss the phenomenon of Jewish Nobel laureates. As above, a quick check on the sources would show that. I could provide quotes from the books but that would be unnecessary. Even after I disproved your assertion that no secondary sources exist, you still want to insist on further falsehoods. That seems to be your tactic: keep making false statements in the hope that no-one notices and to also force people to do work to disprove you. You now also say "some of those refs are clearly vanity publications" ... Christopher Connor (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just unnecessary, it's synthesizing false notions. These people are not famous for being JEWISH Nobel Prize winners. They're famous for being Nobel Prize winners. They happen to have Jewish ancestry also. As for the surreptitious comment - it's most regarding what's been happening on Andre Geim - and you may have not been around yet for when this happened with other lists. Category:Jewish mathematicians was deleted and List of Jewish mathematicians (which has been lingering around untouched for years now) started getting linked to all the former articles. Bulldog123 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the user that added the link to this article from the articles of the listed laureates, I personally object to the to accusation that this was done "surreptitiosly". As pointed out above, I posted a comment on the Talk page to the article, to the effect that I had inserted the link. As to the reason for such link, I took the view that a user reading an article on a laureate who happened to be of Jewish descent might be interested in seeing the list of other Jewish laureates. Davshul (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ended up seeing this list via the biography of Andre Geim, recent Nobel laureate in physics who describes himself as having a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. His name got stuck onto the list, which changed its rules in order to justify the addition of somebody who was briefly described in a 2006 computer journal as Jewish, with a few other sources picking up that info no doubt from the Googlable first one. List enthusiasts claim its methods need not be limited by WP:BLPCAT because it is a list not a category, although it gets used to tag articles like Geim's "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates' thus asserting "without disclaimers or modifiers" that Geim is Jewish. And if a curious reader clicks to the List, again there are no modifiers, and certainly no explanation that the rule in force, since it got changed after Geim's win, is only ""A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew." The list is a magnet for POV-pushers who care less about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia than they do about stretching the length of the list by one name--even though putting fake names on the list serves to devalue the list's integrity. If the list fell under some Wikipedia rule for putting (or not) people on it, preferably including for living laureates a requirement for self-identification as Jewish, I would feel differently. But the list enthusiasts make up their own rules. betsythedevine (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously should be kept per Christopher Connor. Issue of the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Prize winners specifically discussed in several reliable secondary sources. Fortunately, WP:Notability is a guiding rule in Wikipedia, not WP:Political correctness. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A very notable intersection. There's a fair number of sources about the oddly large size of this intersection. The intersection is thus naturally relevant and makes sense as a list. We may need to be careful about inclusion criteria but that's not a reason to delete. (edit conflicted with Plot Spoiler who said almost the exact same thing.) JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • CommentOne can imagine research on the intersection of Nobel Prizes with Jewish ethnic heritage, but is there any such interest in the intersection of Nobel Prizes with people who have been described as Jewish despite having minimal numbers of Jewish "genes"? I can see the potential interest of an article about "Nobel laureates who are ethnically Jewish" but NOT of what we have now, "Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Out of curiosity here, Joshua - because your position on this baffles me the most considering you're one of the more eloquent and levelheaded !keep voters here - why do you consider the qualification "[an] oddly large... intersection" to automatically qualify something as having encyclopedic value? Why is this list given special treatment over something like List of white Nobel Prize laureates. After all, white people form only 1/5th (20%) of the world's population but 93%+ of Nobel Prize laureates. Right? And there's actually plenty of secondary sources and scholarly analysis to back it up as notable. Would you support such a list with as much fervor? Bulldog123 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an interesting question (although frankly I don't think I'm that eloquent. Talking a lot is not the same thing. A bit flattering though). There seems to be some intuitive, almost visceral reaction that there's a difference. But that seems to be primarily on emotional grounds, and dislike of certain forms of racism along with my own dislike of Murray and Jensen (more in the form of "seriously guys, do you know how much freaking privilege white people have had in the last hundred years?" sort of thing). One could make some sort of argument that the ratio distinction is much more extreme in this case but that shouldn't be an argument for Wikipedia since it is essentially OR. One could make a WP:WEIGHT] argument by claiming that the idea that the prominence of Caucasians has anything other than a trivial position is a more fringe claim, but it would seem suspiciously convenient that the cut-off between somewhat-fringey and too-fringe would be just where emotional reactions become more severe. The only argument I find that seems to actually distinguish them is one of practicality: when you are talking about 90% of a long list, marking a separate list for that 90% seems like a not great idea. But overall I think that if someone made such a list I'd have to more or less hold my nose, scrunch my face into an unhappy grimace, and say "keep". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This specific intersection is a notable topic due to its disproportionately. This is supported by the multitude of sourcing and scholarly material cited in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your response appears to veer into let-me-throw-everything-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks, so let me respond on just one aspect, the claim that there is no scholarly material discussing the intersection between Jews and Nobel Prize winners is unequivically false. This much is evidenced by the sources in the article and cited in this discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". And following logically, a Jewish Nobel Prize winner is presumably not treated differently from a Christian or Atheist one. If anyone wan't to suggest that a list isn't compiled by category, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatent attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation is only important when directly related to article subject's activities. This (and similar lists) serves no valid purpose, and is only used for vanity and bragging. I'm not sure if any of the keep editors has ever seen a real encyclopedia, but this is not something that belongs in one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what's the basis for a 'strong' delete" as opposed to a regular delete?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so its a strong delete when it violates several wikipedia policies and a plain delete when it violates only one wikipedia policy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
crickets. i ask because two out of three "policies" you mentioned are actually guidelines, not policies, and they apply to categories not lists. The other policy, NPOV, seems to be a WP:VAGUEWAVE. so i was kind of hoping that perhaps we can have a downgrade or two.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [1] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My AfDs are entirely serious; I sincerely believe those lists are non-notable intersections and BLP-violation magnets that should be deleted. My explanation is perfectly clear, and policy based. Now, please redact your untrue personal comments about me, assume good faith, and act with more consistency in the future. Thanking you in advance. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 0

edit
You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
A family member intervened, claiming that Otto Warburg would "turn in his grave" if he knew that he were presented as a "Jewish Nobel Laureate." - Jews and sciences in German contexts: case studies from the 19th and 20th ... By Ulrich Charpa, Ute Deichmann Pg 26
This issue apparently extends to dead as well. Bulldog123 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Richard Feynman would have been another opt-out, as he was from a 1960s book on Jewish laureates, when he wrote to its author "requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes."betsythedevine (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That letter ought to be reproduced in full in this discussion. As nominator, I will refrain from doing it myself, but should any other choose to do so I will support its inclusion. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Feynman

Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting involved in another absurd Afd timesink, but it needs to be said, that in addition to being a brilliant scientist, Feynman was also known for some very strange views. For example, he apparently had difficulty accepting the germ theory of disease, as he believed that tooth brushing was unncessary and that hand washing, especially after using the toilet, was a "superstition". Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Feynman letter is absolutely correct, but irrelevant to the discussion. Feynman's (40 year old) letter is responding to a book that proposes to draw the conclusion that his success is BECAUSE he is Jewish. No one (I hope) is making the claim here that there is a CAUSAL relationship between Jewishness and Nobel success (well, except in the case of authors nominated for their contributions to Yiddish literature or politicians nominated for their work on behalf of Israel). We are saying there is a a CATEGORICAL relationship - that of the total number of Nobel Prize laureates, enough of them are Jewish to make a meaningful list of them. Possibly in either case Feynman does not belong on this list. That's okay. Clearly some people DO belong on it, and the presence of some dubious entries does not invalidate the possibility of a list composed solely of appropriate ones. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully sympathize with Feynman's views. Unfortunately Wikipedia does not have a policy of political correctness. I see that the letter is 43 years old. The fact that it is still reproduced makes it notable, and by extension the topic itself.
An other argument for keeping would this. We do not have an article named List of Israeli Nobel laureates. The reason is that reliable sources do not cover that topic, but instead link Israelis together with the broader topic of Jewish Nobel laureates. Besides – heaven behold – we might one day even have an Palestinian-Israeli Nobel laureate! Would we respect the wishes of those who would not want to be listed in the same article? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – Is this article related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? How about the conflict on Race and intelligence? ...or Fascism? How is my party / tag team voting? Or should I just check how my opponents voted and vote against them? Too long; didn't read. I guess I will just have to make up my own mind. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nergal said, in effect, "you only did that because you're a Jew", which is highly inappropriate at best. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates is, in fact, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation, primarily because we don't have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the intersection of "Chinese" and "Nobel laureates". On the other hand, we do have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the notable intersection "Jewish" and "Nobel laureates". And here's the real "truth of the matter"; almost none of the users who are so vehemently trying trying to keep this list have even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors -- which are FAR WORSE situations. It's clear the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates. This has become blindingly obvious; it's mostly an issue because 3 or 4 editors want to keep Geim off the list, and attempt to win an editing dispute by deleting the article. Thus, the reasons for advocating the deletion of this list have, in reality, nothing to do with policy (I exclude you from this, Bulldog123, since you are one of the few editors who has actually advanced a consistent position on this topic). Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Neergal said was unwarranted, and a breach of WP:NPA. However, I consider Jayjg's later response that "the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates" to be a much more gross generalisation and a more grave breach of WP:NPA, giving a clear intimation of prejudice. I think it shows the weakness of some arguments presented here that such attacks are being resorted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't intimated prejudice, I've pointed out, quite factually, that many of the "delete" voters here are concerned with an extremely narrow issue with one or two individuals on one list, mostly unrelated to policy, rather than the larger systemic issues, policies and problems they claim to be concerned about. And I've also pointed out that their inconsistencies are what really "shows the weakness of some arguments presented here". See more at my comment below. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the Feynman red herring, and Bobby Fischer. I believe the entire Feynman discussion is a red herring. Bobby Fischer renounced his American citizenship. He is listed and categorized as an American on Wikipedia. As well he should be under wiki guidelines, because at one point he was American. We don't in knee-jerk fashion say to ourselves: "Gosh, Fischer would if he were alive be upset to be called American -- let's therefore delete all American lists from Wikipedia! That is tantamount to some of what has been suggested on this page. The way we handle such issues is on a case-by-case, individual fashion. We don't kill the patient to stop the pain of it's hangnail.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above: How exactly is a Nobel laureate of Jewish descent stating that he doesn't want to be included in a book about Nobel laureates of Jewish descent a 'red herring'? He was precisely on-topic, which is more than can be said for some of the arguments presented here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User Jayjg (talk · contribs)'s logical arguments. IZAK (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you truly regard these as being of equal significance, or of being of equal interest? DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I don't think that this one passes the threshold either.... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an arbitrary intersection. Yes, there are plenty of people promoting Jewish culture who are interested in the topic of which people of Jewish heritage have achieved some success, and accordingly there are several references where enthusiasts have likewise listed Jewish Nobel Prize winners. However, every other significant grouping of people has similar enthusiasts who would like to publish any connection between their group and some form of success. Wikipedia should only have intersection lists where there is some independent study of the intersection as a topic (e.g. How does being Jewish affect winning this prize? If the loose criteria for being "Jewish" were applied to other groups of similar size, would the other group have some significantly different result with regard to this prize?). This list has no encyclopedic purpose other than original research to promote a POV with regard to the success of a particular religion/ethnicity/elastic grouping. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if there are several Amish ones, make a list. there's a fundamental difference in intrinsic important between being Amish, or Jewish, and having visited Paris. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Non trivial intersection; some recipients are notable for being Jewish, and for being Nobel Prize laureates. Perfectly allowable under WP:SALAT. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unquestionably strong Keep The principle should be that every defined binary ethnic or religious or national intersection with occupations or professions or prizes or anything else ought to be kept, both as a list and a category--the only ones that should require evidence of the intersection itself being significant are tertiary intersections, and the standard of proof for that should not be very onerous. The only difficulty with these in particular is whether to regard "Jewish" as ethnic or religious or genetically related population group--this debate is not going to be settled at Wikipedia, so all we can do is go by the broadest sense, including any one of these, using the criterion of either self-identifies or generally recognized by multiple reliable sources including those from outside the group involved--i.e., a Ruritanian source is likely to over identify people as being Ruritanian in dubious cases. People come to encyclopedias for this sort of collected information, and in case of doubt, that should be our criterion--with respect to our own identity: free, and open, and uncensored, however important, are just adjectives qualifying the truly basic concept, that we are an encyclopedia. this is not promotional, but informative. the proof that it is merely informative, is that it could be used equally to show the true importance or the unfair over-represenbtation of the Jewish winners--this is purely neutral information. I see no reason why people interested in promoting Jewish culture would be the only ones interested. I'd like to see a similar list for Buddhist , or Irish--and I have no conceivable special interest in them. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is not WP:INTERESTING because... ? "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. So, list of blonde actresses is okay right? Don't tell me people wouldn't be interested in that. It's the whole reason most people dye their hair. Bulldog123 17:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an intersection between Jews and Nobel laureates. The article is merely a compilation of those intersections. I don't think it matters whether these intersections occur frequently or infrequently. As long as it is kept accurate it potentially serves a useful purpose. Bus stop (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two main reasons: (1) The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality, hence this is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. (2) Ignoring the former: (a) If "Jewish" is regarded as religion in this context, then delete because there is no List of Christian Nobel laureates etc. (b) If "Jewish" is regarded as ethnicity, we have a problem as soon as someone (i.e. almost everyone nowadays) is of mixed ethnicity; we can't allow him to be listed in List of ethnic Swedish Nobel laureates and this list at the same time or in a few decades/centuries every new Nobel laureate is listed in every list. (c) "Jewish" can't be regarded as nationality because it's not a country (but e.g. List of Swedish Nobel laureates would be fine). (c) If "Jewish" is regarded as "self-identified Jew", then what's the difference to someone who self-identifies as loving Spaghetti? List of Spaghetti-loving Nobel laureates is clearly nonsense. – sgeureka t•c 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though there is no possible valid reason to divide people by race or religion, many people do, and the Wikipedia reflects that. There is news coverage and books about this. Dream Focus 15:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Keep views of Jayjg, Bus Stop, Conner, Brewcrewer and DGG trump the Delete arguments of Bulldog and other editors, in my opinion. Contrary to the Delete editors, there is nothing wrong with listing Nobel Prize winners by whatever category is of interest to encyclopedia users, since the purpose of the encyclopedia is to be a reliable information source, and the propriety of this or that item within a list is no objection to the existence of the list as such, as some of the Delete editors appear to want to argue. Talk pages are provided for just such editorial discussion about particulars. Every single article has questions raised about the propriety of this or that item; this does not lead to the demand for the deletion of all articles. Secondly, the pressure to delete this article above all others and first in line raises its own problematic issues. Thirdly, as for the argument that the Nobel Prize committee does not award the honor on the basis of anything other than significant scientific contributions (or for notable peace efforts), this does not logically mean that analysis or lists based on other criteria are illegitimate. In fact, the opposite is true: the absence of such criteria in Nobel selections enhances rather than diminishes the interest in any other patterns, cultural, national, ethnic, social or what-have-you, that appear in the list, and would make more relevant the fact that Jews, while perhaps 0.25% of the world's population, have contributed 22-25% of Nobel Prizes, an 100% over-representation based solely on meritorious grounds and not ethnicity. Fourthly, this unparalleled over-representation is a significant fact in itself and calls for explanation, and various reasons have been given (so, as Connor has pointed out, it is not the case that no analyses or discussions of this topic exist). Just the intrinsic interest of the subject, and the debate over its causes, makes it worthy of inclusion. Since Jews include almost all the races of humanity in their number even if there is some ethnic continuity down through the ages, so they are not a race, the more likely reasons have to do with cultural and historical factors, and there have indeed been studies of this. It has for example been noted that Ashkenazi Jews are more represented in these Nobel Prizes than Sephardi, most of whom have lived in past centuries in the Muslim world. Of course, cultural patterns can end up having genetic consequences: marriage patterns favoring more Rabbinically learned young Jewish males may have ended up producing more higher IQ descendants. Some have argued that this over-representation has also been influenced by the discrimination Jews have had to deal with in modern European culture, so they over-produce so as to justify their existence and to attain some security in an insecure world; this is also advanced as one reason they tend to go into the professions where they are less subjected to social pressures. So it is not just a matter of ethnicity nor internal cultural and social patterns, but also the larger socio-cultural environment pressuring Jews as individuals in modern societies. Reasons advanced have been many, in any case, but that there is something there of great interest and not just to Jews cannot be doubted. Fifthly, since there are many antisemites who wish systematically and sweepingly to denigrate the Jewish contribution to humanity's well-being, both in the past and in the present, this sort of list provides an important resource to indicate the opposite. Anyone concerned about antisemitism ought therefore to support this list. Sixthly, as for the appropriateness of providing lists of Chinese recipients of Nobel Prizes, I see nothing wrong with that either. Why not? And as with the Jews, it may well have something to do with the traditional strong Chinese valuation of learning, as well as inculcation of strong motivation for industry and responsibility to live up to the family's or community's expectations. So there may be interesting reasons there that are similar in some ways, different in others, from the Jewish case. Seventhly, in regard to Richard Feynman's comments, he is entitled to them, but they cannot provide a rationale for ignoring Jewish contributions to world civilization. They are just his opinion (and his specialization was not in the history and cultural patterns of Jewry, so as an authority he is just another Joe Shmoe), and in any case assume a racial-ethnic argument for inclusion, which is not the only or even the best way of understanding Jewish identity. Feynman himself was clearly shaped by the cultural-social patterns of his background and environment, despite himself. And finally (eighthly), the objection that not all "Jewish" Nobel Prize-winners are clearly and self-identifyingly Jewish is itself part of the wider interest of such a list, not a drawback as claimed. The very frequency with which these Nobel Prize winners were marginal to the Jewish community, and came out of highly assimilated backgrounds (like Feynman), or that some have only fairly remote Jewish ancestry like Geym, relates again to the factors leading to their exceptional contributions: these were indeed sometimes people betwixt and between, who suffered more than self-affirmative and traditionalist Jews the marginality often assigned to Jews in majority culture. This in itself may have helped lead to their very distinctive individual careers, their willingness to criticise the stale consensus and to improve the future, to do something positive for universal benefit and to make noteworthy contributions to Western society. Tempered (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...since there are many antisemites who wish systematically and sweepingly to denigrate the Jewish contribution to humanity's well-being, both in the past and in the present, this sort of list provides an important resource to indicate the opposite. Anyone concerned about anti-Semitism ought therefore to support this list.". Tempered, that is a grossly offensive comment to make. There are many arguments for deletion being put here by people who are can in no way be considered anti-Semitic - do you consider Richard Feynman an anti-Semite for presenting similar arguments?. I suggest you withdraw it immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting response, Grump. The comment I made was a recommendation and justification for retaining the list, not a specific condemnation of you nor in fact a negative comment about anyone specifically, including those advocating deletion, although that group may possibly include antisemites amongst them. It is you who has applied it as a direct criticism. I see nothing to apologize for and stand by what I wrote. It is a manifestly true observation about the world today and therefore a legitimate recommendation, perfectly permissible to make and not insulting to anyone unless they wish it to be. You are the best judge of whether the shoe fits or not. By the way, I was not aware that Richard Feynman voted for deletion of the list.Tempered (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your comments are almost entirely WP:OR, when they are on-topic at all. And You'll note I didn't say this was an attack on me specifically. If you wish to state what you think is 'manifestly true' in the world today, I'll respond by suggesting that others may think your comments were 'manifestly' intended to cast aspersions on those voting for the deletion of this article. And don't try to get away with patronising qualifications about 'whether the shoe fits or not', they look like desperation. Oh, and by the way, if I were you I'd not waste your time writing long off-topic rambling 'justifications' in AfD's, they rarely get read (and can have no bearing on the result in any case), which is probably the reason nobody told you not to be offensive earlier. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
Comment to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one should require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't really see how it's a COI to identify as Jewish and to !vote here, but... I would prefer if everyone could give a better reasoning than "Jews are an ethnicity and this list is notable." Plus, I think everyone gets super sensitive whenever these types of lists are nominated and interpret every off-color remark as a personal attack. Bulldog123 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, I suggest you apologise promptly for the false allegation you made about Nergaal, rather than attempting to hide it by masking its deletion with a misleading edit summary: the diff shows it clearly enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake and I reverted it. There's nothing else to be said about this. I suggest you stop suggesting what I should do, and I assure you I am not going to apologize for calling antisemitic comments "antisemitic comments"--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, we have accusations of antisemitism again. As is always the case in these AfDs. Bulldog123 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Per Christopher Connor this is a notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory - inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. It all depends on what criteria you use, the recent disruption by users at this article and a BLP in an attempt to include someone that is clearly not Jewish, is an example of why this dubious list is a disrupted net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-Supremium Megatron-Softy Keep -- With sugar on top! - Serisouly, though. This is a keep. There is a disproportionate number of Jews who were awarded the prize, to the point where the Arab world speaks of it were a conspiracy. Last I heard, it were 22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population. I think brewcrewer and others iterated a similar point -- this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners -- this is why wikipedia was created -- to share knowledge between people. Several editors expressed concern regarding disruptive conduct, but we have those in many articles relating to Jewish people (see Jerusalem diff) and we can handle such issues without wiping out public-interest encyclopaedic content. Keep. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
> this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners
There isn't going to be anybody curious about this because there is no material on it. I don't know how many times this can be stressed. I feel like a broken record. Not a single one of the provided secondary sources in this article academically probes the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Over half are vanity publications and the others spend less than two paragraphs remarking on Jewish overrepresentation in fields of academia. The one, only, singular source that briefly STUDIES the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize is Charles Murray's sociology article. This is not Charles Murray's wikipedia. If it were, we would also need to create List of black criminals as there's plenty of research of his that considers that too. Bulldog123 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population
It's a nice statistic, but it's also synthesis of unrelated information - 100% of the world population is not in the field of chemistry/physics/medicine/or literature and 100% of the world population is not eligible to be awarded the Nobel Prize even if they were. A statistic worth mentioning might be the population of eligible academics in Nobel committee approved institutions versus Nobel Prize winners. Which, given the Jewish faculty at places like UPenn, is probably not going to be overrepresented by much - if at all. The question of WHY Jews are overrepresented in eligible faculties is something of encyclopedic value (environmental? genetic? divine?), but this list is not. Bulldog123 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Richard Feynman. His statement is a brilliant explanation of why this list is irrelevant. Unless someone can show in what way this intersection is notable, then this article has no purpose. Even if criteria were not being stretched, and the list abused (which some comments above suggest is happening), it would be unnecessary. I would take the same position regarding most of the lists above suggested either as positive or negative examples; though the List of Jewish anarchists mentioned by Jayjg may indeed (I haven't yet looked at it) reflect something more that ethnic knee-jerk listing. RolandR (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • May I suggest you reread Feynman's letter? Feynman isn't saying such lists are intrinsically bad. He's objecting to the fact that the list which included him was part of an attempt to push certain views claiming that the proportion of Jews with Nobel prizes was due to inherited traits. That's a very different claim. Feynman is objecting to that. Nothing in in his argument objects to such lists as such. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per RolandR, aside for Richard Feynman statement that overall is only one view (not necessarily a valid one) but I consider witty (yet wrong) by itself-all other reasons Roland counted actually sharpened why I should vote opposite than him. It's an encyclopedia and not a memorial site which follows desist people last willing.--Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do understand you haven't provided a single reason detailing how this list is of encyclopedic value -- which is what the argument is. The argument is not "Delete this list because Feynman wouldn't like it." Bulldog123 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titanium keep per Plot Spoiler, and actually per RolandR and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial, but that is his right. 'Jews' are a people. The religion is the traditions of this people. It is notable to show the disproportionate number not to prove they are better (certainly not to compare with some 'Aryan' people claims though they make good cars and their economy is one of the few that have export surplus), but in fact the importance of education is important to the Jewish people. --Shuki (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shuki, could we please stay on topic? Whether Jews are a people or a religion or a culture or a group of aliens is not relevant to whether the article should be included. And if you are going to make nasty remarks about one of the most brilliant humans in the last century, the least you could do is spell his name correctly. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, there can be no serious doubt about the notability of this topic, instead the nomination appears to come from the difficulty some people are having with categorization -- and indeed the difficulties others are having in understanding anything much about Jews. I'm finding it tiresome to continually encounter this business: "oh, it's just too much of a hassle, let's just nuke it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "the difficulty some people are having with categorization" is exactly the point. Some people (including Feynman) think that dividing people into arbitrary categories on the basis of supposed 'ethnic' or 'religious' roots, rather than on what the people themselves consider appropriate, has a long and ugly history, and is not anything that Wikipedia should chose to engage in for the convenience of those who wish to compile lists. As for the comment about "others" having difficulties "understanding anything much about Jews" I'd ask exactly how you know which "others" are and are not Jewish themselves? Not that this is of the slightest consequence regarding the topic under discussion - it seems instead to be a mere insinuation of ulterior motives, and has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Another who would agree with Feynman is Andre Geim. Here was response to an Israeli interviewer: "As for his decision to come to Israel, he said, 'My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group. Israel has several cultural characteristics which result in an especially high proportion of the less stupid people.'"betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your biases are interfering with your interpretation. (by that I do not mean at all to imply anti-semitism) You cannot know that Geim would have agreed with Feynman based on that comment alone. Geim even contradicts himself in the final sentence by saying Israel has "less stupid people." If we were to follow this statement with Wikipedia action, we would have no articles on countries (except Israel?) or religions. Just long lists of stupid people and not-so-stupid people. KantElope (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the supporters above and Raphael Patai, who says: "While it would be giving too much credit to the Nobel Prize Committee to assume that, in selecting the recipients of the prizes, it infallibly comes up each time with a man of genius, there can be no doubt that in general the laureates are men of extraordinary accomplishments....In any case, the Nobel Prize winners constitute what is unquestionabley the most elite group among men of unsual intellecutal achievement. Hence there is at present no better yardstick for measuring Jewish intellectual preeminence that the record of Jews among the laureates. from The Jewish mind by Raphael Patai Wayne State University Press 1996 [2] If someone wishes to be excluded from this list for reasons such as Feynmen has iterated, we can either respect that and leave it out or we can make a clear note that a person wishes to opt out.KantElope (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'Sadly, I'd not suggest that Raphael Patai can be taken as a neutral or reliable source on this question. Particularly given the way his book 'The Arab Mind' has be subject to criticism for its negative portrayal of Arabs, and for its use as a NeoCon guide to methods of repression in the Middle East. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I have not read his book about the Arab Mind so I cannot discuss that one way or the other. On the other hand, Googling in Google Books for "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" brings up 380 results that use just those words to describe certain Nobel Prize winners. As far as I know, none of the authors has been sued by anyone for mistakenly id-ing them. As I said earlier, if someone should object that they are mistakenly id'ed as "Jewish," that could be easily fixed. KantElope (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Raphael Patai was a respected scholar, and author of dozens of respected works; please stick to relevant discussion of the policies and this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why do we have a list on Jewish Nobel laureates but none on the American laureates? That list is less controversial and better defined, and is more notable because it contains about 1/3 of all nominees. Also, UK, Germany, and a few others are comparable in size to this list and they do not exist. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I think it would be great to have an article on American laureates, also UK, Germany etc. Of course this is no reason to delete this one.KantElope (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's what really astounds me about this AfD. I've been trying to deal with the issue of Jewish lists and categories literally for years, trying to ensure that the non-notable intersections are deleted, or if kept, that policy is adhered to, and non-cited items and BLP violations are removed. I've spent tens of hours mostly deleting names from them or, failing that, at least trying to cite them. It has been a thankless task; I've met with huge opposition every step of the way, and have at times even ended up at AN/I over this issue. Yet now, because a small number of people want to set up special rules to exclude a specific individual (Andre Geim) from one list, they devote huge amounts of effort and mostly spurious non-policy-related argumentation to that end. Wikipedia has hundreds of Jew lists and categories, and thousands of articles in the Jew categories, and they're mostly garbage. Where were you all when people were idiotically adding James Franco and a hundred other people to categories like Category:Sephardi Jews or Category:Russian American Jews [3][4]? When people were trying to add hundreds of unsourced or improperly sourced names to lists like List of Jewish actors or List of Jewish American businesspeople?[5][6][7][8][9]? Where are you all now, when you actually have a chance to get rid of some of the worst of these lists, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers? Sorry to have to be so blunt, but based on their actions so far, it's pretty clear that very few of those actually voting "delete" here really care about overall policy or systemic BLP issues raised by these lists and categories. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nothing at all. I'm here now, and I'm working on the issue I consider of most significance. I was unaware that other contributors could tell me where I should be working. Perhaps you'd like to indicate which policy entitles you to do this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this now seems to have degenerated into a name-calling session:

Can I point out once again that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. I fully intend to ensure that this policy is kept to, and may choose delete any contraventions immediately. If people wish to see Wikipedia policy on this matter changed, this isn't the place to do it.

(And in response to anyone asking why I'd do this here, and not elsewhere, I can only say that (a) I'm not the only person responsible for ensuring policy is adhered to, and (b) The level of debate here shows the need for particular attention. Frankly, I've got other subjects I'd rather be looking into). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Andy, you are the only person who seems to think that a list of this sort would by nature violate BLP to include living people. And no one (including me) seems to understand what your logic for this would be. I'm incidentally curious if you think that including Robert Aumann on such a list would be a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is quite simple, really. Robert Aumann is a notable person because he has won a Nobel Prize. This notability, combined with his self-identification as Jewish (I assume he does) makes him eligible for a list of 'Notable Jewish people'. He is also eligible for inclusion on a list of 'Nobel Prize laureates', as this confers automatic notability. There is nothing whatsoever inherently notable linking his being Jewish with winning a Nobel prize in Economics. The list is an arbitrary intersection between a (vaguely-defined) ethnicity and a list of prizewinners. There is nothing to support the suggestion that the intersection itself is of any note: it is instead a synthesis created by those who wish to create the list. I'd sggest that people actually read what policy states, rather than assuming you can cherry-pick through it to suit a particular purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that people should actually read what policy says rather than cherry-pick to suit a particular purpose. I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees with that bit of rhetoric. So what part of policy are you using to assert that any such list would violate BLP? (Hint by the way, there's a specific reason I choose Aumann as an example...) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'd suggest you take a look at what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. As I've already illustrated here with an hypothetical example. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A List of Albanian Nobel laureates on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of Albanians and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). Now possibly there is something notable in itself that links Aumann's ethnicity with his Nobel Prize, but if so the notability is his and not a general attribute of Jewish Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Andy, please reread what LISTPEOPLE says, and then apply your analysis to Robert Aumann. Since you aren't getting the point: Aumann is an example (one of quite a few) where his notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues. If you want a more blunt example, Yitzhak Rabin's Nobel Prize was deeply connected to his being an Israeli Jew. So at minimum, your claim that any inclusion of living people would somehow violate BLP or LISTPEOPLE is wrong. In any event, if you are trying to (erroneously) claim there's a LISTPEOPLE violation and are not trying to claim there's a BLP violation, then the overall claim you are making is much weaker, precisely because BLP is a much more serious issue than LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, as has already been explained this specific intersection is noteworthy rather than an arbitrary intersection because the unusually large nature of the intersection has been remarked upon in reliable sources. Thus, we now seem to be in a position where you are agreeing that there's no BLP issue, just a possible LISTPEOPLE issue, and even that argument seems quite weak. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:LISTPEOPLE says that "Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people": BLP includes lists of living people by definition.
As for whether Aumann's "notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues", I'd say that is for you to provide a neutral WP:RS for. Even if it is true, it will apply to him, his work, and his prize. It is on no significance to anyone else on a list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Andy, you may want to work on your reading comprehension. Or your logic skills. Or some combination thereof. Of course lists have to follow BLP. But you seem to be trying to argue that that somehow that means that any LISTPEOPLE issue is a BLP issue. That's not what the quoted sentence says. As to the Aumann thing, it is actually in his article if you read it. A major reason his opinion on the so-called Bible codes is that he's a religious Jew who had a Nobel prize in math related issues and thus people care about his opinion. And of course Aumann's specific situation doesn't impact whether others should be on the list. The reason why Aumann is relevant is because you claimed that such a list couldn't have any living people on it for BLP reasons. Aumann is simply one of the most interesting and blatant examples of how that claim has no basis in policy or reality. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Firstly, see WP:NPA. Secondly, WP:LISTPEOPLE states that for living people, BLP principles apply - which in this case comes down to the provisions in WP:EGRS. As for your final point, I'd say this is totally irrelevant to the topic under debate. Aumann's views on matters of religion may be regarded more highly because he has a Nobel laureate, but he didn't win the Prize because of anything related to his ethnicity, and that is supposed to be the reason he is on the list. Of course, if my claim "has no basis in policy or reality" then any attempt on my part to remove somebody from the list on the basis that their inclusion violates WP:EGRS will fail. I'd almost be tempted to try Aumann as a test case if I wasn't convinced that this list will have to be deleted anyway, as the case for it breaching policy is so strong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You don't mean NPA. You presumably mean CIVIL. Saying someone is failing to logically apply or read policy isn't NPA. It is just a fact. If someone said someone was an idiot that would be an NPA. In any event, at this point you are just repeating yourself. So I'll simply note that EGRS is not a subpolicy of BLP but a guideline. This seems about representative of the many issues with your above comment (another noteworthy one is not understanding the point about Aumann. The point there is not what he won the Nobel for. It is subsequent events related to his Nobel and other things he has done and been asked to do.) At this point, it doesn't seem that any further attempt to convince you is likely to go anywhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Frankly, having to nit-pick over the difference between a policy and a guideline (and between NPA and CIVIL) to support a list has got to be indicative of a weak argument. Guidelines are supposed to be followed with "occasional exceptions" and I don't see any rational arguments so far for "exceptions" in this case - just assertions that rules shouldn't apply. Can you actually suggest any reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed? And as for Aumann, 'other things he has done' afterwards are utterly irrelevant to his inclusion on the list, which is supposed by its own criteria to be of people who (a) are of Jewish ethnicity, and (b) have won a Nobel Laureate. If you are suggesting that Aumann only gets included because of additional criteria, can you tell us what these are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No. The difference between policy and guideline is critical here when the policy in question is BLP and the guideline is just a guideline. Interpretation of guidelines (again specific interpretation) is a very different claim than any claim that something follows from BLP which is one of the strongest policies in question. I don't see what you aren't getting about the Aumann issue. Aumann was used as an example for your claim that having any living people on such a list would run afoul of BLP. Do you not see why he is a counterexample to that claim and a variety of other claims you are making? Let's be explicit: Aumann is notable for his religious and ethnic heritage and his Nobel prize and much of the coverage of him in the last few years has been precisely in the context of him as someone so prominent to have a Nobel to have certain opinions about some issues related to his religious beliefs. This example is intended primarily as a counterexample to your claim that any inclusion of a living person on such a list would be a BLP violation. If you don't see how he's a counterexample then I'm not sure what to say. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Researching other lists on Wikipedia to see if there is some consistency or clarity to this argument. We have the following which include prominent scientists and writers who may or may not have won a Nobel Prize. These are by ethnicity and religion, excluding Jewish. There are doubtless dozens more. What makes those lists acceptable but this list not acceptable? What we have here is a list of outstanding Jewish contributers in various fields, as defined by the Nobel Prize society. Americans and Germans have won a lot of Nobel Prizes as well, and perhaps someone would want to create an article for that. Some of the Jewish winners would be on those lists as well. This can't be a BLP issue as there are a number of lists below that are religious and/or ethnic in nature.

I just cannot see what all the fuss is about, about this particular article! The German article even has a list of German saints. Where is the list of Jewish saints? KantElope (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the fuss isn't about this particular article. It is about this particular type of article: a synthetic intersection. I suspect there may well be examples of similarly-flawed lists amongst the examples you give, but in any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a valid argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering almost everything you listed is either a nationality or a religious group, I don't see your point. Bulldog123 21:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. There is a list of notable Israelis, and that's fine. (Notable as defined in Wiki, and Israeli as per the people's citizenship.) In any case, why are none of the "keep" editors refuting the policy issues stated? An AfD is not about the number of votes, but the quality of the arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not. Wikipedia's article on Jews defines them in the very first line as "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎ Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East." If you disagree with that assumption, you should work on changing the Wikipedia definition first. The articles above are about nations, religions, ethnicities, that are found throughout the globe, just like Jews. (with the exception of the Arab-American article, by definition only those Arabs found in America) KantElope (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said nationality, not nation. From Nationality:"Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state." I was referring to the citizenship aspect. As in, List of Italians being people who are notable and have/had Italian citizenship. This is because there is no discussion (you're either an Italian citizen or you're not, you can't be half.) That is why religious, and ethnic lists need to go.
Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a premature question. It should be asked after DR is closed, and if the article is kept.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course Feynman is on the list. Are you imagining that if this list is kept, the same editors will not continue to watch it and to control the rules of consensus on its talk page? Editors whose attitude is that Feynman "is in denial" or that anybody who has been described as "Jewish" belongs on the list but that this rule of the list need never be made public in the lede? Editors who regard it as "troubling" that anybody objects to the list's changing its rules to absorb a new laureate who says he's 1/8 Jewish and has a name that sounds Jewish? Editors who consider the article exempt from WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, and WP:LISTPEOPLE? Why on earth would they care what Feynman thinks? betsythedevine (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a real problem with the list inclusion and there may be people acting based on biases but the Feynman letter is making a much more narrow comment than it is being used for here. He's objecting to being on a specific list being used for a specific end at a specific time. Not the issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Feynman's lengthy criticism of a list of Jewish Nobel laureates is no reason to think he might object to this list? Another great sample of this kind of reasoning: If Geim tells an Israeli interviewer that he has one Jewish great-grandmother, that is no reason to think he is ethnically 1/8 Jewish--he did not specifically state that his other 7 great-grandparents weren't Jewish and besides, if his mother's mother is Jewish then so is she, and if his mother is Jewish then so is he. betsythedevine (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a problem, because per WP:LSC one should come up with a criteria beforehand. The criteria here seem to be inclusion in "Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, Schreiber Publishing, because it's by far the most widely used source. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list had explicit inclusion criteria that appeared to have consensus until they were removed in this edit a month ago. Further discussions about this on the talk page did not reach consensus. --Avenue (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERCRAPEXISTS comment:

Apparently being a Jewish entertainer is horrible, but being a Jewish or Chirsitian scientist is okay, unless you're a Nobel laureate or FRS. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, there is a great deal of evidence that in regard to lists, Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being inconsistently applied. Frankly, it's a mess, which can lead to some real horrors going unnoticed. This is no reason to carry on with inconsistency though, and this article is more visible than the horrors. We're here, and we need to start somewhere. I suspect that this is becoming something of a test case (not that in theory Wikipedia has such things), and will help sort out the criteria for getting the mess fixed - as I've said before, that is why this matters to me. If the result of all this is that it is decided that 'a list of anyone we feel like making a list of' can include 'anyone who might vaguely fit in', then at least we've arrived at a policy. I'd prefer lists of people to be based on criteria not arrived at via a particular POV, or at the whim of the list compiler. I think that Feynman was saying the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the books in the "Further reading" section lead me to believe that the notability guideline is met for an article on the subject. The ratio of Jewish winners has been discussed often enough. The lead here is a fine base and if the list is too long for the available prose then it should be a list with Jewish Nobel laureates as its blue link.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of policies and guidelines as others have noted above. It's past time to do something about such lists and categories. I do like the point about the obvious problem if we added a column on religion to our main list. Oh, and per Feynman. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly notable; there are some nontrivial categorization issues, but they are solvable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A notable subject, well written list and per user:JoshuaZ. Broccoli (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability rules from WP:SPIP: " The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." If one sets aside works whose focus is to celebrate Jewish achievement, and books that simply list some Jewish laureates, you find little discussion of the topic aside from the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman. I'd like to see better support of notability in some of the Keep !votes this AfD is getting. betsythedevine (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman". Indeed. I'd suggest that anyone supporting the retention of this list should first read Zuckerman, and then perhaps reconsider their position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you, Rd232, do understand that after you wrongly speedy deleted the article last night, and after you prevented me closing the post at an/i, which I consider to be trolling, and now after that comment you should not be the one to close that DR, don't you?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? what is this "DR" you keep talking about? I can't stop you thinking that The Moon is made of green cheese or that action X is "trolling" (a misuse of the term, but I get the gist), but I can't help pointing out that constantly repeating the claim looks like, well, actual trolling. As to your substantive point, I don't normally close AFDs and wouldn't dream of closing as contentious a one as this, absent a Speedy Delete G4. Besides which I've now participated in the AFD - what sort of admin do you think I am? (Wait, don't answer that.) Rd232 talk 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise: I think this sort of intersection is more suited for categories: lists should be used for where a characteristic is essential to the understanding to its members (so Russell T Davies should be on a list of LGBT screenwriters, but Phil Collinson shouldn't be on a list of LGBT producers, despite the fact they're both gay). With categories, there's a bit more leniency, so Collinson could be in a category of gay actors (and he is). Also, there are ethical concerns due to the fact that the Jewish identity is more complicated than other ethnicities or religions. For example, Feynman was Jewish by matrilineal descent, but did not consider himself to be a Jew (and asked to be removed from a compilation of Jewish Nobel laureates), and vice-versa, other people (I personally know one) are quite comfortable being Jewish and atheist. Same for Geim, who is ethnically Jewish, but we use seven citations in this list, indicating that the "fact" of his Jewishness is not as concrete as first thought. As Geim is alive (and the most recent Physics laureate), this is a BLP problem too. However, I think the section about Jews being forced to decline should be woven into the Nobel Prize article. Sceptre (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those seven "citations" included one non-link, whose contents nobody can check, and three articles that did not say Geim was Jewish. I whittled that list down to 3 items, due to misunderstandings like this one that those 7 "references" were 7 independent bits of evidence Geim is Jewish. Nor are the remaining 3 at all impressive as "evidence." I also do not think Wikipedia should support the claim that Geim is "ethnically" Jewish because his mother is one-half or one-quarter Jewish. The matrilineal-Jewish-determination theory is a religious theory that has nothing to do with the modern understanding of genetics and ethnicity. betsythedevine (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

edit

I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've just commented elsewhere, I think that perhaps what is needed is a single general article discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the award of Nobel laureates. This will need proper WP:RS of course to justify (e.g. the topic being discussed elsewhere in a meaningful way), but might overcome most of the difficulties with categorisation. As to whether additional articles are merited for individual 'ethnicities', I think each case would need considering on its own merits. Regarding the Jewish example, I'd say that Harriet Zuckerman's treatment of the question, taken with the opposing viewpoint, would provide sufficient justification for an article, subject to it not then being used to in turn recreate a list based on dubious criteria and a 'flexible' approach to BLP considerations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe this is the best option. There are sources that can be used in the further reading section. The list can be removed while the lead is turned into a stub. One thing to keep in mind is that the list could be recreated since we would have a valid blue linked article.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck maintaining an article with absolutely nothing to say. Bulldog123 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the further reading section. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like this one.[11] It is brought up often enough and we even already have a source that is apparent from simply skimming the title of the chapter. And anything for dummies is alwas fun to point to on Wikipedia, IMO.[12]Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you've read both and you see that both readings (especially the latter) consist of utterly contentless self-aggrandizing coffee table book vanity that would never hold up in serious academia. Patai spends the entire section number-crunching all kinds of Jewish statistics, providing literally nothing but charts and percentage signs and has this weirdly starry-eyed (and very much opinionated) tone about it all. I especially love how Comparative Religion for Dummies is written for children and maintains this creepily dogmatic tone with baseless and sourceless remarks like "The three greatest men thinkers who had the greatest impact worldwide in the last 150 years were all Jewish." Bulldog123 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, I just skimmed them as well. But it is obvious from those and other sources available that it is a notable er... phenomena(?). The two provided I feel meet RWP:RELIABLE. One of them is from an academic publisher even. But if you want more sources I would be happy to start seeing what is all out there if turning this into an article is actually something editors are willing to consider.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the list could be recreated". Nope. The list as it stands violates policy (and common sense). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the standards for lists since it is spelled out clearly enough. I'm not saying it should happen just that it would be inline with the guideline if someone wanted to do it.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, you clearly aren't concerned about policy here, since you've adamantly avoided commenting on the actually non-policy compliant Jewish list AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors‎‎, and List of Jewish American cartoonists. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And off with the insinuations we go again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't insinuated anything. Do you claim your concern here is policy violation? Yes. Have you !voted on other current AfDs for actual policy-violating Jewish lists? No. Therefore, your concern cannot be what you claim it to be. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've stopped insinuating and instead resorted to making direct personal attacks now. Fortunately, the flaw in your logic is so obvious that I doubt anyone will take you seriously. I suggest you look the word 'therefore' up in a dictionary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot "stop" doing something one has never done in the first place. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Jayjg. The mere fact that you make these comments here, shows that your main goal for those AfDs was to criticize users that oppose your views. That shows you are not really concerned with the issues those articles have, and are using AfDs to prove a point. I suggest you refrain from that activity.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Therexbanner, my main goal for these AfDs is to ensure that we address a systemic problem, as I made quite clear in my "Comment" of 18:22, 26 November 2010 above. I've been trying to deal with these non-notable, BLP/NOR/V violating lists and categories for over five years now, with little or no assistance, and often a great deal of active opposition. So what happens here? Two or three editors get bees in their bonnets because Andre Geim is added to the List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and other editors object to his being removed, so they try to get the whole list deleted. But what are they doing about the hundreds of other Jew lists and categories on Wikipedia? Well, even when there are currently four other on-going AfDs for other Jew lists, they deliberately choose not to get involved. I care about policy; I've been trying to deal with this issue for over five years. On the other hand, they only care about the fact that the don't want Andre Geim to be on this list, and all the fancy words in the world can't disguise that. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, your "two or three editors get bees in their bonnets" comment makes it seem like those who object to Andre Geim's inclusion are in the minority... even though that's completely false. Bulldog123 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that more than two or three editors don't want Geim on the list, but it's really those two or three vocal ones who pushed this AfD, are all over it, and really just care about ensuring that Geim is not listed as a Jewish Nobel laureate, nothing more. I exclude you from that, of course, you've been concerned about the broader issue for years, and I recognize that. But it's really outrageous to hear them complain that my motivation has anything to do with this—frankly minor—issue of whether or not Geim is listed as Jewish or not. Here's what I said, for example, in November 28 2005, five years ago to the day, one of many similar comments before and since. I'm saying the exact same thing today. My position has been consistent, and my actions have been broad. I'm not here just to get one name on or off one list. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg stop and think about what you are saying. Read what I've actually written about why I'm involved with this thread. Check my Wikipedia contributions if you like. Then come back and explain how you can tell what my motivations are, based on the fact that I choose not to be ordered around by people who seem to think that not participating in debates five years ago is something to hold against someone who has only been contributing to Wikipedia for a few months? You are making a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors‎‎, and List of Jewish American cartoonists, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish heavy metal musicians are all happening right now, not five years ago. Want to prove that for you it's not all about whether or not Geim is listed as a Jew? Then put your money where your mouth is. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AndyTheGrump, I have looked at your contributions. It is one sad sight.Please stop screaming at other editors, who BTW do make real contributions. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Zilch. Nought. Nothing. Nada. No new articles. I prefer to wait until I can actually contribute something useful, though if you like I'll make a list of notable One-legged Rastafarian Slalom Skiers. Personally, I think my time is better spent sorting out the mess that others create, at least until I've got proper references etc. In case you didn't notice, Jayjg was suggesting I had an agenda: I suggested he looked at my editing history to see if he could find it. I'm sure you could find one, but not the one he thinks is there. I was going to offer to actually take a look at the AfDs Jayjg suggested, but now I'm having to deal with a tag-team, I'm not sure this would be wise. Now how about getting back on topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)
Indeed. When there is swill created such as this, someone needs to be around to make sure that it is taken care of. Tarc (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to over 100 Featured Pictures, Mbz1 has three articles on the Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#All-time DYK page view leaders. Who else here can make similarly impressive claims? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and here's her latest DYK: King Philip shipwreck. 8,200 views, pretty impressive. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::::::Didn't you know, Jay, tarc could make more impressive claims. Not only he called me out on wikipedia review, but he also called me out on his own talk page. Of course he shot up last night, when I asked him what else besides "calling people out" he's done on wikipedia. Sadly one day most content contributors will quit because they will get tired of tarcs--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason I'm missing that nobody is slapping you with a WP:NPA link yet? Bulldog123 03:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get back on track or do we need another subsection. An alternate proposal to deletion has been raised. I believe that there are sources available to create an actual article that meets notability requirements. In this list alone, the following sources look promising if someone wants to try it: [13][14][15][16][17][18].Cptnono (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs to meet NPOV requirements too: don't forget Harriet Zuckerman's "Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States" (cited in the article 'Further reading' section). And please don't try to convince yourselves that the existence of an article on a subject automatically justifies the creation of a complete list of everything you think is covered by the article. It doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, do your best, and see how far you get. Off topic, but... am I the only one that noticed Willem Einthoven is incorrectly listed as Jewish here? Bulldog123 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but does he fail the 'Jewish until proven otherwise' test? Back on topic, have any of the 'keep' faction actually read Zuckerman? I'd take them more seriously if they did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that have any bearing on the proposal by Rd232?Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Zuckerman have any bearing on an article on the relationship between Jewish ethnicity and the Nobel Prize? Er, yes... AndyTheGrump (talk)
The topic at hand is the deletion (or not) of this list. I don't think deleting this list would require or rule out creating an article on the topic, or adding a section to Ashkenazi intelligence that would cite any research done on the topic. Most of the writing about Jewish Nobel laureates basically points out the statistical anomaly and offers untestable hypothetical explanations based on Jewish history, Jewish culture, or evolutionary genetics to explain it. And I await with interest any scientific or other work on achievement by people who are "Jewish" because some magazine writer called them Jewish, which is the criterion for inclusion in the current list. My guess is that their achievement will be even higher than those of people with much more significant Jewish heritage, because only the top achievers will be sought out with such avidity for inclusion. betsythedevine (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the list is the deletion discussion. So if someone wants to create the page then I would vote "merge" for it. And the source provided show notability regardless of the reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, only problem is, there are like 6 or 7 Sephardic Nobel Prize winners. Bulldog123 06:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

edit

My final comment. I've been trying to deal with this problem for over 5 years now. There are dozens of Jewish lists (and hundreds of other similar ethnicity-based ones), and they're simply not covered by WP:EGRS or WP:BLPCAT. Believe me, I know this from not just the plain meaning and wording of the policies/guidelines, but from many, many AfDs. There is a much bigger issue here than just this one list. There are four similar AfDs going on right now, with much less attention and interest, and very little in policy to cover them. Please try to deal with the systemic issues here. I've said my piece more than enough times, and I don't plan to comment here again. Jayjg (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which may well be true. I feel the same way about "systemic issues" too, but don't see 'Jewishness' as being a locus. The problem is more about categorisation of people in general. The answer is quite simple: stop doing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read so much speculation here about people's hypothetically unworthy motives for wanting to delete this list, with list-proponents delving into and critiquing other people's contribution histories, I followed a link from this page to an AfD of a different article, now deleted, authored as this one was by Mbz1. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Richard_Wagner's_first_love got "Keep" !votes from its author Mbz1, and also from Jayjg, Brewcrewer, Epeefleche, and Shuki. In fact, those were the article's only Keep !Votes. And here on this discussion, you can also see Mbz1, Jayjg, Brewcrewer, Epeefleche, and Shuki leading the fight against this list's deletion. betsythedevine (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true. Possibly hilarious. But not actually relevant Betsy (can I call you Betsy?). Since as far as I'm aware Richard_Wagner wasn't Jewish(!) and never won a Nobel Prize, this is once again off-topic. If indeed there actually is a topic here any more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, [19]. [sarcasm] You see... there is no such thing as a successful person who works with Jews but who himself isn't Jewish in some form. There's also no such thing as an anti-semite who isn't secretly Jewish too. Or so that seems to be the crux of most arguments on wikipedia for the last four years. Especially on Adolf Hitler, Richard Wagner, Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Alexander Kerensky, etc... [/sarcasm] Bulldog123 05:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Betsy make such a gross misstatement about me, I wonder?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What gross misstatement? Bulldog123 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was this not your !Vote concerning Mbz1's article based on an article from a turn of the century Jewish family magazine about Richard Wagner's Jewish girlfriend when he was 13 years old: "Keep. Notable topic, as evidenced by RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)" betsythedevine (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't really be that hard to find, can it? I mean, Betsy only made two statements about me in toto. One was a gross misstatement. I can't for the life of me imagine why she made it, and why Bulldog can't see it either. The depths to which this discussion has sunken, with editors making wholly unfounded loud accusations about others as Betsy about me, and others -- as Bulldog -- turning Nelson's eye towards them, are disturbing. I'm not sure what is driving this lack of care in accusations and the like. But would urge editors, when making inflammatory accusations about others, to hue somewhat more closely to the facts.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, my memory misled me. You have been an active debater on Andre Geim and List of Jewish Nobel laureates but my memory misled me when I stated that you had been active in this debate. I apologize for that error and I will redact your name from that part of the list. betsythedevine (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, what? Secondly, why have you not given your two cents in this Afd yet? Are you going to act now (for the first time in years) that Jewish AfDs do not concern you? I want to hear your rational explanation for continually maneuvering this list onto Geim's See Also section. Bulldog123 05:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Betsy--Thank you. @Bull--I find your entry to be largely incomprehensible. The part that I do find comprehensible appears to be irrelevant.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously folks, are there any rational(ish) arguments left now, or has sanity left the building? I'm tempted to suggest that all remotely on-topic arguments have been made, and those responsible must inspect the entrails of this AfD, and then tell us what the Gods are saying. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for responding in kind, however briefly, to the varied claims here about people's motivation. Really, the only topic under discussion here should be whether or not one particular Wikipedia article is deleted. betsythedevine (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you being snide? You have already wrecked this discussion pretty well. Haven't you made enough derailing comments already? You should probably knock it off unles you are trying to be disruptive. I actually started reading the Zuckerman source (one that was in the list I originally pointed to) and it looks alright.Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shows how serious you were about that article if you consider it "snide" that I expect you to actually make it with those ridiculous secondary sources you presented. Which is my point, really. Bulldog123 06:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make a suggestion here? If everyone just assumes the insinuations of prejudice have been sent, received, and responded to in kind, and just posts the afterthoughts of relevance, we might actually get somewhere. Not that it matters to me, even insomnia can only keep me awake for so long. G'night all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you liked the Zuckerman source? Anyways, would you mind going to sleep if it is impacting your ability to use this page appropriately?Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been through this exact same AfD twice before. I've searched the internet for legitimate encyclopedic information on it for hours and hours. Always came back empty-handed. I repeat that point over and over throughout this Afd, yet there's always someone who comes back with the same sources I've seen a million times and thinks they've done some great service. Sorry, it gives me migraines. So forgive me if I expect you to write the article now. Bulldog123 06:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because this list is a magnet for WP:POV-pushing, because it's been recreated, despite having been deleted once already, and because its' original AfDs (the very first ones) were plagued by sockpuppet votes and canvassing. Bulldog123 07:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nomination is based on flawed WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST arguments (no articles on lists of other faiths). I also don't see any reference to policy that you cannot have both a list article and a category. Yonideworst (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respect your opinion, but I would like to clarify something. The nomination is not based on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is the argument used by several "keep" users who claim that since other lists (like the List of Germans) exist, so should this one. The list violates WP:EGRS (which deals with categorization, not wiki-categories, I hope you all know the difference) by categorizing (verb) people as members of an ethnoreligious group whose notable activities (mainly science) are not related to their ethnicity/religion. It also violates BLP, and is generally unencyclopedic (esp. vanity).--Therexbanner (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional points from policy directed specifically towards Lists:
"When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself:
If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?"
"Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?" So let me ask you (example), if Albert Einstein wasn't Jewish, would that reduce his fame or significance? Is Albert Einstein a canonical example of some facet of Jewish people?
What a silly question!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, what 'facet of Jewish people' is Einstein an example of specifically? He was Jewish (by self-attributed ethnicity: his religious beliefs are less easy to categorise). And he is clearly notable. But would he have been in any way less notable if he hadn't been Jewish? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His Jewishness was notable in his persecution and escape from Germany in 1933, as it was for 14 other Nobel laureates. It was also notable in the fields of German Science in the 1930s and 40s which set out to discredit his findings because of his Jewishness. If he had not been Jewish he would still have been notable for the most significant finds of his life but work from 1930 onwards may have developed differently and led to greater or lower notability. The important thing is that his Jewishness changed his life and destiny from that period onwards. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a great response, Stuart! Jews are different people, and not because they are chosen people, but because their history is very special and unique. They have lived between different people, they have been persecuted and expelled, they have always fought for their very survival. All that history could be responsible for so many Jews being great scientists, writers, poets. If there were no Jewish diaspora maybe Jews would have been no different from all other people and maybe we would not have talked about Ashkenazi intelligence and overwhelming number of Jewish Nobel prize laureates.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty close to original research. Moreover, the idea that Jews are somehow unique in their history is deeply problematic as an argument for making a list of this sort. It assumes one of the deeply controversial ideas that such lists are apparently often assembled to show. Incidentally, there are other historical groups which have been exiled and/or persecuted. Arguments of this sort should probably be avoided when discussing this list. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It of course was not an argument for keeping the list, and I stated my personal opinion, original research, if you wish. I simply tried to respond the question about Einstein I was asked above to the best of my understanding of the the issue.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists --Therexbanner (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't even bother convincing Alansohn of anything. This user !votes "keep" on any list with the word "Jewish" in it (unless - perhaps - there's some negative connotation to it like "List of Jewish criminals"). Slap me with a WP:CIVIL if you like, but you have proven your motivations questionable pretty consistently over the history of these AfD debates. Bulldog123 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject of Jews in science (or, broadly, Jews in any advanced sphere of life - politics, finance, literature...) is notable, and the subject of the list is well defined - Nobel winners, unlike ill-defined "inventors" or "polymaths", are a well-defined, finite set. Disclaimer: Yes, Epeefleche pinged me, so what? You may even brand me "pro-keeper", which I'm not but I won't mind being in the company of DGG and Co. East of Borschov 07:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

edit

Let's review some of the policies and guidelines being cited. As list-supporters have pointed out above, a guideline is not a policy. Agreed -- one namespace template message defines a guideline as "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow though it is best treated with common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." The definition at the guidelines category: "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus and should generally be followed, though with occasional exceptions." Those who would disregard a guideline should make a clear case for why that guideline is not a best practice in this particular case.

  • WP:BLPCAT is a part of the policy WP:BLP: "Categories, lists and navigation templates: Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Many list enthusiasts have noted that the label "Jewish" need not imply Jewish religion -- it could refer instead to ethnicity, culture, or public self-identification. Others say that similar claims could be made for many other religious designations, and should not exempt them from the clear mandate described here.
  • WP:LIST (guideline): "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list... In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies." The selection rule for List of Jewish Nobel laureates can be found in the talk page but has been edit-warred out of the article lede for a month.
  • WP:LSC is part of the guideline WP:Stand-alone lists: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." Again, the inclusion criterion for List of Jewish Nobel laureates which was summarily changed after Geim's October win, is that some WP:RS has called the person Jewish. But an explanation of that selection criterion was edit-warred out of the lede, and no public explanation of what list membership means is in the article lede.

WP:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality: "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest." This is a guideline for inclusion in categories. Why this clear statement should not apply also to a list based on ethnicity ... etc. is far from clear.

WP:OC#CATGRS: "Likewise, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." This is a guideline for inclusion in categories. Why this clear statement should not apply also to a list based on ethnicity ... etc. is far from clear.

The primary claim of those who would keep the list seems to be the guideline WP:Notability. I am not aware of any published research or other interest in the number of Nobel Prize winners who meet the only requirement for being put on this list -- having been described as Jewish, quite independent of the person's degree of religious belief, ethnic/genetic heritage, cultural experience, self-identification or any other criterion. betsythedevine (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do category based standards apply here?Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a better question would be, why should this particular list be exempt from category standards? Are not all members of this list being categorized here as unmodified-ly Jewish, without any disclaimer or modifier? Have not links to this list been used to "tag" member pages with "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates", putting forward a public claim just as does a category? Whatever the reasoning behind the efforts Wikipedia makes to honor the wishes and protect the privacy of people being categorized according to ethnicity or religion, why should our concern be less for people being listed by ethnicity or religion? betsythedevine (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"How do category based standards apply here?" See WP:BLPCAT, which explicitly states they do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Because lists have some prose which can clarify potentially contentious material with sources while this is severely limited in categories (cat page can have clarification but the bottom of articles do not).Cptnono (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not realize that one policy did. That is stupid but it is in there so I can't argue against it.Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unclear to me how far WP:BLPCAT does apply here. It does not apply to most lists, and only extends to lists that "are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation." Discussions on the policy talk page that might clarify things do not seem to be reaching a consensus. --Avenue (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to me to be a strong consensus developing there to include privacy rights for ethnicity in BLPCAT, and for lists as well: "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on ethnicity, religious beliefs and sexual orientation..." betsythedevine (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your quote from WP:LISTPEOPLE misses a very relevant point: that it specifically exempts nationality/ethnicity based lists from notability relevance requirements.
Your characterisation of the current implicit inclusion criteria for the list is inaccurate, because the list does not include some people who have been described as Jewish but for which contradictory sources have been found: e.g. Pyotr Kapitsa. Call its removal edit-warring if you like. But please do not call people who disagree with you "list enthusiasts". I agree with you about the need for the list to describe its inclusion criteria. I also think that these should be reflect talk page consensus and that the list should follow the agreed criteria. --Avenue (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Jewish" can refer to religion, it has to be treated so per WP:BLP, which says to err on the side of caution with respect to living people: "do no harm", "when in doubt", etc. As long as the article uses an unqualified "Jewish" in its title, it needs to abide by WP:BLPCAT. It could be renamed to "List of Nobel laureates of Jewish descent" to avoid this, or we could simply choose to abide by the spirit of BLP and only include self-identifying subjects. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now generally agree with you. However if BLPCAT does apply, relevance of notability is also required, not just self-identification. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria and "contradictory sources": The initial inclusion criterion for List of Jewish Nobel laureates was apparently Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia's list of Jewish Nobel laureates. The lack of neutrality and reliability there is strongly suggested by the fact that it includes Pyotr Kapitsa, Joseph Murray, and E Donnall Thomas, none of them Jewish. But Shengold is still the only source cited for most list members. And good luck getting somebody off List of Jewish Nobel laureates once any source is been found to put them on it -- now you need some WP:RS to state that the person is not Jewish. Have you ever seen any WP:RS stating that a public figure is NOT Jewish? By that test the Pope himself must be Jewish. But that is the test a "contradictory source" must meet to get someone off the list.

Talk page consensus is great when a page has many independent people watching it. But the local talk page consensus at List of Jewish Nobel laureates is that Shengold is a fine and reliable source. The consensus is that the list does not need to describe its new inclusion criteria publicly. The consensus is that somebody whose maternal great-grandmother is his only Jewish ancestor therefore has a mother who is Jewish--and this makes the 1/8 Jewish person Jewish. I don't think any of these local consensus beliefs is making Wikipedia the most accurate and WP:NPOV encyclopedia it can be. betsythedevine (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For several months Shengold was not the only source for most entries, so I think your "still the only source" comment is misleading. I agree the current situation is not good.
There does not seem to be a consensus that the list should not state its inclusion criteria. You and I have both argued that it should, and I don't think that issue is resolved.
If the "maternal great-grandmother" bit refers to Andre Geim, he has recently been removed from the list, so I think you are overstating the consensus there too. --Avenue (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply re Shengold as a source -- of 13 Nobel Laureates in literature, 11 cite Shengold only and 2 cite other references. Of the Chemistry laureates, a majority cite Shengold only, a few cite others sources, and 8 give no citation at all for the claim the person is Jewish. And so on. Shengold remains the only source for a majority of entries on the list, and no authority at all is cited for a significant number of list members.
The removal of Andre Geim on November 28 by one of the advocates for deleting the list was indeed a welcome change. betsythedevine (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So about 75% of all !keep votes here are of the argument "notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources." You do all realize that's been discussed on here and shown to be false. Right? Bulldog123 05:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's 'shown to be false' when it's reflected in the text of community agreed policy documents, Bulldog123. Anything less than that is a temporary agreement of a non-exhaustive list of editors, and I'm not sure you even have that. Please don't misrepresent your policy argument as a policy statement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be snide, Bulldog123, it makes you sound like you have a personal investment in the discussion. The relevant policy is WP:SALAT, and in particular WP:LISTPEOPLE, which specifically provides that a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates would be allowable provided that all entries on the list are notable for being Jewish and for being Nobel Laureates. There's no lesser importance in a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates than there would be a in list of female heads of state or in a list of African-American Oscar winners. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great then. So I expect you to !vote Delete given that argument, since very few people on this list are notable for being Jewish. Bulldog123 06:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DustFormsWords you are comparing apples to oranges in a very problematic way here. The reason why female heads of state would be notable for being female is precisely because there have been so few of them. There are disproportionately more male heads of state now and historically. Do you think that male heads of state are notable for being male? According to many of the keep voters here there are disproportionately more Jewish Nobel laureates than any other ethnic group. Now tell me why that makes each them notable for being Jewish ... for being members of the most commonly represented ethnic group? I'm sure you didn't mean it this way but your argument is a slight to both women and African Americans who, despite large numbers, are often dis-proportionally underrepresented in positions of power and prestige.Griswaldo (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have no problem with a list of male heads of state either; I'd think it would be a necessary result of having a list of female heads of state, to put both lists into proper context. The reason we have the list isn't to address disadvantage or prejudice. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - it fundamentally doesn't care about disadvantage or prejudice, except to the extent that it's possible to write an article about it. Wikipedia only cares that there is data, and the data can be sorted. Sorting by nationality, race, or religion is no worse or less important a way of sorting than by gender or by year. It's a non-trivial intersection because it's capable of producing a list of sufficient scope to be potentially useful as an aid to navigation and analysis. To Bulldog - AfD isn't for cleanup. If there's names on the list that don't belong they can be deleted, but clearly there are names that do belong, and therefore deletion isn't appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said anything about the encyclopedia "caring" about disadvantage or prejudice. I said that what makes female heads of state notable, as opposed to male heads of state who are not de facto notable at all, is the fact that there are so few of them. Some male heads of state are notable, for other reasons, but not because they are male. All female heads of state are notable, because they are female. This notability is what Wikipeida "cares" about. Now the notability is itself entagled in the facts of disadvantage. My point was simply that you, in making your comparison, slight those groups that are disadvantaged. Get it? Your poor analogy is a slight, but I've said nothing about the encylopedia having a job that entails "addressing disadvantage or prejudice". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:POLITICIAN all heads of state ARE inherently notable, being political office holders at a national level. It's also the case that all Nobel Laureates are notable per WP:ANYBIO ("the person has received a notable award"). Per WP:SALAT, such notable entries are capable of being sorted into lists via any intersection that allows for potential use as a navigational or analytical tool, provided the list is neither too long nor too short and has a clearly defined scope. I'm entirely unsure what part of that you disagree with, or say doesn't apply here. There are clearly scholars - and many scholars - of Judaism and the Jewish people, a significant portion of them being people who would claim the level of Jewish success in the sciences is itself notable, so there can be no question that this is a list of potential value even if you personally do not havea use for it. What's the problem here? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dust, if you can point out five people on this list who are notable for being Jewish alone, I will switch my vote to "Keep and clean up" based on your criteria. All I ask for is five. Since I'm a nice guy, I'll start you off Saul Bellow. Four more. Bulldog123 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gustav Hertz is a quarter Jewish. He's not even listed on most Jewish lists. Albert Einstein and Henry Kissinger -- very debatable that these two are famous for being Jewish outside of their contributions. Simply being persecuted or "outted" is really not a strong enough criteria. Everyone is persecuted for all kinds of reasons - its not something special amongst Jews. I'll agree with Elie Wiesel for obvious reasons. Bulldog123 04:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now, come on. Admittedly you shouldn't have made the ridiculous promise to change your vote if I could name five notable Jews on the list, but by the standards of any reasonable person your response is, on a scale from "weaksauce" to "disappointing", definitely in the range of "totally weaselling out". I don't need to subjectively defend Einstein and Hertz as notable Jews. The significance of their heritage is right there in the articles, and if you want to go on some kind of crusade to change the articles to downplay their Jewish-ness, that's your ill-advised right, but until you do you're bound by the consensus of those editors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes you do have to defend their "notability as Jews," because simply being known as Jewish and being notable as Jewish are not equivalent things. This just exemplifies how "vague" your criteria for this list is going to be - not just for me - but for everyone. You understand what you're asking for is very much unmaintainable? Think of it this way. On a list of "Things X is famous for" - where would "Jewish" rank for Einstein? Probably not in the top 100. Where would Jewish rank for Elie Wiesel -- definitely top ten. Hertz is probably the worst example you could have given. Not even the most hardcore Jewish mags have him listed in their Nobel laureates section -- because they don't even see him as a Jew - and there's no evidence he saw himself as one. Bulldog123 03:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are approximately 2 million Israeli citizens (2/7ths of the population) who aren't Jewish, so in as much as you obtained support for such a claim it was misguided. The terms "Jew" and "Israeli" aren't coextensive. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- WRT the claim this article should be deleted as per the previous {{afd}} -- the previous {{afd}} claimed "The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced..." Since this version is referenced the previous {{afd}} is inapplicable. Isaac Asimov, a writer I really admire, wrote extensively about prominent scientists, and often listed them by their nationality/ethnicity. It seems to me that when it is wikipedia contributors who compile lists that do not rely on WP:RS those lists are both listcruft and lapse from WP:SYNTH. But lists that are properly referenced, as this one is, and, apparently, the previously deleted version weren't, are entirely appropriate. As per User:DGG's comment, this is exactly the kind of thing where our readers would like to look for a neutrally written, properly referenced article, because they can't rely on other, less neutral sources. 173.206.18.118 (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC) — 173.206.18.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Response to claim that article now is "properly sourced." Of the chemistry laureates listed as Jewish, most are sourced only from Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia, a source that has aggressively tagged at least 3 non-Jewish laureates as Jewish but is still considered WP:RS by the list owners for all the rest of its claims until somebody goes to the trouble of digging up counterproof. I do not think that Wikidpedia should endorse the claimes of such a partial and prejudiced source.
Eight chemistry laureates have no source at all made for the claim. Living person Jerome Karle is one of these, you can read his Nobel autobiography to see if he mentions being Jewish .. he doesn't. But Wikipedia has tagged him as Jewish not only on List of Jewish Nobel laureates but also in categorizing him as a Jewish scientist. In the lede of his Wikipedia bio, he is described as a "Jewish physical chemist." In the previous AfD, complaints about sourcing included a reminder that Wikipedia should not be used as a source.
There was also a claim during that AfD that very conservative principles were used in selecting names for the list. On Feb. 27, Mbz1 uses Jelinek as examples of a name that is NOT on the list because it has such a conservative policy on adding names. On March 7 the AfD is closed as "Keep" and on March 8 Mbz1 adds Jelinek to the list;it is only two days later that Avenue adds a source for that claim.
On October 22, the list criterion "Jews are defined here as people who have at least half Jewish ancestry" was blanked by an edit whose explicit purpose was to make 1/8 Jewish-ancestry-not-self-defined-as-Jewish Andre Geim eligible for inclusion.
Others have complained that some Delete votes come from people who care only about Geim being on the list. In my opinion, Geim's inclusion there is not the main problem; it is a symptom of a systemic POV problem. There are many websites where patriotic groups of whatever kind can trumpet their own achievements and stretch the list of group high-achievers by whatever criterion makes the list longest. Wikipedia should not be lending its authority to endorse the reliability of Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia or How the Irish Saved Civilization or any other similar WP:POV project. betsythedevine (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here? If Shengold's Jewish Encyclopedia has already been been demonstrated to have "aggressively tagged at least 3 non-Jewish laureates as Jewish", then surely it cannot be a WP:RS by any reasonable definition, and at an absolute minimum, any listing done solely on the basis of this encyclopedia should be removed until a reliable source (in accord with WP:BLP policy regarding categorisation by ethnicity/religion) can be found to indicate the person is/was Jewish. This is assuming that a decision to keep this list at all is taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People still think Encyclopedia Judaica as "reliable" even though it lists Ralph Benatzky (no Jewish ancestry whatsoever according to all biographers - he was mistakenly thought to be Jewish because his wife was) and Eugene Ionesco (approximately 1/8th Jewish according to his daughter - and even that is only "a guess"). The point Betsy made is flawless and eloquent. Something I've been trying to say for years but couldn't put it in the right words. People will continue to claim unreliable sources as reliable - even after numerous false entries - because it makes their ethnic pride lists a lot longer. People will also claim that Jews are a religion, ethnicity, and nationality (according to Epeefleche now) because it's an easy way to include as many people as possible without having to present evidence for why their Judaism has any bearing on their careers/lives. Bulldog123 01:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Per many of the keeps, but DGG says it best, above, in his ultra-strong keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly urge that this article be kept The disproportionate contibution of the Jewish people to mankind, as exemplified by the number of Jewish recipients of the Nobel Prize should not be ignored by Wikipedia, although I agree that the criteria for inclusion should be resolved, and/or a cited source added for each person listed indicating the basis for his inclusion in the list. JackJud (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You (and other people using that argument) do realize that's discrimination? That's like making a list of Caucasian people's accomplishments, and then arguing at an AfD that there is overwhelming evidence of disproportionate contribution to society (there is), that says that Caucasian people are better (contribute to society way more than others) than others inherently.
    • I don't care what sources you have for that argument, it is discrimination and racism towards other people, and basically supremacy (saying that Jews are better because they're Jews.) It has no place in an encyclopedia.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the fact that the policy discussions were ignored (of course, since they don't have any arguments), this discussion has come down to: Notable because there are more Jews (who is a Jew?) winning the Nobel prize, and several Jewish magazines (based from their own descriptions) claim the same. I hope that whoever closes this looks at the issues raised (policies) versus the counter-arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly object to the innuendos in the above comments:
(i) The fact that I have (out of choice) only limited Internet access and that I choose to have another life, apart from Wikipedia, should in no way detract from my right to comment here.
(ii) the comment that I "only emerge from hibernation when a Jewish-themed topic arrives on CfD or Afd" is untrue. Of approximately 100 edits (yes, just 100) made by me, only eleven relate to CfD or Afd with a Jewish theme (including the five currently under discussion). On the other hand, on looking over the last 400 contributions of Bulldog 123, it would appear that nearly all were of, or in some way related to, Jewish-themed topics on CfD or Afd, and in which he took a negative view regarding the continued existence of such Jewish theme categories or articles.
(iii) As to the charge of discrimination or racism, this is simply absurd. The question of proportion of Jewish laureates was raised early in this discussion (on November 25) by the nominator, Yworo in which he (or she) stated that he (or she) was "sure at least one of those ancestries [British, French and German] has a great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry". I have not read through the whole of this discussion, nor do I intend to, but cannot see where was a response to this comment. Approximately 170 laureates are listed in the article. If we reduce this by, say, 10% to allow for those whose listing is disputed (the figure is probably far less than this, although a great deal has been stated about the incorrect inclusion of certain persons, it appears that it is the same names that keep coming up), we are left with over 150 laureates who were Jews, out of a worldwide Jewish population of some 13 million. According to the Wikipedia categories, there are 102 British laureates out of a population of 62 million, 99 German laureates out of a population of 81 million and 56 French laureates out of a population of 62 million. (There are also 300 American laureates out of a population of over 300 million). Also, in many instances the British, German, French and American laureates were Jews.
Having had my say and having spent much longer on this matter than I intended, I do not intend to participate further in this discussion. JackJud (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have a long history of participating in Jewish AfD/CfDs because somebody has to keep them from being hijacked by special interest users, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets - as they always seem to be. You'll note how none of this is going on in the identical-topic-AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. Bulldog123 03:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list fully complies with WP:List and WP:SAL to include the question of notability. Any arguments to the contrary are disengenious. Additionally, arguments that a category is sufficient ignore WP:NOTDUP. Finally, the most ludicrious delete argument in this discussion: It [the list] serves no purpose assumes the voter speaks for millions of WP readers and 1000s of WP editors. That is arrogant and unproductive. This list, as DGG says above, is inherently encyclopedic. --Mike Cline (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering you absurdly called out my offhand comment instead of the dozens of more ludicrous arguments presented here, I'll respond: Sure it serves a purpose. It serves the purpose of boosting awareness of Jewish cultural achievements (even though the vast majority of these people didn't participate in any form of Jewish culture in their lifetime) and as coffee-table discussion for Jewish pride enthusiasts. Neither of which is an encyclopedic purpose. I (and you) have yet to be presented with a secondary source that proves otherwise. Bulldog123 16:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main arguments were not about WP:SAL, and WP:List. Also, only one person made the category argument. The article/list does not conform with BLP policies, and several guidelines (mentioned earlier in the discussion) that state that ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation need to be relevant to the notability of the person. Also, the definition of Who is a Jew? is disputed, and it would be very difficult to come to consensus on that.
List guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists) tell us that when establishing list membership, one has to check: If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
and Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?--Therexbanner (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bull--This page is filled to over-flowing with empty and often uncivil comments by you. Those comments add nothing to this discussion. They do, however, take up space. @NickCT--I am interested in your response.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.

  1. ^ "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  2. ^ Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on November 30, 2010
  3. ^ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years, Albert Einstein, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on November 30, 2010

--Epeefleche (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a special nation, then. The only nation where being an 1/8th of that nationality grants you instant citizenship. Interesting. I can't imagine how many Jewish people don't even realize they're of two different nationalities. Bulldog123 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I can tell, the only possible way to work with the term here is to regard anyone who self-identifies or is identified by RSs with any aspect of this as Jewish. There will sometimes be a necessity to specify further, but not for groups like the one in question here. The same sort of ambiguity applies to many other groupings also with multiple overlapping definitions of fuzzy criteria. e.g. . American, male, Chinese, or to such occupational roles as businessman or scientist. To write an encyclopedia one has to schematize a little, and the way to deal with that is to say what we are doing in each instance. The reason we cannot rely on religion alone, is that there are different religiously-based definitions of who constitute the followers of the Jewish religion (or, in most cases, others religions also). As just one of the distinctions, most Orthodox Jews do not regard someone having been converted by a Reform rabbi as religiously a Jew. The correct application of the Law of Return in such cases is at the moment a matter of rather bitter and possibly unreconcilable controversy, which can not be part of the criteria for a list like this.
With respect to BLP, as mentioned earlier, this applies in only some cases, and I would indeed favor not including in this list someone who is living and does not wish to identify as Jewish, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. Living people do have a right to pick what public identities they choose, but any extension of any of the BLP precepts beyond actually living is an extension which would require a new general discussion about BNLP. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)
  • Ok, if WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity is the appropriate criteria, should we apply it to this list then? In the case of "Jewishness" you can't be "related to the place by birth [or] residency", since there is no "place". That means the only remaining criteria are "parentage", and "personal admission". I don't think "personal admission" can be considered anything other than valid (if you accept the argument that WP:ListPeople is applicable to all intersections with other criteia, without establishing the notability of the intersection: I don't). This leaves parentage to define: Necessarily both parents? Or is only one enough? What about Grandparents? And in any case, you are then left with the problem of defining the ethnicity and/or beliefs of these relatives. I think this style of logic has a long and particularly ugly history, and don't think it is the sort of thing that Wikipedia should endorse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is not having previously learned or spoken up at some different AFD now to be called "suspicious lack of particpation"? I do have a life away from Wikipedia, and I know of no policy or guideline that says that if I speak up at one AFD, I must magically know of all others and then must speak up at these others. And toward your other point... as this nomination is not about blonde actresses or German Nobel laureates, if those other non-existant articles were to be written and were then sent to deletion, they would also have to be descernable as meeting guideline... but you're welcome to write them. And, as I know you were not canvassing me here for input there, I do wish to thank you for bringing that other to my attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = Nobel laureates. SnottyWong comment 19:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it isn't even that. It is "people we can convince ourselves just about belong in ethnic/cultural/religious group X...". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: [20] Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]. He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email. Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Excuse me, while I'm not particularly worried about being outed as having my account occasionally connected to that (multi-user) IP address, it's nevertheless strongly against Wikipedia policy to call additional attention to the connection. And the responsibility to assume good faith requires you to assume that Epeefleche's efforts were in accordance with allowable canvassing under the canvassing policy, and that any editors who feel improperly canvassed will come forward of their own accord as I did. And for the record, that was the ONLY one of the Jewish list articles I was asked by another editor to comment on, and I've not voted on it because I didn't feel comfortable with the invitation. Your need to resort to ad hominem attacks speaks poorly for the strength of your argument. I think in any case there's very little chance that any of these AfDs will be closed as other than "no consensus".- DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've participated in maybe a handful of Jewish AfDs/CfDs recently. I've participated in many over a span of years. You don't know the history of WP:SOCKPUPPETtry and WP:CANVASSing that goes on in them. I'm 100% in the right to mention this. Bulldog123 03:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum... to share accusations based upon one recent edit and then compounding with activity from "some years ago". An AFD discussion is the wrong forum to present your "case". As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take your allegation to a different and more appropriate forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion-in-progress among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal complaint at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is an example of active canvassing. User:DGG is notorious for being an inclusionist. Epeefleche knows full well that he will !vote keep on all those lists - although he's unsuccessfully pretending not to by making remarks like "I don't know where you will come out on this" Bulldog123 03:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not. Before Bulldog123 begins telling others it is, he might wish to re-read WP:CANVAS. Asking a question of one editor in one location for clarification is not canvassing. If he asked it from many editors, then perhaps yes. But not if neutrally posed to one, and specially not if the one is DGG, "notorious" only for being respected, reasonable, and neutral... even if seen as inclusionist... who does not fall prey to such. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Individual notices like that are clearly WP:CANVASS, though I now see that they are not pertaining to this discussion directly. Do you have any evidence that he has engaged in this activity right now? I will note that after being called out on the possible canvassing above, he's been leaving notices on the talk pages of people like me, who are opposed to his POV. What a childish circus all of this is. Bah.Griswaldo (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: Epeefleche brought this AfD (and several others) to my attention on my talk page (diff, including my response). I have no intention of !voting on the others, but I hope no one objects if I continue to comment on this one. --Avenue (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWong soliloquize 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having received this notification myself (after the issue of canvassing was raised), I'd like to state that I found in it the implication that I was likely to wish to participate in other AFD's on the basis that they concerned Jewish issues to be dubious at best. As I hope I've made clear, my concerns are regarding the widespread arbitrary categorisation of individuals throughout Wikipedia, and to imply that people are participating in this AfD on the basis of the ethnoreligious group concerned is making unwarrented assumptions. Regarding the suggestion that this AfD is 'tainted', and should be relisted at a later date, I'd point out that to do this while maintaining the contentious list might merely encourage further attempts to prevent a decision being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "A neutral notification sent out for balance"? How about this solicitation Epeefleche posted to a user page before his activity was under scrutiny here? "There is currently an energetic effort afoot to delete lists of Jews. Some of the lists have withstood such efforts in the past. This is taking place even where there are articles and entire books about the intersections. I'm not sure that the AfD process works best here, as the same discussions are repeated again and again, in various AfDs ... it would seem, until an AfD is successful somewhere....Some current such AfDs are efforts to delete the lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians." Would you call that a neutral notification? Would you call it an accurate description of the process whereby one AfD was inflated into many by opponents of this AfD creating new ones and then egging on Bulldog to prove his sincerity by creating yet more? Do you really think that Epeefleche's public mass mailing will add more "balance" to this discussion, which already has way more !Votes than policy discussions, to solicit 65 more editors on Dec. 1? And this would be in addition to the previous undercover email alerts he sent out to a more selected group.betsythedevine (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, the notice Epeefleche left for me has led to an interesting discussion on my talk page with others, in particular with betsythedevine, which led to my changing my view on a related page, and striking out part of my comment. Had he not placed the notice, and she complained about it, she and I would not have had what I consider a mutually helpful discussion. (And my initial reaction to his notice was to first consider whether I wanted to get involved in this at all. I almost decided that I didn't want to, and my decision to do so was not based on anything he said--rather on what some of the opponents said.) More generally, I have the impression that if you wish to attract people who oppose my likely views, asking me about my opinion on my talk page is a good way to do it--and the same applies to a number of other widely watched pages. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5

edit
  • Keep: I can't be asked to possibly read what everybody else wrote above but its a beautiful list and well worth keeping! Calistemon (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobel prizes do not have a separate category for Jewish people and who should be considered Jewish is unclear. TFD (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable intersection, as defined by the fact that secondary sources find it to be an intersection that they like to mention/discuss. Note: this has no bearing on other articles intersecting religions and other factors that Wikipedia has, had, or will have - it's specific to this intersection, per WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: what about the secondary sources points to a comprehensive List Of rather than a prose article? Despite the ever-increasingly WP:TLDR nature of this page, nobody seems able to directly address this issue. Rd232 talk 11:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an interesting question, but not relevant for an AfD. If the AfD does not end in deletion, it can be discussed at the article talk and if there is consensus, it's a matter of article improvement, including a page move. Article improvement issues are a useful by-product of XfDs, but aren't arguments for deletion and can become distractions from the business in hand. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not relevant?? A prose article is hardly trivially different from a list! I'm not sure any of those !voting Delete would oppose a prose article, the reason being that the BLPCAT issues disappear by virtue of needing non-trivial RS coverage to justify working any given person into the prose article. Rd232 talk 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent point. If the topic is encyclopedic and can be sourced reliably then write an article about it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, but irrelevant at XfD. Discuss it afterwards. Lists can be converted into prose articles - here's one that started as a list and became a Featured Article. --Dweller (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not irrelevant to the claim that is made over and over here - that the intersection is notable. The lack of an entry now indicates that such notability is unlikely. My suggestion below is more general. These lists ought to pass the "main entry test" if people are going to argue about the notability of the intersection they focus on. Do you not think so?Griswaldo (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC These issues are increasingly messily spread across multiple RFCs on Jewish lists, yet apply even more broadly than that. This really needs an RFC on the wider issue of how these types of lists are handled. Rd232 talk 11:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The current situation appears very much so to be heavily skewed by the narrower objectives of wikiprojects focussed only on this ethnicity/religion. Broader input would be very helpful.Griswaldo (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Editors here keep claiming that this is a notable intersection. If it is a notable intersection then lets see Jewish Nobel laureates get created first. I think in these situations if an intersection is indeed notable enough to be the criteria for a list it ought to stand up to the test of having a stand alone entry. Is there somewhere we can suggest this as a bare minimum guideline requirement? In this case we could delete and userfy the page and give those who champion the intersections notability the time to write the stand alone entry first.Griswaldo (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong way round. See my comments above. --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. It is a fact that "Jewish Nobel Pize winners" is a topic that has received a significant amount of scholarly and other attention (partly because there are surprisingly many of them). This fact, which is sufficient to require keeping the article, was brought up at the beginning of the discussion and never refuted. That this monstrously long discussion exists anyway is a testament to the fact that some people, when they really want to delete something, simply don't care about policy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the above. I suggest you actually read this AfD discussion, and then ask yourself how many of the 'keep' !votes are actually based on policy, as opposed to 'I like it', before making assertions about the motivations of those proposing deletion. As for 'scholarly attention' to the topic, yes there has been some, but the suggestion that there is anything of significance to this is very much a minority fringe viewpoint, and compiling dubiously-validated lists according to fringe theories is hardly a way to maintain NPOV. Particularly when this list is then used to arbitrarily justify categorising people as 'Jewish' in other articles without any indication of either (a) the vague definition of what 'Jewish' means, and (b) why this is even relevant to the topic in question. To put it in plain language, the list is being used to stereotype people according to 'ethnicity' (or worse), on unsupportable grounds. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on policy (reply to Jalapenos) Actually, the arguments for deletion include a lot more about policies than those for keep, which tend to cite only WP:N. The claim that a topic is potentially notable does not give Wikipedians a license to create and maintain an article on that topic that violates many other Wikipedia policies. Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine serious research on Jewish Nobel laureates that does not choose some real criterion for demarcating subjects as Jewish. betsythedevine (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Nobel Prize laureates.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that one wasn't even strongly contested; nor are many other list AfDs. If there's coverage of an article topic and the coverage conveys notability, that's a good baseline for keeping.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read over this whole page. (its verging on tl;dr) I have to say that from looking over the list there are independent sources that back it up. In addition, we need to remember that Jewish is an ethnic group. It doesn't matter if you self identify with that group is something that you are born into. This doesn't seem like an arbitrary list like some people have tried to say and it isn't demeaning like the policy that was quoted disallows.In addition, I agree with DGG. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strong discussion here, but what makes the most sense to me is that this is an article attempting to replace a category that would then be deleted. And why? Inclusion criteria are often faulty or mistaken, the Nobel people don't take religion into account, the subjects themselves may not self-identify as Jewish, they may not even be Jewish... it's a mess. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all cleanup issues; none are a policy-supported reason for deletion. It is unarguable that many Nobel Laureates are Jewish, whether you define "Jewish" as a matter of race, heritage, culture, religion or self-identification. It's further unarguable that some of them have received their awards in clear CONNECTION with their Jewish-ness - most notably Israeli politicians, holocaust scholars and Yiddish authors. So it's clear that there are individuals for whom there is a nexus between "Jewish" and "Nobel Laureate", and enough of those individuals to form a list of meaningful scope. Therefore the list itself should not be deleted, and argument about who belongs on it should go back to the list's talk page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean-up. This list has proven itself - time and time and time and time again to be unmaintainable. And your criteria for inclusion - having to be famous for being Jewish first - is not going to go over well with all the special-interest !voters WP:OWNing the article now. Bulldog123 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more of a mess than can be cleaned up. It's a mess from its germinal concept, that an article is supposed to cover what a category should be doing: intersections of two groups. That the category would be deleted is no reason for this article to be created under the wrong conditions. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I've not read all of the extensive discussion above, I've read enough to justify the retaining of this article. Davshul (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (responding to AfD nominator). It does not matter if Nobel Prize was awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. It only matters if the coverage of the Prize recipients in press and other reliable sources justifies such article. Yes, it does, as follows from the sources provided in the article.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Jewish Nobel laureates, and write a proper, broad article about it, taking in such points as theories on Jewish intelligence, Feynman's letter, with subsections covering the individuals presently named in the list, in some sensible order, explaining the merits and demerits of claims made for their Jewishness, etc. --JN466 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Bound to be of interest to our readers, decently sourced, of legitimate scholarly interest. RayTalk 02:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates&oldid=1137995499"