Talk:List of Polish Jews

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Polish and Belarussian Jews?[edit]

Maybe it makes sense to rename the article to "List of Polish and Belarusian Jews"? I looked at the list, and it seems at least a quarter of those listed were from Belarus.

For example, let's look at the first block (politicians):

-- rydel 23:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense to me. There was no Belarus back then (sad but true) and they were either born in Russia or in Poland, not in Belarus. Perhaps a separate list could be in place, but I don't like the renaming idea. Also:
  • David Ben-Gurion was born in Płońsk, not Pińsk (25 km from Warsaw, which hardly makes him a Belarusian)
  • Menachem Begin was born in Brest, a town that used to be at the crossings, but back then was an entirely Russian fortress city.
  • Jakub Berman - born in Warsaw
  • Bronisław Geremek - born in Warsaw... and so on.
--[[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 06:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Dear [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]], I think you don't read carefully. Not paying any attention at all. I took the first list (of politicians) and noted next that 3 out of 8 were actually born in Belarus. -- rydel 13:16, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How's this for a solution?

  • I've removed Begin, since he was born in Russian Belarus, not Poland.
  • I've kept Peres and Shamir since they were born in Polish Belarus and are frequently described as Polish.
  • I've added all three to the Belarus section in List of East European Jews.

Udzu 21:27, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


There can be "shared" names, because Belarus was part of Commonwealth, and it was just one nation back then. Not in 100% (some was seeing them rather as a Lithuanians, etc), but it wasn't something strange back then.

-- mg


I have suggestion regarding nationality - may be it would be wise to look at this what those people have done and where there placed their bounds? In case of Begin it is quite clear that he felt ties with Poland rather that with Russia or Belarus (I think he could hardly imagine Belarus as 'his' country). Same is with all those people that came to Israel with Polish Army where they decidet to stay in Israel. I think also some other names are misplaced (no strong ties with Poland - whenever there were born or their parrents were born in Poland).

--WD

More names

Seems to me that there are lots named in this list who do not really belong. I just deleted Henri Bergson - the Wikipedia article of this French philosopher indicates Polish Jewish descent of several generations before. "Polish Jewish heritage", as whoever added his name stated, at that distance surely cannot be enough. Bkesselman (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

members of the Ministry of Public Security 1944-1956[edit]

"Jewish father", "Jewish mother"[edit]

I recently deleted several incidences of these phrases, under the probably erronous impression that they were part of a vandal attack. If so I apologise to the (anon) editor for my use of the word "vandalism". They have since been partly reinstated and then deleted again. Possibly this may be because it's not immediately clear what the meaning of these phrases is; they look a bit odd alongside "author", "mathematician" etc, as if "Jewish mother" was someone's profession or claim to fame. Perhaps it would be good to have a note at the top of the list specifying what counts as a Polish Jew, both in terms of geographical origin and parentage? For example, having only a Jewish father might mean under some definitions that someone was not strictly speaking Jewish, I imagine? Apologies again for any confusion or unnecessary controversy caused. Flapdragon 21:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support the continued indication of "Jewish father" (or in my rephrasing, father Jewish -- see my new section, below). The technical definition of an individual's "being Jewish" according to the maternal lineage is a religious (halachic) distinction, and for the purposes of this list, I'd say there's a justifiable consideration to an individual's Jewish identity on a cultural basis, e.g. having been raised in a secular Jewish (by affiliation) family. Deborahjay 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish? In the List?[edit]

Pleas add to the list or answer me

See also: talk:Lists of Jews

* Grażyna Bacewicz no sources to suggest Judaism, though no sources state her religion period. still, doubt it

* Eduard Strasburger German Lutheran
(Germanised and Lutheran-converted Jewish descnedant? Sheynh.; He married with Julja Wertheim)

Jewish?

*Krystian Zimerman Christian *Józef Kallenbach almost definitely not Jewish. Prussian background

--Sheynhertz-Unbayg 4 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

Also:

  • Artur Rodzinski Catholic household (though could be a convert)
  • Casimir Funk A Polishized German, but no evidence for Jewish ancestry ( Thank You. I am part of the Funk Family, and Casimir was not of the Jewish faith, despite the Jewish Faith making claims to him ! )
  • Bronisław Geremek Jewish ancestry?
  • Tamara de Lempicka Jewish mother too
Thank you! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 04:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Kazimierz Funk was Jewish. see [3]. Jerzy Neyman, Glier, Samuel Dickstein also. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Geremek once or twice admitted having some distant Jewish roots. But his case is as complicated as hundreds of others as basically every second Polish family has got some Jewish roots, just like German, Ukrainian or Lithuanian... Halibutt 13:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Warsaw, Poland. BTW, he's a Warsaw Ghetto survivor. Halibutt 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(-.-) [4] [5] [6] --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 15:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Geremek, not Hoffmann :) Halibutt 12:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to Einhorn, the Polish wiki article claims that he was a Częstochowa ghetto survivor and was also in the Hasag-Pelcery lager inmate. Halibutt 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any Jewish doctors in your list. But really there are many... --jmak 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Wrote about Poles and Jews (as did many other Polish writers), but was of Polish szlachta. logologist|Talk 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution to "Jewish father/mother"[edit]

To avoid the awkward construction of the parenthetical "Jewish mother", etc., please note my revision: slightly rephrasing plus italicizing. Deborahjay 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: On second thought, I dropped the italics, thinking them perhaps not compatible with style here. They can always be restored to previous version, though. I don't wish to make this decision alone. Deborahjay 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński[edit]

Recent edits have shown some disagreement about whether Polish poet Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński belongs on this List of Polish Jews. My own reading knowledge of Polish is limited to a few dozen words, but a native-born Polish colleague in my department, who holds a Master's degree (in history, I believe) from a Polish university, may be able to help us here. I'll follow up next week after we return to the office. Deborahjay 05:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read quite much on and by Baczyński, but it's the first time I hear he might've been Jewish. On the other hand there was an article in Midrasz (Polish-language Jewish monthly) some time ago (found an on-line version here), whose author argued that Baczyński's mother might have Jewish roots. On the other hand his father might have had German roots, then why not list him as German as well? Come on, every third person in Poland has some Jewish roots, just like every fourth person in Israel has some Polish blood. Does it mean that we should basically combine the list of Poles and List of Jews? //Halibutt 12:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My Polish informant is searching for a citation regarding Baczyński's mother being Jewish, and I'll provide this if/when it becomes available.
If unsolicited verbal testimony counts for anything: she was also quite emphatic that among Poles, he's considered a Polish poet, not a Jewish poet. So unless he was known to have been raised Jewish and/or to have embraced a Jewish identity (secular, cultural, or otherwise, not necessarily practicing the religion), I'm inclined to agree, regardless of "proof of Jewish parentage," thus arguing for removal from this list.-- Deborahjay 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Polish whitewash. [7] discusses how "the official constructions of Krzysztof Kamil Baczynski and Tadeusz Rózewicz have been at least rhetorically cleansed of all Jewish traces" to promote Polish identity.--Brownlee 10:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stapling a Jewish identity on Krzysztof Kamil Baczynski is, quite obviously, very innappropriate despite any attempts by the "Polish government" (roll) to continue to hide his Jewish ancestors. Unless someone has Jewish identity, it should be totally irrelevant what his grandmother's religion was. I agree with User:Halibutt's comment above. 65.11.245.190 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am bewildered by this anon editor's actions. A source has been given that Balthus had a Jewish mother, so there is no reason for his removal. A source has been given that Baczynski is Jewish enough for this list, so there is no reason for his removal.--Brownlee 09:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize your jewprom source is a mirror of wikipedia, right? The fact that Balthus denied having Jewish ancestry, and didn't practice Judaism really doesn't help his case. [8] It states that his father was Polish Catholic Gentry and his mother a Polish immigrant to France who was descended from the Russian Romanovs (who we know were Christians). Her father supposedly was a cantor which suggests through at least her paternal ancestry, there was Jewish practice. Nonetheless, Balthus' parents were Christians, as was Balthus himself - in fact, an ardent Catholic, he called the pope his "soul mate", and he denied his mother was Jewish throughtout his life. To be honest, who's a better source than Balthus himself? We don't know the details, and even if his mother did have significant Jewish ancestry..if he wishes not to be called Jewish then so be it. 70.146.75.166 12:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewprom is not a Wikipedia mirror. There is a list of sources it uses. And WP:AUTO. As for Amazon, just because it sells biographies doesn't mean that everything it says is an authorised biography. --20.138.246.89 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh..it copies and pastes lists from wikipedia, and even has its pages link to it. It's virtually a complete mirror aside from a few additions from jinfo.org. Look at the Nobel Prize format right in the front. The Balthus material is straight from wikipedia, as none of the other sources it lists says anything about Jewish artists. 72.144.161.165 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re Balthus, here are two independent sources explicitly stating that his mother was Jewish: [9], [10].
  • Re Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, I don't see how the given source ([11]) necessarily implies Jewish heritage: the fact that both Baczyński and Różewicz's work was cleansed of Jewish traces doesn't mean that the two writers were themselves Jewish. Lots of pre-Holocaust Polish literature dealt with Jewish issues.
Udzu 14:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I mean, accordingly with whats been said here, it would be that dreaded original research >:( to assume that "cleansed of all Jewish traces" would mean Baczynski was Jewish. Plus we have a lot of sources saying he was Baptised Catholic. Even this one saying he was born to "Christian parentage": [12] What his grandmother, or great-grandmother practiced is pretty much void of any relevance concerning this list. And as for Balthus, see above. 72.144.161.216 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balthus[edit]

Regarding Balthus, have you actually read your link [13]?! It most certainly does not say that his mother was descended from the Romanovs. It says that despite him claiming she was, she was actually the Polish daughter of a cantor. It even indicates that she was Jewish:

"Both his parents were Polish émigrés and painters, which for Balthus was not enough. He said his mother was descended from the Russian Romanovs; she was the daughter of a cantor. And although he ceaselessly advertised that she had taken Rainer Maria Rilke as a lover, which was true, he denied that she was Jewish to the end of his life."

— Holland Cotter, New York Times
The link doesn't say "despite" anywhere as you have implied. Who disproved his mother was descended from the Romanovs exactly? If Balthus said his mother was descended from the Russian Romanovs and denied her Jewish ancestry, exactly how can we disprove him? It's very well possible she had some Jewish ancestry given her surname - a cantor father - etc but this is irrelevant to the matter. 72.144.136.114 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, we have provided two other reliable sources explicitly stating that his mother was Jewish. Denying this further without providing an explicit source stating otherwise is itself original research. Udzu 08:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article on Balthus' mother, though. You're tring to list Balthus himself, not his mother. You need a source that says Balthus was Jewish. Mad Jack 08:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I didn't actually add him to the list, I don't need anything. I was just correcting a false statment on the discussion page. I gave up a long time ago trying to second-guess the flavour of the day regarding Who is a Jew?. Interestingly, the current approach seems to be ok with listing Kelly Osbourne, who is a quarter-Jewish, because some journalist dubiously described her as Jewish, but won't list someone born to Orthodox Jewish parents who isn't explicitly called Jewish, as that would constitute original research :-) Udzu 09:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure anyone born to Orthodox Jewish parents would be called Jewish (well, unless they became a nun or something, and even then they would be). Do you have an example? Mad Jack 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I was just correcting a false statement on the discussion page"
What was false? Balthus said his mother descended from the Russian Romanovs and where does it say she didn't? That's asserting that because his mother was said to have Jewish ancestry she can't have the Russian Romanov ancestry either? We're not here to accuse Balthus of lying. 72.144.136.114 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the quote carefully, especially the emphasised bits. Then use minimal common sense. If you still don't get it, then I give up. Udzu 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quote says that although Balthus said his mother was descended from the Romanovs, her father was a cantor. What's not to get? We can't say that Balthus was lying about what he said. That would constitute us knowing more about his mother than he did. What's hard to understand about that part? 72.144.183.250 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Jack has missed the point. Wikipedia is not censored. It reports what reliable sources say; if there are reliable sources that someone's mother was Jewish, we shouldn't conceal the fact. I am aware of the unique policy on the List of British Jews, but there is no reason to apply it here. - Brownlee 15:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment on Balthus. We have no sources that state that Balthus himself was Jewish, and we have conflicting reports on him having any Jewish ancestry. There's no way to prove Balthus was lying about his mother being Jewish. And besides, as he did not identify with an ethnic or religious ancestry, its somewhat irrelevant to keep him on here. 72.144.158.14 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ethnic list, and in accordance with normal Wikipedia practice and usage we record people with Jewish parents, noting what the sources say. If you want to add a note saying that some sources dispute the source given, that's fair enough.--Newport 11:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewprom[edit]

While it is now irrelevant here, as other sources have been found for Balthus, it must be noted that Jewprom is not a Wikimirror. That is a precisely defined term; it is for sites like Answers.com, which contain complete copies of Wikipedia. To describe a site that merely offers links to Wikipedia as a Wikimirror violates WP:V and WP:NOR unless there is a source that says that it is a Wikimirror. There is no proof that Jewprom relied on Wikipedia for Balthus, and it is original research to assert that it did; it may well have used the sources now quoted here. --Brownlee 20:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that Jewprom is not a Wikimirror. However, I think we should try to avoid using it, as I'm not sure it satisfies WP:RS. It is a large list of names maintained by an anonymous editor, with no sources given. A quick glance spots some common mistakes, including both non-Jewish entries such as Milton S. Hershey and John James Sainsbury, and entries whose Jewish heritage is remoter than what is stated, such as George & Ben Cohen, Max Baer and Brad Ausmus. Udzu 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the precisely defined term, it's not a wikimirror because it uses other sources, that's true. This doesn't detract from the fact that a huge heap of it's information is copied and pasted from wikipedia. And no, we don't need sources saying "JewProm copied information from wikipedia" to know that. Plus, I doubt there's many references to jewprom anywhere. It seems to be equivalent to somebody's geocities page - from the looks of it maybe even a former wikipedia members'. Why I'm still discussing this...I don't know. Too chatty today ;) 72.144.161.216 00:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mickiewicz[edit]

View the following WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

Mickiewicz's mother 100% being Jewish is apparently just the view of whoever wrote that Jewish Encyclopedia entry, as it is disputed nearly everywhere else. We do not represent a minority view on the circumstance equivalently to the majority, which is a "debatable" Jewish ancestry. Furthermore, the only appropriate entry here would be Mickiewicz's mother and not Mickiewicz himself anyhow. Further attempts to add Mickiewicz to this list will be reverted. LaGrange 05:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works from secondary sources in accordance with WP:NPOV and, where they contradict each other, editors do not usually seek to judge in order to reach a conclusion, but state the different point of view, so the reader can see what is being said in order to form their own judgement.-20.138.246.89 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please view what was mentioned above. Thank you. LaGrange 03:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Nobody is citing the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Encyclopaedia Judaica, a standard reference work, says that his mother was Jewish. Another source says that she probably (though not certainly) wasn't. There is no evidence that the view that his mother was Jewish is disputed nearly everywhere else or is a minority view, still less views that are held by a tiny minority.--20.138.246.89 09:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That Jewish Encyclopedia - "Encyclopedia Judaica" (translation: Jewish Encyclopedia). Yes, it is a minority view as no other source states it unequivocally. You are thus holding one reference higher than all other by adding his mother to this list. There's no trouble finding a reference that says Albert Einstein is Jewish anywhere. It's going to be in every one of his biographies undoubtedly. And yet, there's not a single biography which states that Adam Mickiewicz, or rather, Adam Mickiewicz's mother was Jewish undoubtedly. Is this a view by a tiny minority? Perhaps, but thats harder to prove. Furthermore, you do not have a source that says Adam Mickiewicz is Jewish, but rather his mother, so practice what you preach. LaGrange 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

say " It does not help to confuse the Jewish Encyclopedia with the Encyclopedia Judaica; they are entirely different. I am not holding one source higher than any other; I am noting the existence of both sources that have been adduced.--20.138.246.89 16:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God. This time you didn't even bother referring to what I typed. LaGrange 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did, and I answered it. Please prove that the Encyclopaedia Judaica, a standard reference work, is no more than a small minority view, rather than relying on unsubstantiated assertions. And speaking of reading, please read the introduction to the article: "The following is a list of people with Polish-Jewish heritage. Note that the list includes people of Jewish faith, Ashkenazi culture and/or Jewish ancestry."--20.138.246.89 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE. You're not citing anything about Mickiewicz, but rather Mickiewicz's mother. Hope you realize that otherwise it's WP:NOR violation to assume that Mickiewicz was Jewish because his mother was, even though that is in accordance with Jewish law. Anyway, it doesn't matter, neither would go on here. Like we've argued on List of Iberian Jews, we don't list people by the unproven possibilities of them having a Jewish relative. LaGrange 20:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I wrote. If this were a list of people who were Jewish, I would agree with you. However, this "is a list of people with Polish-Jewish heritage". Thus, since (according to an impeccable source) he had a Jewish mother, he belongs here. The List of Iberian Jews is no precedent, since the sources were not 100% unequivocal. True, one source has been cited that says that it is improbable that she was Jewish, but no source says unequivocally that she was not.--20.138.246.89 09:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the heading says is not relevant. Wikipedians do not define who counts as a Polish Jew, that is judged from outside references. If you want to make a list of people with possible Jewish mothers, that is where Mickiewicz would belong. His mother being Jewish is not 100% proven either similarly to the Iberians on List of Iberian Jews. This can be judged from all sources outside of Encyclopedia Judaica, which for some reason states it as a fact rather than a possibility, which it is fair to say could be an unconcious bias issue (the encyclopedia IS for Jewish subjects). What one place says does not hold dominance per WP:NPOV#Undue Weight to what every other place does, and this mode of evaluation referencing is perfectly allowed within WP:RS. Also "exceptional claims requires exceptional sources" per WP:RS. It is undoubtedly an exceptional claim to say Adam Mickiewicz was Jewish. Ask anybody on the Polish Encyclopedia if their national poet was Jewish. They'll be surprised to hear that info as it is in no way or form "common knowledge." Secondly, it is not ONE source that says his mother's Judaism is totally speculative/improbable/a rumor, it is many including "The Occult Underground" by James Webb, that article by Regina Grol [14] mentioned on this talk page, and Adam Mickiewicz - Poet of Poland by M. Kridl, in addition to the one foot-noted here by Weintraub. In fact, the majority of biographies don't even make mention of this claim, which makes one wonder. LaGrange 16:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. The header says what the article is about. If the header said that it also included American-born Jews whose parents were Polish, such people would be included. This is not a question of "Who is a Polish Jew" but "What is the article about?" It makes no sense to say that the article by Regina Grol is not a good reference, then cite it. Nobody is giving undue weight to one source; it is being cited, with a note that it is not undisputed.--20.138.246.89 09:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, where did I say Regina Grol was a good reference or for that matter, where did I cite it? I'm merely pointing out that many places don't say it unequivocally and since you apparently thought Regina Grol WAS a good reference, I pointed it out to you. We, as editors on wikipedia, not make "make up" definitions for things because, as everyone knows, thats original research. So List of Polish Jews cannot be whatever some user decides to put in the header, just like any other list can't do that and are being adjusted so that only people who honestly reflect the title can be placed there. However, there isn't much stopping you from making a list that would fit Mickiewicz, like List of people with possible Frankist mothers or something like that. As long as you can cite it as a possibility. LaGrange 05:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanisław Lem![edit]

He was not Jewish, only Polish!! don't be silly people

  • Who are you kidding? Or do you not understand that it's a list of Jews by nationality, not by religion? LMB (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A specific symptom of Polish anti-Semitism[edit]

Polish nationalists create lists of Polish Jews (sometimes false) which include, first of all, politicians and social activists. However, there is ONE specific exception to this general principle: prominent Polish cultural figures (poets, writers, artists, musicians, etc.) who were Jewish (or Jewish ancestry), such as Adam Mickiewicz, Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński, Stanisław Lem, Teodor Parnicki, Tadeusz Kantor, Jan Kiepura, Henryk Wieniawski, and many others. Polish “true patriots” do not agree with these facts, so they permanently remove them from the Category: Polish Jews.

Dr Mibelz

Mibelz 11:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly object to this sort of innuendos meant to upset the tone of this discussion. Who are the quote-unquote "true patriots". What is it, that you're trying to say, Dr Mibelz? Poeticbent 20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mibelz - I think you are being a bit anti-Polish over here. I think Polish people (I'm American) feel very close to the people you mentioned and this is because they were very "Polish" culturally. As you know, many Polish-Jews did not assimilate into Polish culture and therefore there was a clear distinction in language, religion, dress. Also some of the names you mentioned had mixed ethnicity 1/2 or 1/4 Jewish so they were considered ethnically and culturally Polish. BTW - I really don't think it was necessary to entitle your comment with a “Specific Symptom of Polish anti-Semitism”. That is very hateful and not appropriate for any civil discourse. If anything, it is comments like that, that breed anger and resentment. Just because you’re Jewish doesn't mean you’re exempt from being prejudice and you should be called on it as you have done to the Poles.--24.5.130.89 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Mibelz is being anti-Polish here. It is true that there are anti-Semites in Poland (they're a minority of course) who consider themselves "real Poles" and "true patriots", and one of their favorite pastimes is making up biased and mostly false lists of Polish Jews (see this example) with "true names" and descriptions such as "Pole-eater" or "Polonophobe". And it's true that you will find lots of politicians (either genuine Jews or not) in such lists, but no great artists. Naturally, this is not what we want to reproduce here in Wikipedia and we must be extremely cautious that this does not happen. We should always assume good faith, but at the same time make sure some user (or vandal) does not push an anti-Semitic agenda here. Nor should we use such lists of "conspiring Jews", which are abundant in the Internet, as a source of information for Wikipedia. And I guess this is what Mibelz was trying to warn us against. Kpalion 19:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kpalion, thank you for the explanation, and I do understand that there are those you have agendas but what I disagreed with most was the generalization in Mibelz title - A Specific Symptom of Polish Anti-semitism. This was truly un-called for and defamatory towards Poles.--68.127.157.81 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - Wiki does not allow for speculation of Jewish ancestry only fact, so if a person is rumored to have Jewish, Polish, Italian, etc. ancestry but there is no documentation, the person should not be on the list. Mibelz mentions a few people that would not qualify to be on the Polish Jews list because there is no evidence that they were Jewish or considered themselves Jewish (diary, interviews, etc.). It is not anti-semitic to remove those people, it's Wiki policy. The Polish-Americans List is monitored and scrutinized on a regular basis for correct citing of sources and this Polish-Jews list should be treated no differently. --24.5.130.89 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mibelz unfortunately you are being as they still sey in belz economical with the truth. Why people create such lists in the first place? because their prosecutors mainly of jewish origin chnged their names in 40' and 50'. Assimilated jews and there was quite a lot of them and zionist and there was quite a lot o them too did not do it. Practically only hard core jewish communists or their jewish opportunistic helpers di it and there was only a lot of them :). You in your profile state that you live in silesia, still you should be aware how many political personalities that collaborated with soviet union against the interest of polish and for that matter orthodox jewish comminities now has polish surnames. Secrecy creates fear. Why did they change their names when the where torturers, hangers and killers? We will never be sure of the reasons, but one thing remains the fact that they chose to camuflage themselves while discriminating others.

Who belongs on a list such as this[edit]

As with all other lists on wikipedia, we can only put anybody on this list who fits the description of a Polish Jew. In other words, we're not going to redefine the list simply to add Americans like Alan Pakula and Geddy Lee. The primary view is that these people are Americans, not Polish Jews, despite their background. Much in the same way that actor George Clooney is viewed as an Irish-American not an Irishman, or author Kurt Vonnegut is a German-American and not a German.. For that reason we bother having a list of Polish-Americans in the first place. Just because this is a list of Polish Jews, doesn't make it separate from other lists with nationalities. I've asked on the TALK:List of Polish Americans for someone to come and explain. 141.213.212.42 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list is defined by its title not by the caption. List of Polish Jews will not be the singular exception to lists of nationalities to include Americans who were not viewed as Polish Jews before Americans. If you have a disagreement with such, please rename the list. 141.213.210.40 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the appropriate WP policy.--20.138.246.89 11:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have alrady contacted people working on List of Polish Americans to help come and explain. They have yet to respond. 141.213.210.40 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you seem to agree, at least in part, to the third opinion on TALK:List of South-East European Jews, and that opinion will be the same one given here if you went and asked for one on this topic. So why are you disagreeing with it now? Because this is a list of POLISH Jews and not GREEK Jews? This isn't a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know. You might be thinking differently and in which case, I might be inclined to agree. Simply because you seem to disagree with every edit I make doesn't mean it will always be mutual, so try to explain to me why you think its necessary for ALL people of ANY Polish-Jewish descent to be on this list too.141.213.210.40 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple - this is a list of people of Polish-Jewish heritage; it has been for months and you've never dissented.--20.138.246.89 16:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some respect and answer my questions. Otherwise, anyone reading this discussion will note it is one-sided. Why do you agree to not have Americans on a list of Greek Jews but refuse on a list of Polish Jews? The third opinion will be the same for all. There is a reason all lists of nationalities on wikipedia usually exclude Americans of ____ descent. 141.213.210.40 18:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - GEDDY LEE is Canadian, not American so he is considered a Jewish Canadian or a Polish-Jewish Canadian, not a Polish-American or Polish Jew. He has stated several times that he is Jewish but never a Polish-Jew. He did state that his mother is Polish and/or from Poland. Even though we can deduce that he is a Polish-Jew, according Wiki's policy (which I have a hard time with) he is a Jewish Canadian and that is all we can support right now.

Dates or no Dates?[edit]

Anybody want dates of birth and death by the names on this list? I'll just go with the majority on this one, but it looks really messy if its half and half. 141.213.210.40 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting[edit]

I was asked to comment and it's really very simple... it all depends on what the (reliable, as a must) source says about the person... I'd imagine that yes, in some cases there will be people who were not strictly speaking Polish nationals who were described as Polish Jews (I mean the people themselves, not their parents). But, for example, a list of "Sephardic Jews" would include people from all kinds of countries 'round the world, so it could be similar here. (Same thing for list of Polish-Americans, although I don't see much of a conflict there at the moment) Using the examples above, I don't think there are sources that say either Alan Pakula or Geddy Lee are Polish Jews, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.... Mad Jack 19:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Discussions or even Comments on Reverts[edit]

The purpose of a page lock is to instigate a discussion on the changes that have been made rather than just implementing the changes. There have been explanations made and reasonings provided (WP:CITE notably) for all the edits that have been made on my part and absolutely none for User:Runcorn's reverts. If discussion does not follow, then his reverts are in my mind "vandalism" even if they are coming from an admin in opposition to an anon. There is no bureacratic hierarchy that would make Runcorn's edits more "valid" than mine. I'm not going to create an account just for the purpose of re-implementing these edits because that would not make them any more permanent to the potentially chauvinistic edits of User:Mibelz, who has deemed me a "maniac anti-semitist" apparently for removing his random source-less contributions that suggest people like Joe Lieberman are Polish politicians. There are only two alternatives to this. Either Runcorn and Mibelz discuss these edits and come to a consensus with me or the article stays locked from IP contributions forever, which it per wikipedia mission statement can not. 141.213.211.81 10:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of people who are clearly within the scope of the article, namely "people with Polish-Jewish heritage... people of Jewish faith, Ashkenazi culture and/or Jewish ancestry", with no source that they do not meet these criteria, is a violation of WP:Point, since it is being done to try to change the scope of the article against the wishes of every other editor.--20.138.246.89 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you need evidence that these people are Polish Jews, not just Jewish Americans. You specifically need to prove that they are considered "Polish Jews" as a dominant view, otherwise its just some person's opinion. You mean the comments above this one and the ones on TALK:List of South-East European Jews are not included from "every other editor"? 141.213.211.81 11:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the List of South-East European Jews. This article is what it says it is. There is no consistent policy between the different lists, but we have to abide by the consensus of editors on each list unless and until there is an agreed Wikipedia policy.--20.138.246.89 16:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there has never been a consensus on what this list should include because very few people care about the list enough to make that agreement in the first place. Secondly, if you all of a sudden agree with the procedure used on South East European Jews why do you still refuse to remove Pete Sampras? And thirdly, the third opinion provided for South-East European Jews will be the same one provided here...if you don't believe me, I'll ask for another but it just seems pointless in the long run since you'll ignore that one too. It is just an opinion but it will prove that there is in no way a "consesnsus" to make this a list of anyone in the universe who has had a Polish Jew as a family member. Finally, over half of the entries on of Polish politicians have no sources indicating they even had Polish Jewish heritage. 141.213.211.81 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The following entries need sources which state the person in question is Polish and Jewish.

  • A) You cannot source wikipedia with wikipedia
  • B) You cannot source a figure with a reference that says their parents/parent was Polish and Jewish, because according to the title and section header, these people need to be Polish Jewish politicians. If anyone wishes to change the title, then we can do that here. If anyone wishes to simply add a parent of Polish Jewish politician, that cannot be added under the Politicians section, but could be put in a different section. Read the comments by User:Jack O'Lantern above.
  • C) If no sources can be found for any of the figures on this list with a [citation needed] by 2007, the names will be removed per WP:V.

141.213.212.81 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in Tarnation?[edit]

Does anyone else agree that this article is absurd? It needs some serious "repair", less it create more problems, in a world full of problems. Dr. Dan 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. When unverified entries remain on the list for eternity despite no suggestions of Polishness and/or Jewishness, and when controversial figures are added to the list regardless of extent of Judaism or prefered self-declaration, how can anyone expect this list not to be absurd? This could be changed if others did not fear rogue users not having a complete grasp of the English language stamping critics of this page as "anti-semitists." Make a controversial change to List of Poles, nobody cares - make a simple edit to List of Polish Jews, reverts galore. Interesting standard. 141.213.67.46 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"POV edit"[edit]

Does 20.138 care to explain what "POV edit" means? Or how WP:NPOV applies at all to the removal of month-old sourceless entries? Also, it would be nice for 20.138 to point out where in WP:V it is made obvious that unsourced elements can remain in an article indefinitely. As a matter of fact, it is written directly "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." 141.213.67.46 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources for some of the Jews![edit]

f.e. Klossowski, Lem! Kowalmistrz 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all the ethnic and religious lists need to be referenced. Many of them have been done already. List of African American jurists needs some work. All help in adding references will be gratefully received. What does "f.e. Klossowski, Lem!" mean? Both these gentlemen already have references.--20.138.246.89 16:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V I agree with the above: if it is unsourced, it shouldn't be here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. logologist|Talk 20:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a novel policy that any unsourced statement in any article should be removed. That would entail deleting about 80% of Wikipedia. This article is better than many from the point of referencing; it would be extremely POV to pick on this article when there are so many totally unreferenced ones about. Still, if anyone wants to be constructive and add references, they should certainly do so.--Newport 23:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could try to use WP:BLP to support removal of any unreferenced inclusion here, perhaps?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the sentence "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced."? Is it defamatory to describe a person as Jewish?--Runcorn 20:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it's defamatory to describe someone as Polish? — Kpalion(talk) 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite evident that there are some people who use the word 'Jew' as an insult. Therefore I believe that WP:BLP is applicable here to prevent such anti-semitic propaganda from being spread here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And look at "List of atheists" for an example of the alacrity with which inadequately referenced cases are immediately deleted. logologist|Talk 07:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good example, I say.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The parallel is not exact. If people make clearly nonsense additions to any list, it will be reverted. For example, Lenin was rapidly removed from the List of Russian Jews.--20.138.246.89 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if anyone has evidence that someone has been placed on this list for anti-Semitic reasons, they should add a {{cn}} tag. It would, however, violat WP:Point to make deletions from this list just because someone is not yet referenced, while refusing to delete unsourced material from other articles.--20.138.246.89 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filibusterscartoons as a reliable source? Yet another nice _private_ webpage.[15] While it sometimes accompanies some obvoius cases that belong to the list, it definitely needs replacing. --Beaumont (@) 21:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article[edit]

The scope of the article is defined in the introduction and is not inconsistent with the title. If you wish to change the scope of the article, which has been the same since last April and is agreed to by the great majority of editors, please seek a consensus here first. It is not valid to assert that "any list that is of "Polish people" needs to follow those standards for defining Polishness". What standards? Is ther an agreed Wikipedia-wide policy? If so, please cite it. Please do not point to another article; what is agreed on one article cannot become a Wikipedia-wide policy affecting other articles. Also, please do not delete properly-sourced material.--Newport 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles need to mirror what is inclusive of the list because editors cannot define "Polish Jew" for themselves; it needs to be attributable to something. Even if this scope was agreed upon by "the great majority of editors" (which I see no evidence of) it is original research to define Polishness in this way. There is a way around that and that is to start another article with a more inclusive title, which you are welcome to do. Other than that, this doesn't upset any balance. In fact, it seems to fit the standards of all other Jewish lists. So that worked out really well. LeszekB 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the scope of the article?[edit]

It is proposed that a major change should be made to the scope of the article. Before this is made, it should be discussed here. The suggestion that no red links should be allowed in this list is strange, and contrary to the practice elsewhere. Is there a consensus that there should be such a rule here?--Newport 12:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..Red links are allowed. If they weren't, they would have been removed by now. It is just recommended an article be written first, and required that a source be attached to any red links (preferably one that would help write that article) for all future additions. This is definitely nothing new, or at least shouldn't have been. I know you think you might be, but you are not doing the article any good by these reversions. Instead, if you honestly think some people removed were Polish (and Jewish for that matter) then they can naturally be put back pending some type of proof of this. Otherwise, you can always start a new article with any scope you want ...if you believe it absolutely necessary. LeszekB 18:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the Wikipedia policy that says that it is "required that a source be attached to any red links (preferably one that would help write that article) for all future additions". Also, please explain exactly what you propose that the revised scope of the article should be, so that we and other editors can discuss it. At present, you are making mass removals of properly sourced material, which is of course vandalism. Please make no further removals until there has been a proper discussion.--Newport 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wikipedia policy would be WP:A (AKA WP:V). There is nothing to propose because there is no discussion on who is Polish and who is not. That information can only be attributable to some external resource (a newspaper, biography, or a quote maybe). If the link is already within the wikipedia database it would probably be overkill to have a reference by it on the list if one already exists in the article. So that isn't needed. And sources like the Tyrmand one you just added are exactly what would be needed for any further additions. LeszekB 23:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are lists different from other articles? If I add to a biography that someone was born in a certain town, and it is a redlink, do I need to add a reference to allow someone to write an article about that town? But there is a major issue about the scope of the article that LeszekB refuses to address. He kep pretending that the scope is or shold be something other than the agreed one, and refuses to say why it needs changing or what new scope he proposes.--20.138.246.89 12:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that town you speak of was on a list small towns subjected to epidemics of cholera (let us say such a list existed) then yes you would need to attach a reference to the town name. Most editors avoid linking to non-existent articles on other articles, but if you choose to do you don't need to add a reference because you are not making any claims about the town by doing so. By adding it to a list, you are. And it is only preferable that the reference allows someone to write an article from it, not necessary. Lists are different because they have their own format and guidelines, WP:LISTS. I'm looking through the discussion page history here and I don't see any instance of this agreement you mention. In fact there seems to have been a lot of concern about this list. I don't know what I am not addressing. Like I said, there is no proposal. Just like there are no proposals of inclusion on List of British Jews or List of Jews from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. List of British Jews requires a source for each new addition, just like it should be here, while the Russian list seems to be relying on birth place, which this list could too if it were renamed to List of Jews from Poland. But I see no need to do that. LeszekB 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can find to a formal policy on red links is here: [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry#Red_Links_.28well_no_link_actually.29] That does not seem to support your contention. Of course all names should be sourced, and sources are being added. However, this is irrelevant to this discussion, as you have repeatedly deleted properly sourced names (which is contrary to Wikipedia policy). Now please, make a formal statement of what changes you wish to make of the coverage of this article so we can discuss it.--Newport 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no discussion for inclusion because that would mean a discussion of "who is Polish" and editors don't decide that. Red links are allowed on all lists, but not when the addition is unproven to meet list criteria (i.e. adding names to lists of LGBT people). This is policy in WP:A because every claim made on wikipedia needs to be attributable to something to confirm it. Properly sourced additions would require the references to state a person is Polish via a biography, a newspaper article, a quote so on. NNDB templates and Genealogical Databases describing great-grandparents don't do the trick. If you have different concerns, something that I can actually change, I will reply to them here. LeszekB 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no discussion for inclusion at present; it is anyone of Polish Jewish heritage. If you propose a change to that, we can discuss it.--Newport 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible way you could have responded this way is if you've completely ignored my responses. LeszekB 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was asked to explain again. What it is to be Polish is unfortunately not a perfectly defined subject, especially given Poland's history. By setting a criteria for who belongs on this list and who doesn't we, in turn, set a criteria for who is Polish (and who is Jewish as well). Criterias never have boundaries, especially not the criteria of "people of Polish-Jewish heritage." Where's the cut off? Is there one? If not, it is possible to put every second Pole on there. These problems lend themselves to original research on our part. We're setting a criteria and in the process possibly leaving out or putting in people who would and wouldn't be defined as a "Polish Jew" by professionals. This is why the *only* way to make any list function is the provide sources that qualify the entry as part of the list. So a List of Polish Jews would have to have people referenced as Polish and Jewish, or best case Polish Jewish. It is entirely possible that some of the names that were removed **SHOULD** be returned, but I'm not finding anything that says the people in question are Polish, just of Polish background (much of the time with no further details than that). LeszekB 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly just a dispute about whether the scope of the article should be changed. Shouldn't we just take a poll of editors? That's what's normally done in these circumstances.--20.138.246.89 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A poll to *rename* the list would be acceptable, but there's no negotiating someone's identity. "I think he's German." "Well, I think he's English. Let's take a poll." That doesn't work. You can't take a poll on whether wormholes exist, you need citations that say they do. You can't take a poll on if people like Adrien Brody and Scarlett Johansson are Polish, you need citations that say they are. LeszekB 18:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what I am proposing. I am proposing a vote on whether to change the scope of the article, which is clearly laid out in the introduction. There is no Wikipedia policy whatsoever that says that the scope of an article is determined solely by one editor's over-literal interpretation of the article title.--Newport 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "keep the status quo." List of British Jews uses the inclusion of being a "British Jew" (same as title), List of Hungarian Jews uses the inclusion of being described by a reliable source as Hungarian (same as title), List of Jews from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus uses the inclusion of quite literally the title. List of Austrian Jews uses another form of the definition of Austrian (German-speaker of the Habsburg empire) as its inclusion (same as title). So do non-Jewish lists like List of Germans. A list with a title of "Polish Jews" and a criteria for inclusion is indirectly making the assertion that that criteria fulfills being a "Polish Jew." This begs the question why would someone not just rename the list to mold to the criteria? Over-literal? How can anyone not take it literally what this scope is suggesting: any one who has a Polish great grandmother and Jewish great great grandfather is a Polish Jew by definition. If the same scope was applied to a list of African Americans, a lot of people would be surprised to learn they are by definition Black. That isn't the definition of African American, of course, so why pretend like it is. We wouldn't make a List of 1970s dance songs and then write in the scope that it almost counts 80s songs when you could just rename it to reflect that. LeszekB 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By "keep the status quo" I mean keep what the position was for eleven months before you started this. It is irrelevant what happens on other articles; in the absence of a general Wikipedia policy, no article can "bind" another. Does 'could be reliably described as "Hungarian"' exclude people of Hungarian descent? It does not even say "are described", only "could be described"; I would argue that someone with Polish parents could be described as Polish, even if nobody has done so. To assert that the title and description indirectly makes an assertion is original research; I have made no such claim. "African Americans" is an interesting example. Most people so describing themselves have ancestors going back several centuries in the USA, and probably few have proof that their ancestors came from Africa. Why call them African anything? If you have a proposal to rename the article, please make it.--Newport 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, editors write inclusion and scopes but editors cannot decide how a person is identified. They can only make citations and form lists and articles based on those citations. An inclusionary scope defines what is included in the list, and in doing so, defines what the list is of. Even if this list had that scope of inclusion for eleven months, the removed additions were only added since about January, so for 9 of those 11 months, the scope was ignored.
There is a general wikipedia policy, and that is that everything in an article must be attributable to an external reference. Adding a revision of what should be on this list like this looks like an action to circumvent that policy and the fact that few other lists do this doesn't help disprove that contention. Black people or Negros are defined as being descendents of Sub-Saharan Africans.
African American is the politically correct way of referring to Sub-Saharan Africans in America per its definition. If you added the inclusionary scope "this is a list of people with African heritage" you would immediately open up the list to additions of Egyptians, South Africans, Algerians, etc and hence would be asserting that an "African American" is defined as ANYONE from Africa when that actually is original research because it is redefining the word. By adding an inclusionary scope here, the exact same thing is happening. Also, African is a geographic term and not a national term as is Polish, so it isn't entirely comparable. If you have a severe dilemma with one of the names not having a source referring to them as Polish, then it is unfortuantely just your opinion that they are Polish. Editor opinions don't matter for written content here. LeszekB 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion resolved[edit]

LeszekB has possibly been confused by a misapprehension. He may think that "Polish Jew" is to be interpreted in the same way as say "British Jew". This is not the case, as Antidote realised when he inserted the phrase "people with Polish-Jewish heritage". Polish Jews are those who were raised in the customs and traditions of Polish Judaism, and is an ethnic rather than geographical term. Obviously, it includes people born in New York or Jerusalem to Polish parents. The same issue arises with Category:Spanish and Portuguese Jews. Nobody would expect this to be restricted to Jews born in Spain or Portugal. If LeszekB wishes to start a new list of Jews from Poland, he may do so and I would be happy to help him, but it is original (and incorrect) research to argue that a Polish Jew literally means someone born there.--R613vlu 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence sums up the problem: there should be no research period. We're not researching what is a Polish Jew or a British Jew, but rather finding external references that can attribute both qualifications to a person. Those that don't qualify either "Polish" or "Jewish" don't belong on this list. But I'd like to point out that by your personal definition of Polish Jew, it would require that the person is "raised in the customs of traditions of Polish Judaism?" Since you believe this to be the criteria, why did you revert to include actress Scarlett Johansson and Adrien Brody? You have an external reference that qualifies that these two were "raised in the custom of and traditions of Polish Judaism"? You see there are problems with such personal interpretations of what it is to be a Polish Jew. This is why there should be no argument over inclusion, as there isn't one on the others in the series of Lists of Jews by Country. LeszekB 14:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

I propose that this article should remain, as it has been since 11 April 2006 [16], "a list of people with Polish-Jewish heritage. Note that the list includes people of Jewish faith, Ashkenazi culture and/or Jewish ancestry."--Newport 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to concentrate this discussion under one heading instead of always making a new one. This makes it look like they're separate discussions. Anyway, you can't define Polish Jew for yourself. So there's no use in this. The initial scope was ambiguous as to what it even meant in the first place. It is open to interpretation of where to make a cut off, if ever. LeszekB 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone start a page "List of Jews from Poland"? That would be unambiguous.--20.138.246.89 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what this list WAS before the December/January additions, except it staved off a need to specify *which* Poland. Pre-WWII Poland? Post-WWII Poland? It would have to be a much more specific title. Renaming the list to that would just complicate it more IMO and the references would be harder to find because then you'd need to look up to make sure the person in question was born in the correct territory. But I suppose if a lot of people agree to some specific rename, it could happen. Fact of the matter is, as long as this article maintains that it is a list of *Polish Jews* it is going to have to be referenced as such and not referenced as whatever anyone wants it to be referenced as. LeszekB 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and keep the discussion centralized again please. LeszekB 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to keep everything here now. What is the problem with a List of Jews from Poland? It would be a list of people with a reference saying they were Jewish and born or lived in Poland.--Newport 21:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much already answered that question above. LeszekB 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't have a list of Jews from Poland because it is hard to define Poland, than by the same token we can't have a list of Polish Jews - it makes no sense. I support Newport's position. It is perfectly OK to take a vote on the scope of a list. There is an excellent precedent on the List of British Jews, where a vote was taken to restrict it to people explicitly described as Jews whereas every other Jewish list includes people of Jewish descent. There are also precedents for including people not born in the country in the article title; for example, John Charles Polanyi is on the List of Hungarian Jews although he was born in Germany.--R613vlu 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we can't have that renaming to List of Jews from Poland, it is that the renaming inherently includes people who might not be considered Polish by definition and so the purpose of the list is somewhat lost (unless we're very detailed in the renaming). After all, Poland at one point in time was more Ukrainian, German, and Belarussian than Polish. Having a List of Polish Jews prevents that from happening because it requires the people on the list have sources attributing them to be Polish. For more on why this makes sense, read the section above this one called Changing the scope of the list. List of Hungarian Jews doesn't suggest a person has to be born in Hungary to be Hungarian, but rather it takes the same approach all lists do except this one (relying on sources). If John Polanyi is described as Hungarian, that is why he is on the list. I don't understand why you believe lists in the same series should have different criteria for inclusions. That is equal to suggesting you should vote inclusion criteria on who to consider a "Polish composer" and who to consider a "Polish painter" when in reality all you should have to do is look up sources that the person is Polish and a composer or painter if doubt is present. For the fourth time now, editor's opinions are irrelevant on an encyclopedia. Only thing we can create on our own is what type of list to make, not who to put on that list after it is made. List of British Jews ended up culminating in a rename exactly like the one your propose, to which it was promptly returned to the same attributable and verifiable list I am trying to implement here.LeszekB 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support Newport. This is rather like the situation on List of Czech Jews, where an anon kept insisting that not everyone born in Czech lands was Czech enough to be on the list, and we had to have a very cumbersome rename. If we have a source that someone was born in Poland, or lived in Poland, it is original research to query what is meant by Poland. Editors' opinions intrude all the time. If there are several people called John Smith, it is editors' judgment which of them is the subject of the article "John Smith" as opposed to "John Smith (politician)", or indeed whether "John Smith" should be a disambiguation page. And as already noted, there was a poll of editors to restrict the coverage of List of British Jews. There was no issue there that other lists in the same series would therefore have different criteria for inclusion. Another example was Seamus Heaney, where a poll was taken about whether to say that he was from County Londonderry or County Derry.--Brownlee 18:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want List of people of Polish-Jewish heritage, then at this point we move this discussion to Wikipedia:Requested moves. List of British Jews already experienced your supported method of inclusion and it was returned to the original title spot, but I guess that precedent is ignored in this case. Also, Londonderry and County Derry are synonymous. "Polish Jew" and "person of Polish and Jewish heritage" isn't. By the way, your John Smiths example either didn't make any sense or went right above my head. LeszekB 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we create List of people of Polish-Jewish descent and move the disputed people to that list, leaving the existing list otherwise as it is?--R613vlu 12:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work, yes, as long as no names remain on this list that can't be sourced as Polish. If this is what you meant, of course. Be careful with that hypen there though. I'm not sure when hyphenations are used and when they're not. You probably should look it up before any further action just for detail-oriented purposes. LeszekB 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, presumably if there's a good source that someone is Polish then there's no dispute. No, there shouldn't be a hyphen, sorry.--R613vlu 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs wider input[edit]

Because this discussion and its ramifications effects all articles, lists and categories relating primarily to the subject matter of defining Jews, the ramifications are very serious. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew. 09:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't what the discussion was about. Ther question was whether the list should include people of Polish descent born elsewhere.--Runcorn 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Runcorn: They are still cutomarily referred to as "Polish Jews" (in Jewish communities) even if they were born elsewhere, but it's not possible to make a "science" out of it. But there are other problems with the terminology and it's a far wider issue than you realize, as it also touches willy-nilly on Who is a Jew? issues. See the other examples and issues mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew. Thank You, IZAK 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK is correct here... anecdotally, the president of the synagogue in Eau Claire, Wisconsin is a Polish Jew whose ancestors are from Belarus, but who was born in Chicago to a family who had been in Chicago for 3 generations...the woman who runs the giftshop was born in Los Angeles and raised, I believe, in Seattle, but is a Persian Jew. As far as I'm aware, she's never been to Iran, to say nothing of "wasn't born there". Categorizing people as "Polish Jews" simply on the meaningless basis of where they're born introduces error and, ultimately, serves no useful purpose. "Jews from Poland" is a little more meaningful, until you take into account that the definition of what we know today as "Poland" has, over the past several centuries, had very disparate definitions. Tomertalk 06:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do things on Wikipedia by anecdote. If you have a reliable source that this person is a Polish Jew, please add him to the list; if not, he is not relevant.--20.138.246.89 12:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether because of obstinance or poor reading comprehension, you have utterly failed to grasp the relevant point. Tomertalk 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not violate WP:NPA. I have grasped the point perfectly.--20.138.246.89 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was it? Clearly you did not grasp the point, since if you had you'd never have made your statement. Thanks, Tomertalk 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not understand WP:Civil. Thanks, --20.138.246.89 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does anything you have said have to do with what I wrote? Tomertalk 17:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish descent" versus Jew[edit]

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

I reverted the previous edit because the Baczynski entry was oddly restored in addition to his mother after the replacement was made and it was blanketed under a revert. This was entirely inappropriate. Nobody has provided a thorough biographical sketch of Baczynski saying that he was Jewish. Without this, his addition to the list is revisionist in nature. LeszekB 15:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are doing this either out of some misplaced ethnic pride or anti-semetism, either way, not appropriate. --Tom 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Berman[edit]

Where?Xx236 (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Johansson[edit]

Ą little exaggeration.Xx236 (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Polish Jews[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Polish Jews's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "google1":

  • From Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust: Martin Gilbert. The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust. Macmillan, 2003. p146.
  • From Polish Righteous among the Nations: Robert Cherry, Annamaria Orla-Bukowska, Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007, ISBN 0-7425-4666-7, Google Print, p.5

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Polish Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Polish Jews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender bias[edit]

Fellow Wikipedians, Despite all the informative and less informative debates on this page, the list is itself, like much on this marvellous medium, heavily and shamefully gender-biased. A little more effort, please, and show us the women! --Po Mieczu (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sept 2020 edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "WP:OR and / or uncided; other c/e". --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OR? - [17] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Paradisus Judaeorum was removed [18] because it's OR to connect the phrase to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, since that page does not mention it; the polity is not described as "[[Paradisus Judaeorum]]" (Paradise of the Jews). The lead of the Paradisus Judaeorum page does not discuss it solely in re: religious tolerance either. The lead states: "Some have read the noun phrase as a straightforward observation..." and "Others read the reference as openly antisemitic...", so its use here is controversial. The restoration of the link [19] introduced a further problem of WP:EASTEREGG, on top of the issues I described. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a weird stretch. The term PJ is used to refer, often enough, to the Golden Age of Jews in Poland. Anyway, adding a reference is a good idea, I will do it shortly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Polish_Jews&oldid=1211744781"