The headcount here seems to lean slightly to delete, but when all the bolded "keeps" and "deletes" are set aside and the arguments examined from an objective standpoint, there is a consensus to delete.
The headcount here seems to lean slightly to keep, but when all the bolded "keeps" and "deletes" are set aside and the arguments examined from an objective standpoint, there is a consensus to delete. As I said in the other AfD, examining the arguments is particularly important here given the partisanship of the debate and the evidence of large scale canvassing (whether the canvassing was policy compliant or not).
The primary argument raised for deletion by the nominator was that the list was based on a non-notable intersection between Jews and acting. The notability argument was responded to in the following ways:
The primary argument raised for deletion by the nominator was that the list was based on a non-notable intersection between Jews and acting. The notability argument was responded to in the following ways:
Revision as of 21:59, 4 December 2010
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 delete.
The headcount here seems to lean slightly to keep, but when all the bolded "keeps" and "deletes" are set aside and the arguments examined from an objective standpoint, there is a consensus to delete. As I said in the other AfD, examining the arguments is particularly important here given the partisanship of the debate and the evidence of large scale canvassing (whether the canvassing was policy compliant or not).
The primary argument raised for deletion by the nominator was that the list was based on a non-notable intersection between Jews and acting. The notability argument was responded to in the following ways:
The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles. This was pointed out to be a bare assertion without any reference to reliable sources.
The large number of references to the article demonstrated notability. This was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting.
Accordingly, the claim that this intersection is notable was refuted.
The non-notability arguments were supported by a number of editors who raised the similar WP:NOTDIR argument, which talks about an intersection between two categories being a "culturally significant phenomenon". No-one addressed this. The only response from the keep side was that the fact of having a wikipedia article overcomes NOTDIR. I could not find support for this view in policy: no reliable sources were presented to demonstrate that Jews in the acting profession was a culturally significant phenomenon and thus not a non-encylopaedic or non-notable cross-categorisation.
I should point out that concerns about the maintenance of the list and the definition of "Jew" carried less weight. These weren't shown to be irresolvable problems requiring deletion of the list.
Accordingly, by reference to the views and arguments of the participants in this debate and relevant policies and guidelines, the consensus was to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, where the intersection is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. By its very nature, this list is a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. I'm also trying to address the larger, systemic issue here; Wikipedia is littered with dozens of these lists, most of which suffer from the same issues; so why do the least problematic of them create such angst, while the most problematic are not seen as a concern? This needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete 1) This list is a constantly escalating WP:BATTLEGROUND and suffers from numerous WP:BLP issues. 2) I disagree that lists should be treated separate from categories in regard to this policy: "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. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)" i.e., Unless this list is about individuals who participated in Yiddish theatre or some form of Jewish comedy, it is not a RELEVANT intersection. Bulldog123 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is a clear violation of WP:POINT, the nominator is merely trying to make a point about a different AfD he does not like. Posting this AfD notice on the article in question will also serve to canvass supporters of List of Jewish actors to come and !vote against the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates. betsythedevine (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Redacting, in the interests of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF my earlier claim that this article was created to make a point; the nominator asserts that it is sincere. betsythedevine (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to have to say that that's utter nonsense. This AfD is in perfectly good faith, about an article that obviously discusses a non-notable intersection. And I notice that you didn't make the same claim when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was also discussed on the other AfD page, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Please redact your untrue comment, discuss whether you think List of Jewish actors should exist, and please act with more personal consistency in the future. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained to you, this AfD is entirely sincere. Falsely claiming I made this nomination as a WP:POINT or WP:CANVASS is a violation of three policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. In addition, it's a violation of common sense; why on earth could this nomination "canvass" people to !vote in another AfD? If you read through my lengthy comments on the List of Jewish actors Talk: page and archive, you'll see that I have been expressing the same concerns about this list for months now; and, in fact, have been promoting the exact same inclusion criteria there that I promoted on the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates. Unlike those who are trying to delete Jewish lists because they're annoyed one specific individual is included on them, I'm trying to solve systemic issues, and I really do want this article to be deleted. I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise. Now, for what I'm really hoping is the last time, please redact your claims, and actually assume good faith. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whilst I understand the nominators reasons, he has been the biggest contributor to cleaning up the article and appears to have come to the conclusion that the job is too big to manage; however I have to disagree with the nomination.1) compared to other Jewish categories this hardly a WP:Battleground only two heated debates in the 4 years the article has existed both were resolved in good faith and neither formed a revert war. 2) This is not a non-notable intersection The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles, this is the definition of a notable intersection. Some editors would like to make this more specific limiting entry to those who have performed in Jewish Theatre for instance, however WP:EGRS says "a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances." note it does attempt to limit this to LGBT cabaret musical compositions but any LGBT composition or performance which could exist within a non-LGBT concerto or Show, this should be the same for any Jewish acting performance of Jewish relevance even within an non-Jewish centric film or play. I'd also add that the list is a better place to deal with WP:V, and WP:BLP issues where we can explain any conflict rather than these people ending up in a Category where the criteria for inclusion can't be explained. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles" Where on earth are you getting this? The VAST majority of the people on this list have absolutely no connection to any type of Jewish performance art at all. 90% of the American population could not even identify half of this list as Jewish. Take a look at the born in the 1980s section. Perhaps with the very loose association of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill to Jewish comedy, not a single person on that list has participated or had any association with anything making them a "Jewish actor" -- unless you consider playing a Jewish role somehow makes you a "Jewish actor." In which case we should add a lot of gentiles to the list too. Bulldog123 12:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those born in the 80's and 90's are less likely to have a portfolio of work that includes specifically Jewish Roles however there are some standouts there "Jason Fuchs" is cited as appearing in Holy Rollers a film about hassidic Jews, as is "Ari Graynor", There's also a few from Inglorious Basterds which again is about Jewish Soldiers during WWII. I'm sure if I go through the list with fine toothcomb I can throw up roles for a significant proportion of the whole list although as you say the further back you go the more overt some of the roles are. The difference between a Gentile playing Jewish and an actual Jew playing a Jew is that the Jewish person has the ability to challenge or reinforce stereotypes in their connection with the culture that represents them, a Gentile just plays the character with no investment in the culture he or she represents. Generally if a gentile is playing the character put the character in a list of Jewish characters if a Jew is playing the character and particularly if the role speaks heavily into Jewish life or culture then they should be on this list. Yes the list needs cleaned - no-one doubts that and JayJG has done more that anyone to achieve that improvement, there are even people in here who aren't actors but that doesn't mean that the article itsself has to be deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Talk:List_of_Jewish_actors#Why_this_is_such_a_bad_article. The topic of Jewish actors may well be notable and a potentially valid subject of a standalone article, but the concept of a bare list of Jewish actors as has been created here does not have similar notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. --JN466 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm concerned about the size, and notability requirements of this article, but the general topic appears to be notable by the current criteria. This is a discussed and distinguishable criteria. The scope needs to be clearly defined, but as a general rule I think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to post what you consider the "distinguishable criteria" being used for this list to be? I see someone has made a good-faith effort to make the criteria more precise, and in the process of adding lots of words has shown how undefinable the criteria really are. Townlake (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments, and policy mismatch.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and establishing such criteria would be inherently controversial. If anything, the link to "Who is a Jew?" only drives this point home. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear non-contravertial criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Span (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable intersection, as evidenced amply by the 600-plus refs. Ample coverage of the intersection in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand how little sense that made? This is a direct translation of your argument: This is a notable intersection because people exist in this world who are Jewish and who are actors. Please show me how the fact that Gwenyth Paltrow's great-grandfather was a rabbi has a bearing on her career as an actress. Bulldog123 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We measure notability of an intersection by whether RSs cover it. Here, that is clearly the case. There is no need for there to be a showing that one aspect of the intersection bears on the other, though there is fodder for that as well. Any more than with American actors, for example, or Black actors.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all nice to say "that is clearly the case." Unfortunately, you need to WP:PROVEIT. By the way, we don't even have a list of Black actors. Bulldog123 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Stuart's mentioned improvements below which show that this is an intersection which has reliable sources talking specifically about the intersection. That should be enough to make an intersection notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Also, simply WAY too broad a topic. Would make more sense if it were, for example, a "List of Jewish American actors" with a corresponding article on the subject. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Basicly, per Stuart.Jamieson. JackJud (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that JackJud seems to only emerge from hibernation when a Jewish-themed topic arrives on CfD or Afd. — JackJud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bulldog123 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche. Broccoli (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]
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.
Comment--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)
I have rewritten the lead with clear uncontroversial inclusion criteria and removing the ambiguous use of Who is a Jew?
There is substantial coverage of the subject such as
Acting Jewish: negotiating ethnicity on the American stage & screen By Henry Bial
In Search of American Jewish Culture by Stephen J. Whitfield
From the Lower East Side to Hollywood: Jews in American popular culture by Paul Buhle
Over the top Judaism:precedents and trends in the depiction of Jewish beliefs and observances in film and television by Elliot Gertel
Making Americans: Jews and the Broadway musical by Andrea Most
The list needs cleaning to remove entries that do not fit the new inclusion criteria and it would be helpful if a prose article on the subject using the above references amongst others could be written but hopefully this move in the right direction might help some of those asking for a delete to reconsider. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since AllHallowsWraith insists on removing the content from the article I reproduce it here for consideration
This is an Article listing Actors who are notable for being Jewish. Note, not all actors who are Jewish may be considered notable for it. When adding an entry consider the following:
Is the person associated with Jewish Cultural performance style such as Yiddish Theatre?
Is the person associated with performing in a production with Jewish cultural themes, or concerning Jewish history recent or distant?
Is the person associated with a prominent Jewish character in a production that is not specifically Jewish themed?
Is the person associated with a production which fulfils the above criteria but in some other capacity such as writer, director, or producer?
All entries should be accompanied by a reliable source identifying the individual as Jewish, For more on why reliable sources may consider a person Jewish, please see Who is a Jew? Ideally the best source of this information is a self-identification by the person themselves, however in some cases sources may identify the person as Jewish by virtue of one or more parents being Jewish or by conversion to Judaism - ideally these should be recorded in the list along with the source.
While I applaud your efforts, I still consider the criteria ambiguous. Further, it is somewhat telling that one person is attempting to declare a new set of criteria he just created "uncontroversial." (Nothing personal, just assessing the situation.) My concerns remain. Townlake (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please expand your concern so that any further ambiguity can be removed from the criteria, I've discussed the criteria as reason for retaining&improving the article in several locations and the criteria have never been disputed. However no-one until this AFD ever requested that they be included at the top of the list, since they have not been controversial in the past adding them to the article as uncontroversial seemed reasonable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back to my original rationale, "Establishing such criteria would be inherently controversial." I'm not going to pretend I can tell you how to fix this. My point is that the criteria cannot be unambiguously fixed, mostly because the definition of "Jewish" is often different for different Wikipedia users. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I've worded the the criteria to be based on definitions made by reliable sources and not those made by individual editors. This is basic WP:V and WP:N . I should add that this is the same policy implemented by the nominator in many Jewish articles including this one and though it took me a short while to see superiority of it, I do believe that it is the only policy compliant way to do it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to reject the nominator's argument that list of Jewish nobel lauriates is notable but list of Jewish actors is not. If anything, it's the other way around. Patricia Erens's book "The Jew in American Cinema" is entirely about this subject! Shooterwalker (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you actually checked the book you mentioned. But if you're referring to: [1] - you should know it isn't at all about the subject of Jewish actors but rather - mostly - about the depiction of Jews in cinema. Those two are not equivalent subjects. Bulldog123 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Continued discussion
Delete as non-notable intersection. And the new "criteria" ("notable for being Jewish"?), aside from not matching the list title, are original research that could never properly pass WP:V. The fact is, the majority of (caucasian) actors have played a Jewish role - so the criteria that someone had to have played a Jewish role to be included is pretty odd, aside from, again, being original research (and what constitutes a "Jewish role"? That could be argued about for far longer than is worth). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:EGRS#General point 4 a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances. replace "LGBT" with "Jewish" and "Musician" with "Actor" for comparison (obviously "activist" and "music composition" would have to be changed as well) . The name and context are in line with this, representations of Jewish culture by those associated with it are a notable intersection per the above sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGRS#General point 4 refers to categories, not lists. It was also added in by a single user after no discussion (in July 2009), so I don't exactly take it as gospel. A "List of Jewish actors" would contain people who are both Jewish and actors. If you wanted to create a "List of actors notable for being Jewish", that would be a different story, although, if you think "Who is a Jew" is a contentious issue, I don't know how you would ever start defining "Who is notable for being a Jew". The criteria you put forth are original research (if you want to make it "List of Jewish actors who have played a Jewish role", change the title to that, but it seems useless). BTW, I didn't delete the part you added that started with "All entries should be accompanied by a reliable source identifying the individual as Jewish..." This part does help support WP:V and WP:NOR. But the other criteria don't. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not "List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article". Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. In general, words likenotable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like Xs and list of all Xs.
If you disagree with the guideline then change the guideline, it is in place and has not been reverted it is a sensible rule of thumbrule for categorising any individual whether within a category, list, infobox or any other way that. I have shown RS in this AfD that it is however also compliant withWP:LISTPEOPLE.
For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud.
Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed. You want to delete as non-notable intersection yet are deliberately resisting moves to clarifying the specifically notable intersection contained within. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you could never define which Jewish actors are notable for being Jewish (and I don't know why you'd want to try, considering the already high level of debate over "Who is a Jew"). The criteria that someone has to have played a Jewish role once are completely arbitrary and are original research, especially considering that, as I said, most caucasian actors have played a Jewish character at some point (I'm not exaggerating). Not to mention that what constitutes a "Jewish character" is also going to be up for debate - and the fact that you would then need additional sources to support that part (and how big should this role have been? Would a school play suffice?) Aside from all that, I don't think you've reached consensus to make such a big and contentious change, especially not during a deletion process. As for the guideline, if you're referring to WP:EGRS#General, then it doesn't even apply to lists. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "List of Atheists" does include everyone who just happens to be an atheist. See for example List of atheists (film, radio, television and theater). As for List of people from the Isle of Wight - it lists everybody who has a Wikipedia article and is "from the Isle of Wight". The sub-heading "notable people born in or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight" doesn't change the meaning of the article's title. If we changed it to "List of people whose careers have had some association with the Isle of Wight, and who are also from there", it would be equivalent to your change, and I wouldn't support that, either. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is that you could never define which Jewish actors are notable for being Jewish" - True which is why the criteria does not require but asks editors to consider examples of why a Jewish actor may be notable for being Jewish. There could be further reasonable consideration, an Actor could also be a Rabbi (hypothetically), or be the spokesperson for a notable Jewish entertainment society reliable sourcing would have to be key here. Although she has never (to my knowledge) met any of the three suggested considerations, Rachel Stevens has notably taken action through Jewish courts in relation to an attempt to make her break Halakhic law in regard to a show she was performing on; if sourcing to that effect was cited I was have no problems with allowing her entry. You then choose to try and discredit the considerations with laughable suggestions, no a school play would usually not be acceptable as it is unlikely to receive significant coverage about the role's jewishness in reliable sources; however something like Grace Adler in Will and Grace or Rachel Berry in Glee might be covered well enough to support the inclusion. A number of calls for delete have cited the lack of a set of Criteria, Setting the Criteria is therefore a key factor in resolving the article's issues. If I WP:BOLDly add criteria then either this Afd will close with a Delete despite the addition and who cares what I added it will be gone, or it will close with a Keep and the debate to reach a consensus on the criteria wording can begin. The Guide to Deletion certainly doesn't prohibit this, nor does any list policy - in fact List policy is clear that a criteria is preferable. Also I quote policy and you come back with WP:Otherstuff trying to prove what exactly? Just because "List of Atheists" does contain everyone does not mean it should and should certainly not be used to justify retaining material in an article that is under AFD for being out of control, particularly when retaining that material inevitably leads to a Delete outcome. Policy suggests that that list should be cleared out, yet retained and that should be the case here as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actress who plays Rachel Berry, Lea Michele, isn't even listed here (but her co-star, Dianna Agron, is, and should be). What you're talking about is really a "List of notable Jewish characters" - what difference does it make if the actor who played them was Jewish or not? There's an abundance of very famous Jewish characters played by non-Jews. Why exclude them? Aside from that, under this criterion you're proposing, I suspect Yaphet Kotto, an African-American who is a devout Jew, wouldn't be listed here (nor would Sammy Davis, Jr.). That's just not right. Anything calling itself a "List of Jewish actors" that doesn't include Kotto and Davis, Jr. isn't doing its job - regardless of what User:William Allen Simpson managed to sneak into WP:EGRS#General when nobody was looking. And what you're also calling for is loads of work where apparently editors have to "demonstrate" that a character an actor played once was Jewish, and that this therefore qualifies them to be on this list - all of which amounts to original research. Or that this actor is a spokeperson for a Jewish organization - is that right? Non-Jews do that too, quite often. Just take a look at how ungainly and impractical this all is to actually execute. Looking at 1980s actors - Jake Gyllenhaal played a Jew in Moonlight Mile - so that means he's in? (Susan Sarandon played his mother in the same movie, I guess she can't be included because she's not Jewish?) Scarlett Johansson played a Jewish character in Scoop (would editors also need to provide sources that this character was Jewish? How many? Does that mean we're going to have 1800 references?) Adam Lambert appeared in The Ten Commandments on stage. Alex D. Linz played a Jewish boy in Full-Court Miracle, B.J. Novak (who's listed under the wrong decade) played a Jew for five minutes in Inglourious Basterds. Sara Paxton played "Tracey Richburg" in a movie - is that sufficient? And then you have somebody like Raviv Ullman, who's a practicing Jew (much more so than anyone I just named) but probably hasn't played a Jewish character in his relatively short list of credits. So he's not going to be listed? Does that make any sense? The end results of this proposal would be a handful of actors being fairly randomly excluded from being listed, while at the same time there would be endless debates about who could qualify and why. None of this makes any sense whatsoever on an article calling itself "List of Jewish actors" (and these criteria you're talking about have to be agreed upon before they're added to the article, and right now, they seem like an extreme case of original research to me - criteria that would frankly be fairly incomprehensible to the average editor, including me. Wikipedia needs less regulations, rules, and beaurocracy, not more). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lea Michele should be included because she self-identifies as Jewish [2], I can't explain her not being there but I guess if this is a keep she can be added. We already have a list of Jewish characters so no, I'm not trying to create one of those. Davis Jr has a notable public conversion, as has Isla Fisher and probably others on the list. In fact I would justify Kotto on his role in the film Raid on Entebbe, In fact any Jewish Actor playing an Anti-Semitic Character (Like Kotto playing Amin) whether real Henry Goodman playing Degas on stage, or fictional Sacha Baron Cohen playing Borat is also notable. We don't list white actors playing in Black or Yellowface in amongst actors from Africa or Asia so why would you even consider including non-Jewish actors who have played Jewish.
There is notable intersection here is in Jewish Portrayals of Jewish Culture as recognised in the above sources whilst that notable intersection is grounds for the existence of a list, it is already represented within this list and with a clean up this notable intersection can be drawn from a wider list. What I'm also calling for is loads of work where editors have to "demonstrate" that a actor is notable for being Jewish (part of WP:BLPCAT which does apply to lists as well but only to the living persons listed), I suggested some quick ways that can be considered but did not limit inclusion to just these ways which is why it's not original research. You're trying to discredit me, but this wouldn't change the sources much as many sources discuss an individual's Jewishness in relation to roles they are currently or have previously performed they would need checked but that needs to happen anyway. BTW Raviv Ullman is notable for his award nomination in Jewish Play A Rosen by Any Other Name.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But now you keep expanding your criteria - Yaphet Kotto would be listed because he played an anti-Semite, Davis, Jr. because he had a public conversion? So what if his conversion was public? That doesn't mean it reflects on his acting work or the material he appeared in. See, that's my point - if new and arbitrary criteria for inclusion keep coming up, that means it's original research. What would be the point of excluding the few Jewish actors "unlucky" enough not to fit any of these criteria? There aren't very many left. Would we exclude Dianna Agron? I can't imagine a list of Jewish actors that includes Lea Michele but not Agron. Michele was born to a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father. Maybe she's referred to herself as Jewish on occasion (she's also referred to herself as Italian), but she wasn't raised specifically in the Jewish religion. She wouldn't be considered Jewish under any denomination but possibly the Reform one (and even then it's unclear). Dianna Agron, on the other hand, was born to a Jewish father and a mother who was a convert to Conservative Judaism. She was raised fully in the Jewish religion and, from what I've seen, appears to be a practicing Jew. Are you telling me that Michele would be listed under your criteria, but not Agron? (unless Agron is notable for appearing on Glee). That's just not intellectually honest. Encyclopedias are supposed to be about facts, and when a "List of Jewish actors" includes Lea Michele but not Dianna Agron, then something has gone wrong on a fact-based level, and the reality of these actresses' actual backgrounds has mixed in with fiction. That's why there should be a separate list for fiction (and as you say, there is one), instead of foisting it upon fact. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope the criteria is already very wide - the individual has to be notable for being a Jewish Actor. Every entry can be considered on it's own merits. Reflecting on an entries acting work or the material they appeared in can be considered in relation to that notability. Arguing that Dianna Agron should be included is a non-point if she is not notable as a Jewish Actress, for a long time notable Jews such as Jack Klugman and Judd Hirsch were excluded because there were no sources that could identify them as Jewish and other Jews are still excluded because this is basic policy. We do have a category Jewish actors which accepts indiscriminate inclusion, so it's not too much to ask that the list actually include those who are notable for being Jewish Actors and not just those who happen to be Jewish and an Actor. Per your last, Encyclopaedias are about facts but they are about reliably sourced facts not OR, so lets require a source to that effect rather than adding entries indiscriminately. This is not about mixing fact and fiction, its about representing facts which may be based on portfolio of work. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, if you're saying "no" to Agron but "yes" to Michele, then something is wrong on a basic level if this is called "List of Jewish actors". Looking through this discussion, it would appear that probably 90% of the actors currently listed would remain listed under most of the criteria you're proposing. So my question is, why bother to exclude the remaining 10% under what seems like fairly arbitrary grounds? (i.e. they're excluded not because their background isn't "Jewish enough", but for other reasons). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying no to Argon and perhaps it would be up to someone better acquainted with her work to propose a source suggesting that she's notable for being a Jewish Actor however the sources currently given for her suggest that it's notable she's playing a devoutly Christian character because she is a Jewish Actress. In fact I've even considered that the article should be speedily deleted with the intention of a recreation with better sources for the majority of entries perhaps culling 50%-75% of entries initially and then gradually allowing them to be debated and inserted based on a clear notability for inclusion in this list, which currently hasn't been properly established for many entries. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are we even arguing about? If Agron is in it too, then I don't think there is going to be any difference between the article as is now and the article under these criteria. That's another reason I just don't see the need for them. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far two delete nominations have been based on the lack of any written criteria at the top, it would help any accusations of POV or Battleground in the article since it would be clear that the source has to make a clear identification of Jewishness and notability as a Jewish Actor.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria they mean are "Who is a Jew", something you added in yesterday that I didn't delete. But this "the source has to make a clear identification of... notability as a Jewish Actor" is a whole new part that doesn't even fit in with some of the things you said. A source might say "notable for playing Jewish character xyz", but they could say that about a non-Jewish actor, so that's not the same as the source saying "notable as a Jewish actor". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm not going to revert further on the page. It seems to me that this list of criteria will have no real effect on the page anyway. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the no further reverts, but I will wait until after the Afd is closed before re-adding. I believe the criteria also needs to be who is notable for being an Actor as well; for instance Paula Abdul is listed but she's not significantly notable for her acting - remove appearances where she plays herself or a variation of herself or has a cameo and you have 4 non-notable TV movies and a couple of TV episodes which would struggle to justify the inclusion of the actor in WP if they weren't notable for something outwith acting. Again I feel she's someone who could go in the Jewish Actors category but shouldn't be in a list of people who are notable for being Jewish Actors. On sourcing a lot of sources already talk about the actor's childhood and Jewish upbringing in regards to what they take to the role, which is where the intersection occurs tidying up so that sources that simply say "notable for playing Jewish character xyz" are removed is key in the future of the article (and entries related to those sources if no replacement can be found)- it was a source similar to that which sparked the "Why this is a bad article debate". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's delete, and we can all go home and contribute something of worth to wikipedia. Unless of course adding that Beck's "matrilineal great-grandmother was Jewish" is considered something worthy to everybody. Bulldog123 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Span (talk) 04:46, 29 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 = actors. SnottyWongchatter 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as usual, if they hacve a Wikipediaarticle, including them isn't a violation of NOT DIR. A violation would be including every such actor, whether or not notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial improvements above...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Nothing has been improved. Those were suggestions of unmaintainable criteria. Bulldog123 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the others. 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-identification or be 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--because of our own identity as Wikipedians : 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 ) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Epeefleche sent me the following email through Wikipedia last night. "Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors". Thank you, Epeefleche, for the notice, which I assume was sent to all commentors in the other Jewish list AfDs. However, in the interests of avoiding accusations of canvassing would you mind leaving messages like that on my talk page in future? Thank you. -[REDACTED] 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, the above comment is me. Forgot to log in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. No -- only limited commentators on both sides of the issue who commented on the entertainers, but not the actors list, which are of course related. There are, as you point out, a number of other Jewish lists being reviewed, but these are the two that are co-extensive.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no problem nominating those two for deletion for the exact same reason. Should I? Bulldog123 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per established precedents for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. And in addressing some delete !votes based upon a misinterpretation of policy, if these actors already have sourced Wikipedia articles, including them in a list with defined parameters is not a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just suppressed a number of revisions of this page, on request of an editor above who posted while logged out, The only changes made were to the signature [REDACTED] above - Alison❤ 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based and wiki-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: ([3] and [4])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: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. 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]
No... not a reasonable conclusion... being based upon one recent edit and then calling up activity from "some years ago". And 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 request 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. 07:37, 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. SnottyWongchat 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A neutral notification to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions, and sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions. I note that the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are not unfounded accusations as Schmidt is desperately trying to suggest. Epeefleche has a long history of CANVASSing on Jewish AfDs/CfDs. I am no longer required to WP:AGF. Bulldog123 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. I don't care about Jewish arguments of pro/contra voters, but the list is unmanageable. There's just too many of them, they won't fit in one page (even limited to United States) and I cannot see how one can define inclusion/exclusion criteria (notability? tabloids? old wives' opinion?). Disclaimer: Epeefleche pinged me about this AFD, FWIW. East of Borschov 08:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just now got pinged myself... but I had already been involved in these discussions. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that "List of actors not linked to any Jewish ancestry" might have a narrower, better defined scope. Nergaal (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not share the nominator's concerns that this article is a "WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet," as this is a wiki where it is equally easy to hit the edit button and insert inappropriate material into any article. If the nominator believes their issue with this type of list "needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way" then they should start a (broad) request for comment, not a (narrow) article for deletion nomination. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and best to ignore comments based on general conceptions of ethnicity and list articles, or generalized opposition to ethnic categorization, that don't consider the subject of this particular article, which is Jewish actors. There are lots of books, papers, and news stories about the intersection of Jewish ethnicity / culture / background and acting.[26][27][28] I'm not going to try digging them up again for yet another attempt to do away with Jewish-X categories, but Jews have had a special relationship with entertainment and acting, and there are particularly Jewish forms of theater and significance in the culture. The intersection of these two is far from an arbitrary categorization, it is a notable subject in its own right. There is indeed a heated issue on Wikipedia about who is a Jew and how to source that, and many of the Jewish-related articles and categories are problematic and treated inconsistently. But the answer to problems on Wikipedia isn't to start deleting things, it's to improve things. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your three sources - FYI: one of which directly states there is no inherent notability between Jews and Hollywood - are all fine for an article on secular Jewish culture in cinema (which we already, ostensibly have). However, purporting that they, in fact, can be used to support a list of any individual who happen to have Jewish heritage and be an actor - which is what they list is, has been, and will always be - is disingenuous. There is no evidence - or references - that 100% of the individuals on this list has any connection to the (for example) "archetypal Jewish big mouth" discussed in one of your references. You are essentially synthesizing secondary source support for what, in reality, is a vanity list - in the likes of www.whosajew.com. Bulldog123 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say that at all - it is about Jews and entertainment. What it dismisses is the antisemitic rant that Jews are a cabal that controls Hollywood. Your argument makes no sense - it would seem to be an objection to the very notion of having list articles on supposition that not every notable member of a class of things is emblematic of what makes the class notable. So we can't have a list of American chefs because some of those chefs may not be cooking in the style that makes American cuisine notable? Nobody just happens to be Jewish anymore than they happen to be American, or female, or to have any other trait. It is part of who they are. In the case of Jewishness it is their religion, heritage, culture, ancestry, or upbringing -- factors which, the sources say, are related to acting. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of American chefs would include just that... American chefs. American is a nationality. All you have to do to be an American is be a citizen. Chefs is an occupation. All you have to be is be a chef. Wikipedia categorizes individuals by nationality. It's standard policy-approved practice. Jewish on the other hand is an ethnicity/religion/self-identification with a completely indeterminate method of criteria. You are saying there is a "Jewish way of acting/being in the acting business" -- therefore your criteria needs to apply to all the individuals on the list or else be pruned to include only the ones that can legitimately be described as being "Jewish actors" --- in the sense your secondary sources describe. Like I said very clearly in the last comment, you can't synthesize random sources that have the words "Jew" and "Acting" in them and then act like it substantiates a list of all Jewish actors, thereby making the intersection universally relevant. Here's an analogy that's better suited: Christians in the movies does not add support to the intersection of List of Christian American actors. (P.S. I'll faint if I see you type "But Jew are an ethnicity!") Bulldog123 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, excluding Jews who don't act like Jews is a silly and suspect exercise - might as well exclude American chefs who don't cook like Americans. In practice any quality source establishing that a notable actor is Jewish would mention both acting and being Jewish. The elephant in the room is that some here would question the validity of Jewishness as a personal ideneity. If the argument is that when a source says someone is American that's a valid categorization to take out of the source, but if a source says someone is Jewish it is not, that's a POV determination and not an encyclopedic one. In my opinion, any deletion attempt based on that is an automatic fail. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That point is irrelevant to the deletion concerns. The discussion has nothing to do with notability. When the list cannot specify exactly who is Jewish, and who isn't, that list is worthless.
If the topic is notable enough as a concept, you can make an article about Jewish contribution to acting, and that would be great. Simply listing people who may or may not be Jews does nothing in describing their contribution and accomplishments.
Is it so hard for people to understand that the deletion is not about saying that there is no Jewish contribution to acting, but about making sure the list has a purpose and content that does not violate BLPCAT, and other policies/guidelines.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any information on wikipedia, if you are concerned that something may be incorrect you should ask for a source. If you strongly believe it is incorrect, you should remove it while sources are looked for. That some editor might some time add incorrect information is not a problem unique to this article, nor is it a reason for deletion. It is instead a characteristic of everything on Wikipedia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not irrelevant because the nomination starts by claiming that the topic is "non-notable". That claim is false - it seems quite easy to find reliable sources which discuss the topic in detail. The rest of the argument then collapses because, using these sources, we can improve the article to address concerns such as WP:V and WP:NOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not false. There is no universal, inherited notability between having a Jewish father/mother and being an actor. Your sources don't suggest that either. No sources do. All your sources provide for is an article on the subject it describes... not a list of any actor that has Jewish heritage. Bulldog123 11:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "cannot specify exactly who is Jewish" is not a valid criteria for deletion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued; could you please expand on this? What's the encyclopedic value of a list with non-specific criteria for inclusion / exclusion? Does such a list with non-specific criteria and potentially thousands of controversial entries sound like something that's practical for volunteer editors to maintain? Townlake (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with List of actors. Why delineate Jewish, are Jewish actors better, or different in any way? If so then the article should read List of (attribute) actors. Lets move away from this racist and divisive categorisation.Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try following the link that you suggest. You will find that it redirects to Lists of actors which is a list of lists of this kind. There are too many articles about actors for them to fit within a single list and so we have created numerous sublists such as List of Muslim actors. Also note that merger and deletion are contrary suggestions - see WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Interesting and informative list with a huge number of citations and ample evidence of notability of topic. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 4 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.
