Talk:Edward Kosner

Sources for BLP inclusion

As per the OTRS above and BLP issues I am posting sources that are WP worthy.

1. [1] clearly show subject is a proud Jew and that is also notable and due, considering the article.

This was from @Levivich::

1. Kosner's autobiography (already in the article), pp. 5-9, 17-19, 31, 50, 59. Examples: p. 17: As my bar mitzvah approached ... Like other assimilating second-generation American Jews, my parents were observant in the most idiosyncratic way.; p. 18: When the big Saturday of the bar mitvah finally came, I sang like a little Jewish prince and my mother kvelled with pleasure.
2. New York Times "No buccaneer, Kosner, born in 1937, grew up a ham-eating, third-generation assimilating Jew in Washington Heights." (this source was removed by your edit)
3. Wall St Journal "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family."
4. Jews in American Politics, p. 134, lists him among "Jewish practitioners ... dealing with a Jewish heritage."
5. American Space, Jewish Time, p. 135, lists him among "Jews who have occupied pivotal positions in the media"
6. The author of American Space, Jewish Time also wrote a report published by Oxford U Press and available at policyarchive.org, The American Jew as Journalist, pp. 165–166, which lists him among Jews "conspicuously at the top" (this source was removed by your edit

All in all, it clearly shows that the subject of this article has passed BLP concerns. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• This comment by Levivich was posted to my talkpage, and I had this response that somehow has been skipped over by Sir Joseph:

I hope all is well with you too, and hope you had a good Purim. Unfortunately, I have to bounce this to the talk page of the article per WP:ONUS (feel free to copy over my comment). While it may be verifiable, I personally do not think it improves the article, and it is clear the article subject does not either. I know that's not the response you were looking for, but I cannot in good conscience support this addition at this time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

So, until consensus is reached this should not be on the article, per WP:ONUS. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, Does Wikipedia censor itself to the subject of the article? While at one point in time your concern may have been valid, perhaps, at this point in time the BLP concerns are indeed covered and more than that, the notability of the subject's religion is worthy for inclusion in the article. He specifically wrote about it for his magazine. He wrote, "I am a proud Jew." That, and all the sources above meet Wikipedia guidelines. If he didn't want it mentioned, he shouldn't have written about it. We don't censor Wikipedia based on what the subject wants. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, the ONUS is on you to exclude. Kosner made this into a deal by writing about this in a national magazine. We don't censor our encyclopedia based on what Kosner wants. Had he not written about it, it might never had gotten into the encyclopedia. Further, you claim that I don't equal consensus, but @Levivich: and myself both posted sources that satisfy BLP and ONUS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should, in the personal life section quote Kosner. Specifically Kosner describes himself as, "a proud if non-observant Jew". and cite to commentary. This combined with the other RS that have made note of this fact is more than sufficient for me to warrant inclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, my original wording was simply, "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in NYC".... and that's it. If others want to expand, that is fine as well, but I think as a biography, we should include the bare minimum. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not ride or die by the language I'm proposing. I do draw a line at it being in the personal section and not the LEAD but it seems like we're in agreement there. For me the virtue of sourcing to commentary is two fold: one it's recent, two it gets around BLP issues. Arguably so does the autobiography. Either way it more that satisfies WP:BLPSELFPUB. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Of course I agree with SJ and BK and think some mention should be included, though I'm flexible as to how exactly. Both SJ's original edit and BK's suggestion look good to me. When the NYT wrote about him, they mentioned that he's Jewish. So did WSJ. His autobiography included pages on the topic. We have a clear recent statement from the subject in the Commentary piece. Basically I think this BLP is incomplete if we don't include it, since it's significant enough of a detail to have been included by multiple RS, and we should follow the sources as always. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think Barkeep49's suggestion is the more accurate and thus preferable one per WP:BLP. After all, "X is Y" is not strictly the same as "X is non-observant Y", the latter including additional vital information. Regards SoWhy 07:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with BK's suggestion but I want to express my disagreement with the notion that whether a Jew is "observant" or not is vital information or even important information (and thus preferable under BLP policy). Being Jewish doesn't mean holding a set of religious beliefs-it's more of an ethnicity than a religion-and this distinction underpins the entire question of "who is a Jew". Case in point: Kosner considers himself Jewish even though he's non-observant. I only say this to point out that we shouldn't sort biographies on Wikipedia into "observant Jews" and "non-observant Jews". Most sources just say "Jewish", they don't make the distinction between observant and non-observant, and even if Kosner himself makes the distinction, it doesn't mean the encyclopedia has to, or even should. (I say this as a non-observant Jew myself. "Non-observant" is the default position when it comes to Judaism.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: That was my point though. Since being Jewish mixes religion and ethnicity in a way many other religions and ethnicities don't, someone who is referring to themselves as Jewish might be referring to their ethnicity, their religious beliefs or both. As such, clarifying that the subject only refers to the ethnicity part, seems to me (a non-Jewish atheist) more precise than saying they are Jewish. I don't think "Non-observant" is the default position when it comes to Judaism is sufficiently well-known to all readers of all backgrounds so that we can assume that anyone reading "X is Jewish" will infer that this only refers to ethnicity and not religious beliefs. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  SoWhy, you're right, I have no objection to including "non-observant" in the article, in this instance it's the more-accurate formulation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I was reading the comments in the thread on Jimbo's talk page - link - and it seems clear to me that this detail should remaim excluded for the bio through WP:BLP concerns, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, which specific BLP concerns are those? I argue that it easily meets all five criteria of WP:BLPSELFPUB so my argument for inclusion is based firmly on BLP policy. He literally just wrote an article in a prominent publication about his Jewish identity and Wikipedia so he can't be too concerned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would say that's a complete understatement and misrepresentation of Kosner's article and the clear concern he has about having this be such a key part of his Wikipedia entry. I continue to maintain my view that this should not be re-added to the article. I don't think us using a commentary by someone about how they don't publicly self-identify as Jewish (while noting they are Jewish) is a proper understanding of BLP or BLPCAT, and such arguments do not sway me in this matter. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, how can you say they don't publicly self-identify as Jewish? He just wrote an article in a national magazine publicly self-identifying as Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Except I think we have RS showing that they do publicly identify as a Jew. They wrote about it in their autobiography. They wrote about it in an op ed. I can think of at least a dozen journalists who are Jewish but who have not written about it and for whom I would, and have, supported such removals. We need to be respectful of the people we write about. But respect does not mean that they get to decide what information is included here when they themselves include it in other places. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee would this assuage you? In a May 2020 commentary article Kosner notes he does not publicly identify as a Jew though he does describe himself as "a proud if non-observant Jew". I find this a second choice to the original language I proposed but would accept it if you felt it a reasonable compromise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is just not an importantant enough aspect of his life story notability to be focussing on, also, that article was created in response to his objections to this inclusion in his article in the first place, so there are still indeed WP:BLP concerns, it was those concerns that caused the article to be written in the first place. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, he wrote about it in a nationally circulated magazine. That's important enough. Think about it, we're all talking about it. Last week there was no discussion about his religion anywhere on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  edit conflict - The comment in support of inclusion here seem to say that we added it and he didn't like it, complained about it to us and then and wrote that he didn't like it, so we can include it, that doesn't seem to me to be a great way to include content in regard to living people Govindaharihari (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: Given this line in the Commentary story you linked to, and clearly have read at this point, I'm a bit surprised you think you should be commenting on this topic at all: "He was right. It’s possible, I wrote back, that the “editor” who introduced Jewish identity into my and many other entries was so proud of the Jewish contribution to journalism and literature that he wanted the world to know about all these accomplished Jews. But, given the recent spate of overt anti-Semitism here and in Europe, it was certainly plausible that the intruder was trying to stigmatize Jewish “notables,” in the Wikipedia term of art. It seemed to me possible that Wikipedia was naively invoking a valid standard—reliable citation—to enable its material to be doctored by a stealth anti-Semite." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  The allegations you quoted are, in my view, defamatory. The suggestion that any of the editors who added the content or supported its inclusion are antisemitic is deeply offensive and inappropriate. This has no relation to antisemitism whatsoever. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  They aren't my words. I'm pointing out that Sir Joseph is clearly topic-banned from antisemitic discussions broadly construed, and this definitely falls under that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  This definitely does not fall under that. This discussion has nothing, nothing at all, to do with antisemitism. Not everything involving Jews has to do with antisemitism. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  We're not just dealing with concerns of Jewish identity, we're dealing with concerns of an article subject about masked and rampant antisemitism. This therefore certainly does fall under SJ's topic ban, even without the "broadly construed" modifier. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  This entire discussion is about whether to restore content added in two edits, both of which you removed: Special:Diff/912384397 and Special:Diff/951408808. Which of those two edits concerns masked and rampant antisemitism? If the answer is "neither", then that's how we know this has nothing to do with masked and rampant antisemitism. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Specifically the second link, Special:Diff/951408808, which uses the commentary as a reference. In that commentary the author relays clear concerns about Antisemtism (which I quoted above) being a potential motivator for the actions to his article (and others). This isn't difficult to comprehend. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Barkeep49, what would assuage me is if someone could show that this is actually a part of his inherent notability. As in, show that him being Jewish has directly impacted his overall notability. So far, I'm not seeing that case (and that includes his coverage of his childhood background in the autobiography). At this stage it feels like we're trying to find a way to include something someone doesn't want in their article, simply because they released an opinion piece in Commentary about their experience in trying to remove this from their article. That doesn't sit right to me on an ethical level, and I'm resoundingly in opposition to such behavior. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, what about the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Jews in American Politics, American Space, Jewish Time, and The American Jew as Journalist? If "Jewish" is important enough for the NYT and WSJ (and those are short pieces), why not for our article? If he's important enough to include in the latter three sources, as an example of a prominent Jewish journalist, then why isn't that significant enough to include in our article? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, further, is his being from NYC an important part of his biography? What about the fact that his father was a salesman for underwear? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding having this be such a key part of his Wikipedia entry, I don't see the proposed edits as being "a key part" of the article. SJ's edit was literally three words, "who is Jewish". That's not "key", that's a brief mention. As SJ said above, it's no different than mentioning what city he's from or what his father did for a living. None of it is "key". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to say that he was born to jewish parents, as in the Jeffrey Epstein article? I feel that a mention of his jewishness should be included in the article in some capacity, as this is standard in most biographies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That was the original formulation that was removed by Coffee, and I also support that formulation, as well as the other two. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I very much agree with Coffee and Jimbo Wales on this. WP:ONUS states — and I quote — "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.". As Jimbo Wales has stated, I too have been concerned for some time with Sir Joseph's editing history on topics like this. This is further compounded by an apparent lack of understanding around the core site principle of consensus; Sir Joseph's insinuation that one (or two) editors is a strong consensus for inclusion of material that has already proven itself quite contentious is extremely troubling and disruptive, as his participation in a discussion that clearly falls under his topic ban: "Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed." --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  TheSandDoctor, What is my editing history? I haven't really edited much by adding "Jews" to articles or tagging much, or similar. If you're trying to insinuate something, please provide diffs. As we saw in the AN, Coffee was told to stop his mass removals. So please cease your insinuations. This article has nothing to do with my TBAN and your implication as such is just trying to stop me from editing and trying to stop criticism of the process. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dispute resolution reminds us to focus on content not editors. If you have conduct concerns TSD (and Coffee) there are venues where those could be discussed. This should stay focused on the content at hand not the identities of the editors participating in the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I find myself to be in agreement with those in favor of mentioning the subject's Jewish heritage in some form, simply due to the preponderance of sources noting same. But on a side note, I came across the following sentence in the Alex Azar article while generally looking into this matter:

His father is of Maronite Lebanese descent, while his maternal grandfather was a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire.

Now, can someone please explain how the minor Jewish angle for this high-profile person is relevant, especially that it is sourced only to an issu site that is difficult to verify? It is a case like this that I find more troubling than the one at hand. StonyBrook (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the kind of mention that I don't think should be included so I removed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' thoughts on the matter at hand

While Jimbo does not speak for the community as a whole, I find these comments from the relevant discussion at his talk page (link) to be worth noting (see below). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I only have a general comment as I can't really speak to the specifics of this example, not knowing anything about Edward Kosner, who I believe I only ever heard of just now. In the past when I have done a quick spot check, I believe that for many prominent people (Nobel Prize winners and business people come to mind immediately) we are more likely to mention Jewish heritage than we are to mention other heritages. This is only my impression, but it should be noted that many other prominent people have commented to me that they have the same impression. I think the reasons are two-fold and contradictory. First, there may be a problem with anti-semites wanting to make sure that everyone associates people like Jeffrey Epstein and Bernie Madoff with being Jewish. Second, there may be a problem with pro-Jewish people feeling a certain amount of pride in Nobel Prize winners or successful people generally and wanting to include their Jewishness. Neither of those is good, although obviously the former is more problematic from a BLP point of view.

There is also a further complication in that Jewishness is both an ethnic identity and a religion in a way that, say, Roman Catholicism isn't. I full agree with ianmacm up above: "This is an area where care is needed and it has to be notable to say that someone is Jewish."

What I'd love to see is some (casual, doesn't have to be super formal, but should follow a reasonable methodology) basic research into the question: are we more likely to over-emphasize Jewishness than other religions/ethnicities?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, some good points, but my comments were specific to this example. In this case, even with impeccable sourcing, the religion was not included because the subject did not want it on his page. He then wrote about it in a national magazine, where he said he threatened to withhold WMF funding unless it was removed. He also said that he was a proud Jew. And he also said, he investigated one of the editors of his article and tried to find out the identity of that person. I was more interested in the WMF/withholding funds and threatening editors aspects. I know once he writes about his religion and that he's a proud Jew, he tripped the Streisand effect and ironically it's now notable for inclusion. I was though wondering if while OTRS was deleting all these tags, should they also have mentioned that the WMF was threatened with funds withholding (even if it would never happen or if it was minor), and I was also wondering if you've ever seen or dealt with someone threatening an editor of an article, as Kosner did. Since people might now be a bit more hesitant to edit BLP's if powerful people can track them down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I very much don't agree with you. WP:NAVEL almost certainly applies here. This absolutely does not rise to the level that makes the fact relevant to his biography. Remember, we are writing a biography of him which means that it should contain the most important facts about him. If anything, he's established in a RS that being Jewish is not an important fact about him. The bit about withholding funds - I think you putting it that way is plainly ridiculous. He says that he answered a fund raising email saying that he'd be more inclined to give if he saw a better way to solve what he regarded (quite rightly) as a BLP issue. That hardly amounts to a "threat to withhold funds". Such an approach makes me feel inclined to review your edit history - others are likely to - just to be sure you aren't some kind of POV pusher on this topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It is my opinion and experience, that ethnicity and religion, are almost always noteworthy, both because they are usually mentioned in almost all in-depth coverage of people and because they are indeed important aspects of the lives of the subjects of the biographies themselves in their own eyes (and these two reasons are obviously logically connected). The same is true in this case: it is well-sourced that Edward Kosner is Jewish and that being Jewish is something that is important to him. Ergo, we should have it. I have to admit that the addition ", a Jew" is not how I would add this information. Perhaps something a bit more subtle in the Early life section, is the way this is usually done. A bit more subtlety may help to assuage the WP:UNDUE concerns. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC Proposal

Given the concerns and vehemence of positions raised by multiple editors above, I do not think we are going to find consensus by discussion. As such I think the right next step is to choose a different kind of dispute resolution. I propose the following RfC and hope we can at least reach consensus about this format:

==Request for Comment==

Categories: Biography and Religion ( {{rfc|bio|reli}}}} )

Should the following be included in in the Personal life section:

Kosner describes himself as, "a proud if non-observant Jew"

References

===Discussion===

Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• To quote you Barkeep, I do not think we are going to find consensus by discussion - Just because you can't see consensus for your desired inclusion is no excuse to start an RFC. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, you do realize the numbers show more people want it included in one way or another? Only Coffee and yourself on this page are against inclusion, everyone else is for inclusion. So there is consensus of editors who commented. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  In fairness I do not see consensus in the discussion above to include it. I also don't see consensus not to include it. I see no consensus, hence as I noted below, why I'm suggesting this as a way to (hopefully) find consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  What do you mean an "excuse" to start an RfC? I am trying to use our designated dispute resolution process. In this case multiple editors feel strongly. And so, to help resolve the dispute, we invite broader participation through an RfC in order to find consensus. If you think there's a better method of dispute resolution I would welcome the suggestion and is part of the reason why I proposed this RfC rather than just launching it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me but I'll ask whether any additional references should be added, such as to his autobiography, e.g. in a bundled cite. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I get the idea, but disagree with the implementation. And considering there is a very new discussion happening above (still very much in progress), I think it's a bit of a jump to run for an RFC here. If an RFC is run (and I do not agree that we need one this second or this day), I think it would definitely need to include the very real concerns of the article subject... not just a one sided unethical approach to blasting this onto his article regardless of how careful we're supposed to be with BLPs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough on timing. I don't see you accepting it being included and I don't see myself changing my mind that it should be included (and that's setting aside other participants) but I respect that you think more discussion might lead to consensus. That said, I welcome you to propose an alternate format if you think what I proposed is not the best format if/when we reach the RfC stage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, FWIW I don't think we've tried BLPN yet. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)