Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Removing a person or persons from the list

Please discuss any person or persons before removing any from the list.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. This supposedly perfectly sourced list fails to provide sources for Joseph E. Murray, E. Donnall Thomas, Erwin Neher, Bert Sakmann, Edwin G. Krebs, Richard J. Roberts, Phillip A. Sharp, Leon N. Cooper, and Emil Adolf on Behring, among others. By the way, personally published webpages are not reliable sources unless they themselves list peer-reviewed sources. But this should be obvious. Also, it would be wise to find a more publically accessible source for Igor Tamm. If he truly was of significant Jewish descent, it shouldn't be hard to find. Bulldog123 21:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems good: "Tamm was born in Vladivostok, Russia on July 8, 1895 into an old established Jewish family."[1], page 202 in Alan Symons (2000). Nobel laureates, 1901-2000. Polo Publishing. ISBN 0952375133. I'll add it as a source.--Avenue (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulldog123, Last night I removed some persons you mentioned. Today I will check few more. Thanks for pointing them out.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree removal of sourced information should be discussed first. However, Bulldog123 may have been correct about Pyotr Kapitska. The bottom two paragraphs of this page explain why jinfo.org have removed him from their list (he's not listed in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, despite his son working for them, and queries from "several highly informed members of the Russian-Jewish émigré community"), and neither of the sources we have listed for him (hebrewhistory.info and the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia) seem to rebut their points. Should we remove him from our list on those grounds? -- Avenue (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind removing Pyotr Kapitska from the list, except I have some questions. For example why his son Sergei was a consultant for Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, if the family was not actually Jewish? One should also understand Soviet situation. There was a huge government antisemitism. Stalin mercilessly prosecuted Soviet Jews. See Doctors' plot for example. Famous Jewish actor Solomon Mikhoels was assassinated. It was dangerous to be a Jew in Soviet Union. One more point: most Soviet Jews were not religious, and least not openly so, the only proven association with being a Jew was nationality that was written in the passports, that everybody received, when he/she was 16 years old. It did not matter in what of Soviet republic one was born and lived. If one had a Jewish father and a Jewish mother (the info written in the births certificates), one was a Jew. On the other hand, when one of the parents was not a Jew, one could have chosen a nationality of either a mother or a father. Of course most people, who had a choice, had chosen not to be Jews.Remember in Soviet Union the nationality could mean the difference between getting to University or not, between getting a good employment or not. In Soviet Union a passport was everything. It was asked for everywhere, and I mean everywhere including hospitals and libraries. Having said all of that I do not mind removing Pyotr Kapitska from the list. It might be better to me extra conservative with such lists--Mbz1 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and one I have no answer for. And I don't presume to understand much of what life was like for Jews in that Soviet era. But we do have conflicting sources, so perhaps it is best to remove him until something more conclusive comes to light. -- Avenue (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not remove it myself, but I will not add it back, if it is removed by somebody else. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove him. Another relevant source was brought up by Bulldog123 during the AFD:

Joshua Rubenstein (2001). Stalin's secret pogrom: the postwar inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10452-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

This quotes Kapitsa (on page 162) as saying, when asked if he was Jewish, "No, but I expect to be soon." A bit inconclusive, but taking it all together, there seems to be enough doubt to justify removing him from the list for now. -- Avenue (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Avenue, to understand what Kapitsa meant, one should have been born and lived in Soviet Union :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right! I'm certainly not clear what he meant. I suspected that a straightforward interpretation might be misleading, so I was basing the removal mainly on the concerns expressed at jinfo.org. -- Avenue (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I will try to explain to you, what it means, but I am not sure I will succeed. Okay, here's the explanation. As I mentioned earlier Jews in Soviet Union were persecuted. What Kapitsa meant with his response was that he was afraid he might be prosecuted too, prosecuted as Jews were. I am not sure I did good job in my explanations, but it is really hard to explain jokes, and it was a joke, a joke that looks a lot as a Russian Jewish joke, a joke that might have had more truth behind it, than some truths did. Does this joke gives us any more indication on his ethnicity? Not really. As I explained earlier many Soviet Jews, who had the opportunity, not to be Jews at least not according to their passports, used this opportunity sometimes to safe their own life.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That does help me understand. Thank you. I'm not sure if this is what you meant when you said "any more indication ...? Not really", but I think there is enough interpretation involved that this source doesn't justify restoring him to the list. We'd need something more definitive. -- Avenue (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Move proposal

I was thinking about moving the list to List of Jewish Nobel laureates, to better match the lead sentence and our general list of Nobel laureates. Any objections? -- Avenue (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Agre, but not right now. The article is about to appear ad DYK, so it should be stable for the next few weeks I'd say--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the current name is not quite correct (it should be winners with a small w), which is what got me thinking about this to begin with. So I would at least like to fix that before it goes up on DYK (which could be in less than 6 hours - see T:DYK/Q). People following the old link would be redirected here automatically, so I don't see why we shouldn't move it now. -- Avenue (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you sure that everything will be alright, then please go ahead. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it. The redirect is working fine. -- Avenue (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

One point raised at the current FLC is that we should better explain the list's criteria for inclusion. The lead sentence already says that the list includes laureates of Jewish ethnicity, which I think makes our job simpler than if we were to get into questions of religious practice. But we need an operationalisation of "Jewish ethnicity". My inclination would be to include laureates if they satisfy either of two criteria: self-identification or descent. That is, we would include them if we have reliable sources saying that (a) they have stated that they are Jewish, or (b) any of their grandparents was Jewish. I understand (b) is essentially the criterion used in Israeli immigration law (see Who_is_a_Jew?#Ethnic_and_cultural_perspectives). Any thoughts? -- Avenue (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will add this to the lead paragraph. --Avenue (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the statement. and I have a question. Why do we use grandparents versus parents?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I simply looked for criteria that seemed to have some evidence of wide acceptance, and I thought that Israeli immigration law might be a reasonable indication of this. But perhaps this criterion is too inclusive; I can imagine someone with only one Jewish grandparent being surprised to be thought of as Jewish. I don't have any real opinion on the issue; I am just looking for clear criteria that are as widely accepted as possible. I now see you inserted a different criterion (at least half Jewish ancestry) shortly before I did. I'll remove my addition so that the lead is not inconsistent. --Avenue (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in the least trying to be inflammatory, but I always thought the one-grandparent rule was the Nazi criterion. The Israeli immigration law is much broader than that; it includes non-Jews who are liable to persecution in tbeir countries of origin because of their association with Jews, i.e., a non-Jewish spouse or in-law.Pedantrician (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we'll wait for more inputs from the reviewers. If there are more concerns, we'll try to figure out what to do next. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have always felt strongly that the inclusion criteria here should be anyone who self identifies as a jew, or who has documented jewish ancestry of at least one parent. Since there is no central body that decides who is a jew, for this articles purposes i would remove any concern about the difference between jewish ethnicity, religious practice, cultural identification, political affiliation, national origin. Unless someone is born to one jewish and one nonjewish parent, and their jewish parent did not have anything to do with them, and that person never learned anything of their jewish heritage, never identified with any jewish community, and was a self identified religious person from another religious faith, or an avowed atheist, and was not an israeli citizen, then MAYBE they could be excluded. The jewish community, in general, will accept apostates as well as nonjewish newcomers to some degree. its more like being a Hindu than a Christian, as it harkens back to the tribal definition of a religion, rather than a religion of creed, though the creed is there today for sure. At this time in history, the "ethnicity" of jewishness is stretched beyond recognition.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about headings

At the top of each table, there are notes [A], [B], and [C] next to the titles Laureate, Country, and Rationale. Are they supposed to have corresponding end-notes, or should they be deleted? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Andre Geim

The 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics laureate, Russian-born Dutch physicist Andre Geim, is apparently Jewish according to Scientific Computing World. The Celestial City (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now cited this source. --Avenue (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Link from articles on laureates

Each of the articles on the individual Nobel laureates named in the List now contains a link (from the "See also" section of the articles) to this List. This consistent with the approach taken with regard to similar lists, including List of black Nobel laureates, List of female Nobel laureates, List of Israel Prize recipients. Davshul (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of links to this List

I note that in the following instances, the link to this List from the article on the relevent laureate has been deleted. I am reverting such deletions, and am suggesting that any discussion regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the link takes place on this talk page Davshul (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC):

• Henry Kissinger
• Albert Einstein
• Richard Feynman

My reversion was based on fairly simple grounds. A link to a list of Jewish nobel laureates adds no appreciable value to Kissinger's biography. Each article is written in a way that provides the most useful, encyclopedic treatment of the subject. A subject as important and consequential as, say, Kissinger or Einstein belongs on literally hundreds of lists. Should we have a link to all Jewish secretaries of state? A link to all secretaries of state who won the Nobel Prize? A link to all national security advisers who became secretaries of state? A link to all jewish national security advisers? A link to all Jewish laureates of the Peace Prize? The answer cannot be "all of them," and, considering the insignificant value to the biography, we have appropriately chosen to make the answer "none of them." Ray^Talk 21:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise I will again be reverting the misguided addition at Richard Feynman. Any discussion should occur at Talk:Richard Feynman. Johnuniq (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ray's rationale for his reversion makes sense to me. We should only include such a link in an article if we believe that many of the article's readers would be interested in other Jewish Nobel laureates, and this isn't likely for high-profile laureates like Kissinger and Feynman. I have nothing against a general discussion here, but I'd agree that if the link in a particular article needs further discussion, this should be done at that article's talk page. --Avenue (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for Albert Einstein. Any discussion about that article should take place on the corresponding talk place. DVdm (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

unnamed thread

Neither Tamm nor Geim is a Jew. Surely another people from this list have also no jewish roots as sionistic propaganda desires! It is a shame for Wikipedia to allow to publish such a rassistic articles as this one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.70.21 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We cite sources for both Tamm and Geim (three sources for Tamm!). If you see something wrong with these sources, please explain further. --Avenue (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is intentional or not... but I hope you realize your "three different" sources for Tamm all link back to one source - as the citations on them all list "Encyclopedia Judaica" as the origin of their information. Meaning, you have one source, not three. Bulldog123 18:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resently the influential newspeper "Sience of Chukotka" stated that Andre Geim is a Chukchi. His Chukchi ancestors were converted to iudaism already in the Bronze Age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.147 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss, not edit war

The initial addition of Geim and Diamond to this list was reverted a few days ago. Since then I think they have been added and removed four times, and the "one Jewish parent" part of the lead section has also been removed and reinstated multiple times. Please stop reverting each other and try to reach consensus on the issues here.

I think there are two main issues, going by everyone's various edit summaries:

1. Is the "one Jewish parent" criterion appropriate? (And if not, what inclusion criteria should we use? Would it be enough if a reliable source says a laureate is Jewish, or should we be more stringent?)
2. Do we have reliable sources saying that Geim and Diamond meet whatever criteria we decide on?

There was an earlier discussion regarding inclusion criteria, which I think reached a rough consensus on the "one Jewish parent" rule. But the consensus probably wasn't entirely clear, and anyway consensus can change. --Avenue (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an appropriate ref supplied. One can be Jewish due to a Jewish grandmother. It is not inconsistent with the ref indicating he is Jewish. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So I gather you would support a broader inclusion criterion, allowing people with just one Jewish grandmother to be listed here. Would this only be for the maternal grandmother, as in Geim's case, or would you also include people based on having a different Jewish grandparent (e.g. the paternal grandmother)? --Avenue (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood Wikipedia's WP:V criteria. Wikipedia cares only about one thing; what reliable sources say. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to invent new criteria. The source in question is "Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas", Scientific Computing World, (June/July) 2006. It states "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." That's explicit and reliable, and all that matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

So, in terms of the issues listed above, I gather you are arguing that (1) we don't need explicit inclusion criteria for this list, and should simply follow what the sources say, and (2) we have a reliable source for including Geim. I disagree on point (1), and will explain why soon. I see you posted the same point (verbatim) at Talk:Andre Geim, and that discussion is continuing there about what various sources say about his heritage. Personally I'd be happy to wait a while for some consensus to emerge there, and hopefully avoid a parallel argument here. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course we have to follow (1), that's what Wikipedia policy demands. Please review WP:NOR and WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist. From WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question [...] These principles apply equally [...] to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation". Your source does not confirm that Andre Geim has self-identified as Jewish, so it does not support his inclusion here. --Avenue (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jewish isn't just a religious belief, but an ethnicity also, and we have reliable sources for Geim's Jewish ethnicity. So a strict reading of BLPCAT doesn't appear to exclude him. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A good point. This shows how important it is to be clear about what this list covers. Is it laureates who are practicising Jews, ethnically Jewish, or what? See my post below. --Avenue (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference? Wikipedia doesn't care exactly what kind of Jew someone was - Orthodox, Karaite, Secular, Atheist, Ethnic, Religious, Cultural, Spiritual. All it cares about is what reliable sources say. If reliable sources say someone is Jewish, that's all that matters. And WP:BLPCAT only applies to categories anyway, not this list. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCAT again. The part I quoted explicitly states that it applies equally to lists. --Avenue (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct about that. Of course, the point about it being an ethnicity/cultural identity still stands, as does the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care what "kind" of Jew he is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria again

The last edit to this article, among other things, removed the existing inclusion criterion. The edit summary described it as "non-consensus tortured confusing phraseology". I believe that the existing criterion reflected an earlier consensus established above. If it is confusing, with "tortured phraseology", it should be improved, not just deleted.

Given the contentious topic, this list needs clear inclusion criteria, per WP:LSC and WP:Source list. I will restore the old criterion tomorrow unless some cogent criticism is posted here first. --Avenue (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration committee has addressed this issue directly, within the past year, and held that for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources. Here we have multiple RS sources saying he is Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with inclusion criteria for this list? This list is not a biography (and this subsection of the talk page is not about Andre Geim). You don't indicate what arbitration committee findings you are referring to, but if you are suggesting that this list falls under WP:ARBPIA, I would argue that that only applies to certain entries in the Peace Prize section, and those entries do not involve people of ambiguous Jewish identity. It does not apply to Geim or Diamond.

I see at Talk:Andre Geim that you seem to mean the Asmahan case. I have now read that case (for the first time), and it does not seem to directly apply to Geim's entry here, since he is not from the Middle East. But it may apply to other Nobel laureates. --Avenue (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help get this subsection back on track if I quote the relevant parts of the guidelines I linked to above. From WP:LSC:

"Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.

"Future editors should not be left to guess about what or who should be included from the title of the page. Even if the selection criteria might seem obvious to you, an explicit standard is helpful to others. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources."

And from WP:Source list:

"Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view."

I would love to hear some cogent comments about inclusion criteria for this list. --Avenue (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Avenue, I find your comments quite baffling. Wikipedia editors cannot invent their own criteria as to who qualifies as "Jewish" for the purposes of a "List of Jewish x". Rather, they must abide by WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP, which insist that Wikipedia considers someone to be Jewish if reliable sources state they are Jewish. That's the only criterion Wikipedia allows. Anything else is a fundamental violation of two of the three primary content policies, and if the person is living, a violation of WP:BLP too. There's no point in even having a discussion between two or three editors on an article talk page as to how they will define "Jewish" for that particular list. None of it matters, Wikipedia editors don't get to decide who is or isn't "Jewish", only reliable sources do. So, to make it perfectly clear, Wikipedia's content policies have decided what the "inclusion criteria" are for this list. And they say that list includes only peole who have won a Nobel prize, and who reliable sources have described as "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your responses equally baffling; we seem to be talking past each other. My reading of your last post is that you maintain that no inclusion criteria are valid, besides what is directly implied by the list's title, and regardless of how ambiguous that might be. But when I look at one of the examples given in WP:LSC, namely our list of terrorist incidents, I find that not only does that list explicitly exclude state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, but that you have long argued for this exclusion on that list's talk page. For example, you said back in 2005: "There really are things that are unambiguously terrorism; by moving out the dubious cases into other categories that fit better, we will end up with a much less controversial article IMHO." (In case anyone thinks that is ancient history, you continued to support the status quo there earlier this year.) It seems to me that you have argued that editors of that list should decide what is or isn't terrorism, at least for the purposes of that list. Why do you favour inclusion criteria in that context, but not here? Or am I misreading your position?

And if inclusion criteria are so clearly contrary to policy, why do we have guidelines saying they are needed, and why are they a requirement for featured lists? --Avenue (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the comparison or relevance. "Terrorism" is typically defined as "non-state" action. Some individuals/groups attempt to include state actions as a type of terrorism. So, Wikipedia reports on both (and, in fact, a third kind, "state-sponsored"). However, a Jew is not typically defined as "someone with at least 50% Jewish ancestry", with some individuals/groups attempting to include "Jew by ethnicity/cultural identity" and "Jew by religion" as a types of Jew too. Rather, both of the latter "types" have always been included in the definition. So, a failed comparison. In any event, we're discussing this article, and Wikipedia policy. This is a List of Jewish Nobel laureates. As with everything else, Wikipedia will rely on reliable sources to define which people are "Jewish" and which people are "Nobel laureates". Wikipedia editors will not invent their own definitions of these things, and particularly not for living people. And they certainly aren't going to use those criteria to, for example, exclude a Nobel laureate who converted to Judaism, or include a laureate who happens to have 4 Jewish great-grandfathers, but whose grandparents, parents, and him/herself do not define themselves as Jewish. Now, if you're keen on using those exact criteria for inclusion, then you actually do have an option: you can propose creating an article called List of Nobel laureates who have at least half Jewish ancestry. There would likely be WP:NOR issues, WP:V would be difficult, and it would almost certainly be deleted if it went to AfD, but one could always make the attempt. If and until that new article is created, though, we're left to work solely within the constraints of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP on this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter Diamond

A user has recently removed Peter Diamond, the 2010 Nobel laureate in Economics, from the List, stating that there is no reliable source that he is Jewish. What is the position - is he, or is he not, Jewish? Davshul (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true that there is no reliable source so far stating Diamond is Jewish. However Diamond is almost exclusively a Jewish surname (it'd be very rare for it not to be in this case). But we don't know from how many generations back it may have been derived. Bulldog123 07:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion should be public and clear

If the criterion for inclusion in this article is that a laureate has been described as Jewish, that should be stated clearly in the header. Furthermore, the title of this article should also be changed to reflect that fact: "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish."

As others have noted, the case of Andre Geim makes the current criterion especially problematic. Geim has stated, "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish." November 16, 2010 From his own perspective he is ethnically 1/8 Jewish, he is not culturally Jewish, he does not practice the religion of Judaism. Yet there have been reliable sources that described him as Jewish, so here he is on this list as a "Jewish Nobel laureate." Not only that, but enthusiasts have repeatedly tagged the article about Andre Geim with a "See also" directing readers to this "List of Jewish Nobel laureates." Would we have a "List of Muslim US Presidents" but fail to mention that the only criterion for inclusion is that a person has been described as Muslim? Could we then create a prominent link from Barack Obama to that list? betsythedevine (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Does this remind anybody of the "Grünberg" issue a few years back? Talk:Peter_Grünberg#Jewish_family. "Sources" started to magically pop up claiming Grünberg was Jewish (presumably because he had a Jewish-sounding name). I'm certain this trend will continue with every Nobel Prize to come. This list is better off the way it originally was: deleted. It literally serves no purpose except for an endless WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'd say the same for the Chinese and Japanese lists, by the way. Bulldog123 03:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. The criteria should be clear. And the name "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" is misleading; let us change it.--Gladsmile (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the inclusion criteria should be clear, but I do not agree with that proposed criterion, or that title. It seems to run contrary to WP:UNDUE and probably WP:BLPCAT. Whether Geim should be listed here is a separate issue. Whether Geim's article should link back here, even more so. --Avenue (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times has Geim's name been removed from this article, and then re-added? I agree with you that labeling Geim as "Jewish" runs contrary to WP:UNDUE. I agree with you that it runs contrary to WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." And yet all efforts to get his name off this list have foundered on the determination of some people to stretch this list by including his name. Accordingly, the description of this list should state clearly on what basis names are included here. Like you, I would welcome a more sensible criterion for what "Jewish" means here, a criterion that honors the guidance of WP:BLPCAT.betsythedevine (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The new title is clunky, but I don't see an alternative. It would not be a BLPCAT violation, in my understanding, as the list title would make it clear that we are talking about people described as Jewish, rather than people who are, or identify as, Jewish. --JN466 22:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

wow, thats so stupid. i know it hurts your feelings that there are so many jews in this list, but try to control yourself. 90% of the people here jews by both sides (and its not a rumor), and the list is partial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by יניבפור (talk • contribs) 08:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Try to control yourself" - good joke! Where? This list may be full of Geims - and this makes it worthless. Jews are known for their intelligence. But of course, not every intelligent person on earth is a Jew.--Gladsmile (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want the rule to be public and clear. If you want to be able to say that this is a list of laureates who are ethnically at least half Jewish or culturally Jewish or self-defined as Jewish, then remove Geim's name because he is none of those things. My interest is in the accuracy of biographical information on Wikipedia, not in the length of this list or any other ethnicity-listing list.betsythedevine (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

there are few other laureates 1/4 jews like Gustav Hertz, Aage Bohr (Niels Bohr's son), and few others, and Elinor Ostrom (jewish father) and others who are not on the list (she should be). i dont know about geim. and im not insisting about it. the rest of the scientist are jews by both sides (most of them), or at least one parent יניבפור (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you have now removed three times (see WP:3RR) describes only the minimum amount of Jewishness required for a person to be put on the list. It does not say that most of the people on the list have so little reason to be on this list as Geim. If you look at the discussion so far you see several people who agree that this statement belongs in the article if Geim is on the list -- and only one person who wants the sentence removed. Consensus is that the "rule" stays in the article if Geim stays in the article. betsythedevine (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the consensus is not so clear to me. We should decide on the inclusion criteria first, then see who belongs in the list, not the other way around. You added the sentence; it was reverted; now we discuss. --Avenue (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times must we go over this? This article has no special "inclusion criteria", nor do any other Wikipedia articles. The only criteria WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP. If Wikipedia editors make up special rules regarding the number or type of Jewish grandparents, or how fervently they practiced their faith (or lack thereof), or original research regarding whether they were more "German" or "Russian" or "Dutch" than Jewish, or anything else, they are irrelevant and ignored. Only policy matters; what do the reliable sources say? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot an important criteria--self-identification. The thing is, we do have an inclusion criteria in a way, otherwise there would be noone on the list. But to formally add it to the article would probably require further input from other editors. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Self-identification" is only required for special cases, particularly for categorization of religious beliefs. It doesn't apply here. Again, no special criteria for this list or any other, we just abide by the existing policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So Jewishness has nothing to do with religious beliefs? WP:BLPCAT applies to lists too. --Avenue (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It can have something to do with religious beliefs, but often doesn't, so it's not applicable here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If WP:RS is the sole criterion, why the objection to making it clear in the article? Most readers trying to guess what an article means by "Jewish" would assume all members met the definition in Wikipedia, "Generally, in modern secular usage, Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion; those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent); and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion." When you expand the list beyond all those commonly-understood meanings of "Jewish," then you owe it to Wikipedia readers to make it clear that you are using a totally different rule from what people expect. This list is very long and distinguished when it includes only people who are in fact Jewish, as the word is generally understood. betsythedevine (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is not "the sole criterion"; rather, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP together are. And there's no need to "make this clear", particularly in article space, since all articles should abide by these policies. Inserting such a disclaimer in this particular article would imply that articles without such a disclaimer (i.e. 3.5 million others) don't have to abide by these policies and guidelines. And it's really not up to us to try to guess what readers might or might not misunderstand, and therefore create special criteria or "warnings" for articles, in an attempt to forestall these theoretical misunderstandings. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:RS -- the article at the moment cites as references 8 different footnotes for Andre Geim. The first one, an article from 2006 in Scientific Computing World, describes him as "Jewish." The second is not a link but just a claim that a Tel Aviv newspaper described him on one occasion as Jewish. Then come 3 references to Physics World, Agence France-Presse, and North Dakota University, which describe him as German and Russian and do not include the word Jewish anywhere. Then comes a link to a partial article in the Moscow Times, in which the word Jewish does not occur. Then an editorial from the Forward rejoicing in Jewish award winners that calls Geim a "Russian Jew," which hardly seems like a neutral source of ethnic information. Then an editorial from a journal on Structural Chemistry that describes Geim as Jewish. And in counterpoint, we have probably hundreds of articles in journals such as the NY Times, Science, Nature, etc. that talk about Geim and his nationality and do NOT call him Jewish. And on the other hand, we have Geim himself who when being interviewed by an Israeli journalist says he has a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. Is Geim not a more reliable source of information about whether or not he is Jewish than editorialists for the Forward and Structural Chemistry?betsythedevine (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained countless times, ethnicity and nationality need not be the same; one can be "Dutch"/"Russian"/"German" and "Jewish" at the same time. The fact that a source describes someone born in Russia as "Russian" does not mean that the source is stating that that person is not "Jewish". And The Forward is a reliable source; if anything, given it is also something of an expert source on this topic (moreso than, say, the Moscow Times or Nature), it would likely be more reliable on this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained countless times, the sources state he is an ethnic German. The examples you mentioned (citizenship versus ethnicity) do not apply. Geim's parents were also born in Russia, they were ethnic Germans not nationals of Germany. As for the RS, Stormfront.org (best example I could think of at the moment) is also an "expert" source on "this topic". That doesn't mean it (or similar websites) can or should be used. Sources that are neutral do not present a POV, and do not specialize in one side of their themes.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that has been "explained countless times", but its relevance certainly hasn't. Why could he not be both an "ethnic German" and a "Jew"? Which one was Erhard Milch? That's the trouble with inventing one's own rules for who is or isn't a "Jew", or "German", or anything else. Sorry, we're still going to have to rely on what WP:RS say, not on any of our own estimations or calculations. Are there any WP:RS that say Geim is not a Jew? Not Wikipedia editors, but any actual WP:RS that state that? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

since all the laureates at least half jew, and since some laureates doesnt mention here, this description is misleading (on purpose, i guess). יניבפור (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you just said. In any case, I have asked for some outside wisdom on this issue over at WP:BLPN#List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates, if you want to express your own views on the discussion there. betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with those editors who say that we should follow the core wp policy of following what the RSs say. There is a massive amount of misunderstanding among editors as to what "Jewish" means, as evidenced by the above discussion. That points to why wp policy is to follow the RSs (which, for example, say Geim is Jewish), rather than to apply no doubt well-intentioned OR as to what is a Jew.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WP policy also says that contentious material should be removed at once from biographies of living people -- and this talk page makes it clear that calling "Geim" Jewish is heavily disputed. But if WP:BLP is deemed not to apply here (why?) and this article uses a definition of "Jewish" based on arcane Wikipedia lore that not one reader in a thousand would know about, then state in the article what rule is being used--and check out List of atheists for an example of a publicly stated rule. I agree that most list members probably have much more sensible reasons for being called "Jewish" here than Geim does, so maybe the explanation could also make it clear that contentious additions to the list are not the rule. betsythedevine (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There has to be a reasonable basis for the dispute. There, there is none. There is clear RS support for RSs referring to him as Jewish. It is not enough for editors to say IDONTLIKEIT, and invoke BLP, in the face of that. Similarly, saying x was Jewish is not tantamount to saying y was not Jewish. Nor is there any support for the OR notion that 1 of four grandmothers, if that were the case, is not sufficient for someone to be Jewish. Plus -- of course that is OR. Stick with the RSs, stop applying personal OR rules, and we will be in accord with wiki policy. Furthermore, the statement that "From his own perspective he is ethnically 1/8 Jewish" is simply not the case.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Several sources say he has a Jewish grandmother, he says his mother has a Jewish grandmother. How is that not the same as his saying he is ethnically 1/8/ Jewish? betsythedevine (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where does he say that his other grandparents are not Jewish? Where does he say his other grandparents are not Jewish? Where does he say his parents are not Jewish? How does your comment square with how someone is determined to be Jewish -- where is the support for the notion that one's mother is not Jewish if her mother is Jewish? And for the notion that Geim is not Jewish if his mother is Jewish? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When Geim's response to an Israeli journalist asking him why he is visiting Israel is that he has one Jewish great-grandparent, the reasonable inference is not that he is concealing 7 other Jewish great-grandparents.betsythedevine (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not when we have RSs indicating that his grandmother was Jewish. And that he is Jewish. And it would be a reasonable inference -- if we make reasonable inferences without it being synth, which it is -- that if his mother's mother was Jewish, so was she in turn. In short, you are replacing RS statements with what you view as "reasonable inferences" -- which of course are inferior to RS statements, and constitute synth, and in any event as they seem reasonable to you they seem less reasonable to others and less reasonable than alternative inferences to be gleaned from the RSs (let alone the words of the RSs). wp:synth does not allow that.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We need to stay away from our own reasonable inferences about exactly how many "Jewish great-grandparents" Geim has, and stick to what reliable sources explicitly state. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope everyone realizes there's a very simple solution to this problem. That being delete the list. It serves no purpose because the Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners doesn't have a Jews & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it, and will never have such an article because there's nothing to say except "A good number of Nobel Prize winners had a Jewish parent." Furthermore having members of a distinct ethnic group win the prize often is also not a list-worthy characteristic. Nobody feels the need to make List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates, though if it were created on the same criteria as the Jewish list (having a recent ancestor of German ethnicity), there'd be just as many self-identifying candidates. Furthermore, despite what's being said here, about 1/3rd of the list maintains various other ethnic ancestries in addition to Jewish, and many more have never outright stated they identify as being "Jewish." (e.g., It's never mentioned that Otto Wallach -- who is frequently listed as only Jewish -- is only approximately 1/4th Jewish by ethnic descent -- his Jewish grandfather having converted to Protestantism.) I would say the exact same thing about List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates, and I plan to nominate that list for deletion first (because it's less controversial) shortly. Bulldog123 11:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)