Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates: Difference between revisions
Therexbanner (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 262: | Line 262: | ||
::"the list could be recreated". Nope. The list as it stands violates policy (and common sense). [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
::"the list could be recreated". Nope. The list as it stands violates policy (and common sense). [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Read the standards for lists since it is spelled out clearly enough. I'm not saying it should happen just that it would be inline with the guideline if someone wanted to do it.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::Read the standards for lists since it is spelled out clearly enough. I'm not saying it should happen just that it would be inline with the guideline if someone wanted to do it.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
I would like to see some policy discussion. Also I would like to see some objectivity - many of the "keep" users have "This user is Jewish" or "This user comes from Israel" infoboxes on their pages. That is fine, but given that the issue concerns everyone, maybe there is a way of getting more input from a multitude of diverse (in all senses) users. I would also like to remind everyone that what matters is the quality of votes (in relation to the issues raised), and not the quantity.--[[User:Therexbanner|Therexbanner]] ([[User talk:Therexbanner|talk]]) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:16, 28 November 2010
- List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. There is no inherent connection between the topics. We do not have other lists of Nobel laureates by religion, no List of Christian Nobel laureates, no List of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc. There is no reason this could not be handled by a category, such that the regular editors of the biographical article could ensure accurate inclusion. Many of those editors may not even be aware of this article, and the repeated inclusion of Andre Geim despite being a living person who does not self-identify as Jewish shows the problem here. There may be many other invalid inclusions, better to use a category and let knowledgeable people about each subject maintain inclusion. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Yworo, I beg you to acknowledge that Jews are also an ethnicity before somebody comes on and says "!keep ethnicity is notable." Bulldog123 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Acknowledged, but also not a valid intersection on which to build a list. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that several of the people on the list do not selfidentify as jewish is the big problem in my opinion. It seems a little like applying the Nuremberg laws retroactively.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Acknowledged, but also not a valid intersection on which to build a list. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Yworo, I beg you to acknowledge that Jews are also an ethnicity before somebody comes on and says "!keep ethnicity is notable." Bulldog123 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: this article was deleted in 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). I find no evidence that this deletion was ever officially overturned via process, so technically this is a recreation of a deleted article. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note This article was nominated on deletion and kept. Second nomination in less than a year is simply a waste of community time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is for the community to decide what it considers a 'waste of time'. Given the number of participants in this discussion, I'd suggest there is little evidence that your suggestion is of merit. Argue the case, not the history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe recreating articles is allowed unless expressly prohibited (except when done in a disruptive way). --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the previous list, so I don't know how different they are. Perhaps an admin can enlighten us. But if they were nearly identical (which I think is unlikely), then the early 2010 AfD would have effectively been a review of the 2007 deletion of this list, and could be interpreted as having overturned it. --Avenue (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and categorise as Category:Jewish Nobel laureates. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You realize the only reason this list exists is because a CATEGORY like this would be put up for CFD and deleted immediately per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's enough secondary sources that discuss the topic. No reason not to have a list in addition to any categories. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The list has to have something encyclopedic to justify its existence. "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. Yet, list of blonde actresses would still not be an eligible list on wikipedia. I'm not saying these lists are equivalent. I'm just giving an example. There's a reason other wikis don't have this list yet (nor are they pining for it). Bulldog123 15:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We may not have lists of Nobel laureates by religion, but we do have lists by ethnicity (List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates) and race (List of black Nobel Laureates). --Avenue (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can sometimes indicate that the other stuff also needs to be deleted. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Very true. My point was more that the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument in your nomination seemed to be incomplete in what it did and didn't mention. --Avenue (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll happily nominate the Chinese lists. Bulldog123 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. Frankly, that list is even more ridiculous than this one. Bulldog123 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can sometimes indicate that the other stuff also needs to be deleted. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info: This list has been through two previous AfDs, plus a VfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners. --Avenue (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was delete all, including List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Not sure how it got recreated. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it was deleted even earlier too. Does anyone have a log? Bulldog123 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed a fourth discussion, sorry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. The results of those four previous discussions were:
- 2005 VfD: No consensus
- June 2007 AfD: No consensus
- July 2007 AfD: Delete all
- Feb 2010 AfD: Keep
- The two AfD discussions in 2007 covered various belief- or disbelief-based lists of Nobel laureates (atheist (July only), Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, and Muslim). --Avenue (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed a fourth discussion, sorry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. The results of those four previous discussions were:
- I believe it was deleted even earlier too. Does anyone have a log? Bulldog123 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was delete all, including List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Not sure how it got recreated. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete It serves no purpose (and only creates WP:BATTLEGROUND issues) 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. Also I get the feeling that if List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates did exist, it'd be trolled into oblivion for being "racist." 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 and the remainder of his ancestors being ethnic Germans) Bulldog123 21:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to mention that this list is surreptitiously being used like a category by means of linking it into various See Also sections. See: Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Therefore, Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation applies here. Bulldog123 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree that most of those links seem unnecessary. But why do you believe this addition was surreptitious? It was raised shortly afterwards at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#Link from articles on laureates by the editor adding the links. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just unnecessary, it's synthesizing false notions. These people are not famous for being JEWISH Nobel Prize winners. They're famous for being Nobel Prize winners. They happen to have Jewish ancestry also. As for the surreptitious comment - it's most regarding what's been happening on Andre Geim - and you may have not been around yet for when this happened with other lists. Category:Jewish mathematicians was deleted and List of Jewish mathematicians (which has been lingering around untouched for years now) started getting linked to all the former articles. Bulldog123 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I ended up seeing this list via the biography of Andre Geim, recent Nobel laureate in physics who describes himself as having a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. His name got stuck onto the list, which changed its rules in order to justify the addition of somebody who was briefly described in a 2006 computer journal as Jewish, with a few other sources picking up that info no doubt from the Googlable first one. List enthusiasts claim its methods need not be limited by WP:BLPCAT because it is a list not a category, although it gets used to tag articles like Geim's "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates' thus asserting "without disclaimers or modifiers" that Geim is Jewish. And if a curious reader clicks to the List, again there are no modifiers, and certainly no explanation that the rule in force, since it got changed after Geim's win, is only ""A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew." The list is a magnet for POV-pushers who care less about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia than they do about stretching the length of the list by one name--even though putting fake names on the list serves to devalue the list's integrity. If the list fell under some Wikipedia rule for putting (or not) people on it, preferably including for living laureates a requirement for self-identification as Jewish, I would feel differently. But the list enthusiasts make up their own rules. betsythedevine (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously should be kept per Christopher Connor. Issue of the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Prize winners specifically discussed in several reliable secondary sources. Fortunately, WP:Notability is a guiding rule in Wikipedia, not WP:Political correctness. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep A very notable intersection. There's a fair number of sources about the oddly large size of this intersection. The intersection is thus naturally relevant and makes sense as a list. We may need to be careful about inclusion criteria but that's not a reason to delete. (edit conflicted with Plot Spoiler who said almost the exact same thing.) JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- CommentOne can imagine research on the intersection of Nobel Prizes with Jewish ethnic heritage, but is there any such interest in the intersection of Nobel Prizes with people who have been described as Jewish despite having minimal numbers of Jewish "genes"? I can see the potential interest of an article about "Nobel laureates who are ethnically Jewish" but NOT of what we have now, "Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity here, Joshua - because your position on this baffles me the most considering you're one of the more eloquent and levelheaded !keep voters here - why do you consider the qualification "[an] oddly large... intersection" to automatically qualify something as having encyclopedic value? Why is this list given special treatment over something like List of white Nobel Prize laureates. After all, white people form only 1/5th (20%) of the world's population but 93%+ of Nobel Prize laureates. Right? And there's actually plenty of secondary sources and scholarly analysis to back it up as notable. Would you support such a list with as much fervor? Bulldog123 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting question (although frankly I don't think I'm that eloquent. Talking a lot is not the same thing. A bit flattering though). There seems to be some intuitive, almost visceral reaction that there's a difference. But that seems to be primarily on emotional grounds, and dislike of certain forms of racism along with my own dislike of Murray and Jensen (more in the form of "seriously guys, do you know how much freaking privilege white people have had in the last hundred years?" sort of thing). One could make some sort of argument that the ratio distinction is much more extreme in this case but that shouldn't be an argument for Wikipedia since it is essentially OR. One could make a WP:WEIGHT] argument by claiming that the idea that the prominence of Caucasians has anything other than a trivial position is a more fringe claim, but it would seem suspiciously convenient that the cut-off between somewhat-fringey and too-fringe would be just where emotional reactions become more severe. The only argument I find that seems to actually distinguish them is one of practicality: when you are talking about 90% of a long list, marking a separate list for that 90% seems like a not great idea. But overall I think that if someone made such a list I'd have to more or less hold my nose, scrunch my face into an unhappy grimace, and say "keep". JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity here, Joshua - because your position on this baffles me the most considering you're one of the more eloquent and levelheaded !keep voters here - why do you consider the qualification "[an] oddly large... intersection" to automatically qualify something as having encyclopedic value? Why is this list given special treatment over something like List of white Nobel Prize laureates. After all, white people form only 1/5th (20%) of the world's population but 93%+ of Nobel Prize laureates. Right? And there's actually plenty of secondary sources and scholarly analysis to back it up as notable. Would you support such a list with as much fervor? Bulldog123 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- CommentOne can imagine research on the intersection of Nobel Prizes with Jewish ethnic heritage, but is there any such interest in the intersection of Nobel Prizes with people who have been described as Jewish despite having minimal numbers of Jewish "genes"? I can see the potential interest of an article about "Nobel laureates who are ethnically Jewish" but NOT of what we have now, "Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This specific intersection is a notable topic due to its disproportionately. This is supported by the multitude of sourcing and scholarly material cited in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Disproportionality does not equal encyclopedic value. There's also a disproportionate amount of Jewish movie studio heads. I suppose List of Jewish Hollywood executives to be appropriate as well? And, despite what you say, there is no scholarly material cited in the article that's pertinent to the Nobel Prize. i.e., "Understanding Jewish Holidays and Customs: Historical and Contemporary" has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. Once again, Wikipedia is NOT a directory Bulldog123 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". And following logically, a Jewish Nobel Prize winner is presumably not treated differently from a Christian or Atheist one. If anyone wan't to suggest that a list isn't compiled by category, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatent attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation is only important when directly related to article subject's activities. This (and similar lists) serves no valid purpose, and is only used for vanity and bragging. I'm not sure if any of the keep editors has ever seen a real encyclopedia, but this is not something that belongs in one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- what's the basis for a 'strong' delete" as opposed to a regular delete?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- so its a strong delete when it violates several wikipedia policies and a plain delete when it violates only one wikipedia policy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- delete simply can't be done properly. I suppose we could have a list of uncontested Jews on such a list, but we are always going to have people trying to expand it into dubious areas of someone with a Jewish great-aunt. So delete all these lists based on religion and ethnicity - clear cut things like citizenship might work, but not this.--Scott Mac 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an unusual and notable intersection, as many reliable secondary sources point out (including those added by Christopher Connor). And I'm still baffled as to why this particular list was chosen, considering that it's one of the few of this type that is actually notable and properly sourced. I understand that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why not start with List of Jewish American entertainers or List of Jewish anarchists or List of Jewish actors? I'm going to nominate a couple of those too, so we can address the larger issue here. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I've done it. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm moving towards the position that no 'list of persons' should be included in Wikipedia unless there is a verifiable singe external source which can be unambiguously used to indicate membership. 'List of Nobel Prize winners' can be sourced to the Nobel Committee, 'List of Bolivian citizens' can (in principle) be sourced to the relevant government department, and 'List of people born on 26th November' can be sourced to birth certificates (with the proviso that this only needs to be actually verified where less strict sourcing is under reasonable dispute, per normal Wikipedia policy). Since the Nobel Committe doesn't list Nobel Prize winners by ethnicity, we shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I've done it. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [1] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- My AfDs are entirely serious; I sincerely believe those lists are non-notable intersections and BLP-violation magnets that should be deleted. My explanation is perfectly clear, and policy based. Now, please redact your untrue personal comments about me, assume good faith, and act with more consistency in the future. Thanking you in advance. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [1] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes.—Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - per Brewcrewer & Plot Spoiler. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I point out that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can I point out that your claim here is a complete misrepresentation and invention of policy, as has already been proven on the article's Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then, point out where exactly on the talk page this has been 'proven'? If you've proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy (which you seem to be suggesting), why haven't you brought this to wider attention?AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, please don't make claims on my behalf that I certainly haven't made or "suggested". I haven't "proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy", I've disproven your claims about Wikipedia policy. These are entirely different things. And there's no point in repeating that discussion here; a review of the article's talk page will rapidly reveal the necessary information. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, then, 'rapidly reveal it' then. Or if you like, take all night. I'm off to bed now, as I don't see much point in arguing with somebody who says something exists, but won't actually tell us where it is in sufficient detail to check. The article talk page is full of tendentious waffle, and very little discussion of what Wikipedia policy actually is, from what I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't made all that many comments on the article's talk page, and they're pretty clear, and deal specifically and only with policy. If you can't be bothered to read them, it's not my issue. By the way, since you assert you as very concerned about BLP policy, have you had a chance to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, which discuss articles that actually and seriously violate policy? Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, then, 'rapidly reveal it' then. Or if you like, take all night. I'm off to bed now, as I don't see much point in arguing with somebody who says something exists, but won't actually tell us where it is in sufficient detail to check. The article talk page is full of tendentious waffle, and very little discussion of what Wikipedia policy actually is, from what I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, please don't make claims on my behalf that I certainly haven't made or "suggested". I haven't "proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy", I've disproven your claims about Wikipedia policy. These are entirely different things. And there's no point in repeating that discussion here; a review of the article's talk page will rapidly reveal the necessary information. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then, point out where exactly on the talk page this has been 'proven'? If you've proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy (which you seem to be suggesting), why haven't you brought this to wider attention?AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can I point out that your claim here is a complete misrepresentation and invention of policy, as has already been proven on the article's Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I point out that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
- A family member intervened, claiming that Otto Warburg would "turn in his grave" if he knew that he were presented as a "Jewish Nobel Laureate." - Jews and sciences in German contexts: case studies from the 19th and 20th ... By Ulrich Charpa, Ute Deichmann Pg 26
- This issue apparently extends to dead as well. Bulldog123 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...Richard Feynman would have been another opt-out, as he was from a 1960s book on Jewish laureates, when he wrote to its author "requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes."betsythedevine (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- That letter ought to be reproduced in full in this discussion. As nominator, I will refrain from doing it myself, but should any other choose to do so I will support its inclusion. Yworo (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...Richard Feynman would have been another opt-out, as he was from a 1960s book on Jewish laureates, when he wrote to its author "requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes."betsythedevine (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
Here you go:
- Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967
- Dear Miss Levitan:
- In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
- Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an "Aryan" inheritance.
- It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.
- It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.
- At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
- Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
- I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.
- Sincerely yours,
- Richard Feynman
Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have no interest in getting involved in another absurd Afd timesink, but it needs to be said, that in addition to being a brilliant scientist, Feynman was also known for some very strange views. For example, he apparently had difficulty accepting the germ theory of disease, as he believed that tooth brushing was unncessary and that hand washing, especially after using the toilet, was a "superstition". Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep per brewcrewer.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Richard Feynman. One of the sources in the article says The figure for the total number of Jewish nobel Prize winners varies slightly, depending on the strictness of the "Who's a Jew?" definition. There is no need to create a list on a term that even the sources agree is not well defined. I think a list on Nobel Romance-speaking Nobel Laureates would be less controversial and better defined. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments articulated by Jayjg and JoshuaZ--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note I cannot stop wondering how many of the keep votes are from people who see themselves Jewish. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but you could have stopped yourself from saying it. --Avenue (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nergaal really didn't say anything uncivil, so I don't see why he has to keep himself from "mentioning that." The truth of the matter is none of the users who are so vehemently trying to keep this list alive have not even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates -- which is an IDENTICAL situation. Bulldog123 13:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nergal said, in effect, "you only did that because you're a Jew", which is highly inappropriate at best. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates is, in fact, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation, primarily because we don't have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the intersection of "Chinese" and "Nobel laureates". On the other hand, we do have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the notable intersection "Jewish" and "Nobel laureates". And here's the real "truth of the matter"; almost none of the users who are so vehemently trying trying to keep this list have even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors -- which are FAR WORSE situations. It's clear the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates. This has become blindingly obvious; it's mostly an issue because 3 or 4 editors want to keep Geim off the list, and attempt to win an editing dispute by deleting the article. Thus, the reasons for advocating the deletion of this list have, in reality, nothing to do with policy (I exclude you from this, Bulldog123, since you are one of the few editors who has actually advanced a consistent position on this topic). Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Neergal said was unwarranted, and a breach of WP:NPA. However, I consider Jayjg's later response that "the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates" to be a much more gross generalisation and a more grave breach of WP:NPA, giving a clear intimation of prejudice. I think it shows the weakness of some arguments presented here that such attacks are being resorted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't intimated prejudice, I've pointed out, quite factually, that many of the "delete" voters here are concerned with an extremely narrow issue with one or two individuals on one list, mostly unrelated to policy, rather than the larger systemic issues, policies and problems they claim to be concerned about. And I've also pointed out that their inconsistencies are what really "shows the weakness of some arguments presented here". See more at my comment below. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one should require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I don't really see how it's a COI to identify as Jewish and to !vote here, but... I would prefer if everyone could give a better reasoning than "Jews are an ethnicity and this list is notable." Plus, I think everyone gets super sensitive whenever these types of lists are nominated and interpret every off-color remark as a personal attack. Bulldog123 18:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I suggest you apologise promptly for the false allegation you made about Nergaal, rather than attempting to hide it by masking its deletion with a misleading edit summary: the diff shows it clearly enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was a mistake and I reverted it. There's nothing else to be said about this. I suggest you stop suggesting what I should do, and I assure you I am not going to apologize for calling antisemitic comments "antisemitic comments"--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Naturally, we have accusations of antisemitism again. As is always the case in these AfDs. Bulldog123 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It was a mistake and I reverted it. There's nothing else to be said about this. I suggest you stop suggesting what I should do, and I assure you I am not going to apologize for calling antisemitic comments "antisemitic comments"--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Mbz1, I suggest you apologise promptly for the false allegation you made about Nergaal, rather than attempting to hide it by masking its deletion with a misleading edit summary: the diff shows it clearly enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep - Per Christopher Connor this is a notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory - inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. It all depends on what criteria you use, the recent disruption by users at this article and a BLP in an attempt to include someone that is clearly not Jewish, is an example of why this dubious list is a disrupted net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ultra-Supremium Megatron-Softy Keep -- With sugar on top! - Serisouly, though. This is a keep. There is a disproportionate number of Jews who were awarded the prize, to the point where the Arab world speaks of it were a conspiracy. Last I heard, it were 22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population. I think brewcrewer and others iterated a similar point -- this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners -- this is why wikipedia was created -- to share knowledge between people. Several editors expressed concern regarding disruptive conduct, but we have those in many articles relating to Jewish people (see Jerusalem diff) and we can handle such issues without wiping out public-interest encyclopaedic content. Keep. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- > this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners
- There isn't going to be anybody curious about this because there is no material on it. I don't know how many times this can be stressed. I feel like a broken record. Not a single one of the provided secondary sources in this article academically probes the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Over half are vanity publications and the others spend less than two paragraphs remarking on Jewish overrepresentation in fields of academia. The one, only, singular source that briefly STUDIES the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize is Charles Murray's sociology article. This is not Charles Murray's wikipedia. If it were, we would also need to create List of black criminals as there's plenty of research of his that considers that too. Bulldog123 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- >22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population
- It's a nice statistic, but it's also synthesis of unrelated information - 100% of the world population is not in the field of chemistry/physics/medicine/or literature and 100% of the world population is not eligible to be awarded the Nobel Prize even if they were. A statistic worth mentioning might be the population of eligible academics in Nobel committee approved institutions versus Nobel Prize winners. Which, given the Jewish faculty at places like UPenn, is probably not going to be overrepresented by much - if at all. The question of WHY Jews are overrepresented in eligible faculties is something of encyclopedic value (environmental? genetic? divine?), but this list is not. Bulldog123 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Richard Feynman. His statement is a brilliant explanation of why this list is irrelevant. Unless someone can show in what way this intersection is notable, then this article has no purpose. Even if criteria were not being stretched, and the list abused (which some comments above suggest is happening), it would be unnecessary. I would take the same position regarding most of the lists above suggested either as positive or negative examples; though the List of Jewish anarchists mentioned by Jayjg may indeed (I haven't yet looked at it) reflect something more that ethnic knee-jerk listing. RolandR (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- May I suggest you reread Feynman's letter? Feynman isn't saying such lists are intrinsically bad. He's objecting to the fact that the list which included him was part of an attempt to push certain views claiming that the proportion of Jews with Nobel prizes was due to inherited traits. That's a very different claim. Feynman is objecting to that. Nothing in in his argument objects to such lists as such. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep Per RolandR, aside for Richard Feynman statement that overall is only one view (not necessarily a valid one) but I consider witty (yet wrong) by itself-all other reasons Roland counted actually sharpened why I should vote opposite than him. It's an encyclopedia and not a memorial site which follows desist people last willing.--Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You do understand you haven't provided a single reason detailing how this list is of encyclopedic value -- which is what the argument is. The argument is not "Delete this list because Feynman wouldn't like it." Bulldog123 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Titanium keep per Plot Spoiler, and actually per RolandR and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial, but that is his right. 'Jews' are a people. The religion is the traditions of this people. It is notable to show the disproportionate number not to prove they are better (certainly not to compare with some 'Aryan' people claims though they make good cars and their economy is one of the few that have export surplus), but in fact the importance of education is important to the Jewish people. --Shuki (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of which is a policy or even a guideline, whoever closes this AFD needs to read well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial You're not being very subtle. Bulldog123 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually "and Richard [Feynman] who is merely in denial" doesn't just lack subtlety, it is obnoxious POV-pushing drivel, from someone who can't even be bothered to spell his name right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Shuki, could we please stay on topic? Whether Jews are a people or a religion or a culture or a group of aliens is not relevant to whether the article should be included. And if you are going to make nasty remarks about one of the most brilliant humans in the last century, the least you could do is spell his name correctly. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial You're not being very subtle. Bulldog123 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of which is a policy or even a guideline, whoever closes this AFD needs to read well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep, there can be no serious doubt about the notability of this topic, instead the nomination appears to come from the difficulty some people are having with categorization -- and indeed the difficulties others are having in understanding anything much about Jews. I'm finding it tiresome to continually encounter this business: "oh, it's just too much of a hassle, let's just nuke it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: "the difficulty some people are having with categorization" is exactly the point. Some people (including Feynman) think that dividing people into arbitrary categories on the basis of supposed 'ethnic' or 'religious' roots, rather than on what the people themselves consider appropriate, has a long and ugly history, and is not anything that Wikipedia should chose to engage in for the convenience of those who wish to compile lists. As for the comment about "others" having difficulties "understanding anything much about Jews" I'd ask exactly how you know which "others" are and are not Jewish themselves? Not that this is of the slightest consequence regarding the topic under discussion - it seems instead to be a mere insinuation of ulterior motives, and has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Another who would agree with Feynman is Andre Geim. Here was response to an Israeli interviewer: "As for his decision to come to Israel, he said, 'My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group. Israel has several cultural characteristics which result in an especially high proportion of the less stupid people.'"betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Your biases are interfering with your interpretation. (by that I do not mean at all to imply anti-semitism) You cannot know that Geim would have agreed with Feynman based on that comment alone. Geim even contradicts himself in the final sentence by saying Israel has "less stupid people." If we were to follow this statement with Wikipedia action, we would have no articles on countries (except Israel?) or religions. Just long lists of stupid people and not-so-stupid people. KantElope (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per the supporters above and Raphael Patai, who says: "While it would be giving too much credit to the Nobel Prize Committee to assume that, in selecting the recipients of the prizes, it infallibly comes up each time with a man of genius, there can be no doubt that in general the laureates are men of extraordinary accomplishments....In any case, the Nobel Prize winners constitute what is unquestionabley the most elite group among men of unsual intellecutal achievement. Hence there is at present no better yardstick for measuring Jewish intellectual preeminence that the record of Jews among the laureates. from The Jewish mind by Raphael Patai Wayne State University Press 1996 [2] If someone wishes to be excluded from this list for reasons such as Feynmen has iterated, we can either respect that and leave it out or we can make a clear note that a person wishes to opt out.KantElope (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment'Sadly, I'd not suggest that Raphael Patai can be taken as a neutral or reliable source on this question. Particularly given the way his book 'The Arab Mind' has be subject to criticism for its negative portrayal of Arabs, and for its use as a NeoCon guide to methods of repression in the Middle East. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I have not read his book about the Arab Mind so I cannot discuss that one way or the other. On the other hand, Googling in Google Books for "Jewish Nobel Prize winners" brings up 380 results that use just those words to describe certain Nobel Prize winners. As far as I know, none of the authors has been sued by anyone for mistakenly id-ing them. As I said earlier, if someone should object that they are mistakenly id'ed as "Jewish," that could be easily fixed. KantElope (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Raphael Patai was a respected scholar, and author of dozens of respected works; please stick to relevant discussion of the policies and this article. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment'Sadly, I'd not suggest that Raphael Patai can be taken as a neutral or reliable source on this question. Particularly given the way his book 'The Arab Mind' has be subject to criticism for its negative portrayal of Arabs, and for its use as a NeoCon guide to methods of repression in the Middle East. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question why do we have a list on Jewish Nobel laureates but none on the American laureates? That list is less controversial and better defined, and is more notable because it contains about 1/3 of all nominees. Also, UK, Germany, and a few others are comparable in size to this list and they do not exist. Nergaal (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it would be great to have an article on American laureates, also UK, Germany etc. Of course this is no reason to delete this one.KantElope (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: Here's what really astounds me about this AfD. I've been trying to deal with the issue of Jewish lists and categories literally for years, trying to ensure that the non-notable intersections are deleted, or if kept, that policy is adhered to, and non-cited items and BLP violations are removed. I've spent tens of hours mostly deleting names from them or, failing that, at least trying to cite them. It has been a thankless task; I've met with huge opposition every step of the way, and have at times even ended up at AN/I over this issue. Yet now, because a small number of people want to set up special rules to exclude a specific individual (Andre Geim) from one list, they devote huge amounts of effort and mostly spurious non-policy-related argumentation to that end. Wikipedia has hundreds of Jew lists and categories, and thousands of articles in the Jew categories, and they're mostly garbage. Where were you all when people were idiotically adding James Franco and a hundred other people to categories like Category:Sephardi Jews or Category:Russian American Jews [3][4]? When people were trying to add hundreds of unsourced or improperly sourced names to lists like List of Jewish actors or List of Jewish American businesspeople?[5][6][7][8][9]? Where are you all now, when you actually have a chance to get rid of some of the worst of these lists, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers? Sorry to have to be so blunt, but based on their actions so far, it's pretty clear that very few of those actually voting "delete" here really care about overall policy or systemic BLP issues raised by these lists and categories. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, from my point of view it is the people who want to include Geim that are making up rules. The words "Jew" and "Jewish" are ambiguous. They can indicate religious belief. Nowhere does the article title or the lead of the article specify "of Jewish ethnicity" or "of Jewish ancestry". Since we are using ambiguous terms here, the part of WP:BLP that says when in doubt, leave it out, applies. Due to the additional restrictions of BLP, we have to treat the ambiguity in the most cautious possible way; thus, we have to assume the words will be read as an indication of religion and include only those who can be reliably sourced as personally identifying as Jewish rather than all those who someone has called Jewish. Yworo (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Look, I feel for you. I've been witness to the absolute pandemonium concerning Jewish lists/categories (and X-American lists/categories) over the years. And I would have helped you with the James Franco issue and all... but it just tends to give me migraines. Look at this: Category:Romanian American Jews. Monica Lewinsky is in that cat. I don't think Monica Lewinsky could point out Romania on a friggin' map. I don't get why articles like Gwenyth Paltrow need sentences like "Paltrow's paternal great-grandfather, whose surname was "Paltrowicz", was a rabbi in little Nowogród, Poland" What the heck does any of that add to this encyclopedia? It's not like Paltrow even knows what a rabbi's responsibilities are... much less where Nowogród, Poland is... or even Poland itself. I honestly just don't know what to do about it anymore. It's cancer. You're chemo, but chemo doesn't always work. Bulldog123 18:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I understand why it gives you migraines, it does the same to me, though I haven't given up trying to get them to conform with policy. But there's only one of me, and lots of them, and I have limited time, energy, and patience. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- "Where were you all when people were idiotically adding James Franco and a hundred other people to categories like Category:Sephardi Jews...". Personally? Not editing Wikipedia. Any other loaded questions you'd like to ask? These ridiculous insinuations of prejudice aren't doing anyone's cause any good. Put a cork in it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't insinuated any prejudice, and even if you weren't editing Wikipedia then, you're all over it now. Your continued conspicuous absence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers is noted, and belies anything you've claimed here. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I started editing several months ago. I don't have a time machine.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're here now. List of Jewish American cartoonists has exactly one source in it, and it's a far less notable intersection than Jewish Nobel laureates. So, what do you plan to do about it? I'd AfD it myself, but I don't want to be endlessly and falsely accused again of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American cartoonists. It's been ridiculously languishing around for three years. Bulldog123 21:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- English Wiki has 3+ million articles, you can't possibly expect me to know all of them by heart. If someone nominates it, I'll support it. I also voted on your actors/entertainers nominations recently. By the way, this doesn't have to stick to the Jewish lists, other lists that violate policies (like the ethnic Chinese one) should be nominated for AfD too.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It has been: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. Although people tend to think the Jewish one is somehow more legitimate -- even though the Chinese and Jews both value education and are overrepresented in the sciences almost the same way. Bulldog123 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're here now. List of Jewish American cartoonists has exactly one source in it, and it's a far less notable intersection than Jewish Nobel laureates. So, what do you plan to do about it? I'd AfD it myself, but I don't want to be endlessly and falsely accused again of WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing at all. I'm here now, and I'm working on the issue I consider of most significance. I was unaware that other contributors could tell me where I should be working. Perhaps you'd like to indicate which policy entitles you to do this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- That post was to Therexbanner. The extreme inconsistency between your claimed motivations and actual actions has been noted and well-documented. It is no longer surprising, but still belies all your claims, and completely undermines your arguments here. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that inconsistency in action is not a reason that his argument isn't valid. Validity of an argument is independent of who says it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, it does indicate that he doesn't actually believe his arguments, which is something the closing admin will have to take into account. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note that inconsistency in action is not a reason that his argument isn't valid. Validity of an argument is independent of who says it. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- That post was to Therexbanner. The extreme inconsistency between your claimed motivations and actual actions has been noted and well-documented. It is no longer surprising, but still belies all your claims, and completely undermines your arguments here. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing at all. I'm here now, and I'm working on the issue I consider of most significance. I was unaware that other contributors could tell me where I should be working. Perhaps you'd like to indicate which policy entitles you to do this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Since this now seems to have degenerated into a name-calling session:
Can I point out once again that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. I fully intend to ensure that this policy is kept to, and may choose delete any contraventions immediately. If people wish to see Wikipedia policy on this matter changed, this isn't the place to do it.
(And in response to anyone asking why I'd do this here, and not elsewhere, I can only say that (a) I'm not the only person responsible for ensuring policy is adhered to, and (b) The level of debate here shows the need for particular attention. Frankly, I've got other subjects I'd rather be looking into). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy, you are the only person who seems to think that a list of this sort would by nature violate BLP to include living people. And no one (including me) seems to understand what your logic for this would be. I'm incidentally curious if you think that including Robert Aumann on such a list would be a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is quite simple, really. Robert Aumann is a notable person because he has won a Nobel Prize. This notability, combined with his self-identification as Jewish (I assume he does) makes him eligible for a list of 'Notable Jewish people'. He is also eligible for inclusion on a list of 'Nobel Prize laureates', as this confers automatic notability. There is nothing whatsoever inherently notable linking his being Jewish with winning a Nobel prize in Economics. The list is an arbitrary intersection between a (vaguely-defined) ethnicity and a list of prizewinners. There is nothing to support the suggestion that the intersection itself is of any note: it is instead a synthesis created by those who wish to create the list. I'd sggest that people actually read what policy states, rather than assuming you can cherry-pick through it to suit a particular purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that people should actually read what policy says rather than cherry-pick to suit a particular purpose. I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees with that bit of rhetoric. So what part of policy are you using to assert that any such list would violate BLP? (Hint by the way, there's a specific reason I choose Aumann as an example...) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you take a look at what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. As I've already illustrated here with an hypothetical example. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A List of Albanian Nobel laureates on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of Albanians and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). Now possibly there is something notable in itself that links Aumann's ethnicity with his Nobel Prize, but if so the notability is his and not a general attribute of Jewish Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy, please reread what LISTPEOPLE says, and then apply your analysis to Robert Aumann. Since you aren't getting the point: Aumann is an example (one of quite a few) where his notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues. If you want a more blunt example, Yitzhak Rabin's Nobel Prize was deeply connected to his being an Israeli Jew. So at minimum, your claim that any inclusion of living people would somehow violate BLP or LISTPEOPLE is wrong. In any event, if you are trying to (erroneously) claim there's a LISTPEOPLE violation and are not trying to claim there's a BLP violation, then the overall claim you are making is much weaker, precisely because BLP is a much more serious issue than LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, as has already been explained this specific intersection is noteworthy rather than an arbitrary intersection because the unusually large nature of the intersection has been remarked upon in reliable sources. Thus, we now seem to be in a position where you are agreeing that there's no BLP issue, just a possible LISTPEOPLE issue, and even that argument seems quite weak. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- WP:LISTPEOPLE says that "Lists of people must follow Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people": BLP includes lists of living people by definition.
- Andy, please reread what LISTPEOPLE says, and then apply your analysis to Robert Aumann. Since you aren't getting the point: Aumann is an example (one of quite a few) where his notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues. If you want a more blunt example, Yitzhak Rabin's Nobel Prize was deeply connected to his being an Israeli Jew. So at minimum, your claim that any inclusion of living people would somehow violate BLP or LISTPEOPLE is wrong. In any event, if you are trying to (erroneously) claim there's a LISTPEOPLE violation and are not trying to claim there's a BLP violation, then the overall claim you are making is much weaker, precisely because BLP is a much more serious issue than LISTPEOPLE. Moreover, as has already been explained this specific intersection is noteworthy rather than an arbitrary intersection because the unusually large nature of the intersection has been remarked upon in reliable sources. Thus, we now seem to be in a position where you are agreeing that there's no BLP issue, just a possible LISTPEOPLE issue, and even that argument seems quite weak. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you take a look at what WP:LISTPEOPLE says. As I've already illustrated here with an hypothetical example. A List of Albanians is ok because the criteria are 'Albanian' and 'Notable': the list can include all 'notable Albanians': no Albanian can be excluded for any reason other than non-notability, which is the normal Wikipedia standard for rejecting anything. That is really all it says on the subject. A List of Albanian Nobel laureates on the other hand is (taking as read that winning a Nobel Prize is notable) a synthesis - the intersection of Albanians and Nobel laureates: there is nothing notable about the intersection (or if there is, strong WP:RS will be needed to show this notability, e.g. that it is discussed in a meaningful manner in appropriate texts as an intersection with an explanation for why this intersection is itself notable). Now possibly there is something notable in itself that links Aumann's ethnicity with his Nobel Prize, but if so the notability is his and not a general attribute of Jewish Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that people should actually read what policy says rather than cherry-pick to suit a particular purpose. I doubt you'd find anyone who disagrees with that bit of rhetoric. So what part of policy are you using to assert that any such list would violate BLP? (Hint by the way, there's a specific reason I choose Aumann as an example...) JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is quite simple, really. Robert Aumann is a notable person because he has won a Nobel Prize. This notability, combined with his self-identification as Jewish (I assume he does) makes him eligible for a list of 'Notable Jewish people'. He is also eligible for inclusion on a list of 'Nobel Prize laureates', as this confers automatic notability. There is nothing whatsoever inherently notable linking his being Jewish with winning a Nobel prize in Economics. The list is an arbitrary intersection between a (vaguely-defined) ethnicity and a list of prizewinners. There is nothing to support the suggestion that the intersection itself is of any note: it is instead a synthesis created by those who wish to create the list. I'd sggest that people actually read what policy states, rather than assuming you can cherry-pick through it to suit a particular purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy, you are the only person who seems to think that a list of this sort would by nature violate BLP to include living people. And no one (including me) seems to understand what your logic for this would be. I'm incidentally curious if you think that including Robert Aumann on such a list would be a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- As for whether Aumann's "notability as a religious Jew is in some ways connected to his work in probability and related issues", I'd say that is for you to provide a neutral WP:RS for. Even if it is true, it will apply to him, his work, and his prize. It is on no significance to anyone else on a list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy, you may want to work on your reading comprehension. Or your logic skills. Or some combination thereof. Of course lists have to follow BLP. But you seem to be trying to argue that that somehow that means that any LISTPEOPLE issue is a BLP issue. That's not what the quoted sentence says. As to the Aumann thing, it is actually in his article if you read it. A major reason his opinion on the so-called Bible codes is that he's a religious Jew who had a Nobel prize in math related issues and thus people care about his opinion. And of course Aumann's specific situation doesn't impact whether others should be on the list. The reason why Aumann is relevant is because you claimed that such a list couldn't have any living people on it for BLP reasons. Aumann is simply one of the most interesting and blatant examples of how that claim has no basis in policy or reality. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, see WP:NPA. Secondly, WP:LISTPEOPLE states that for living people, BLP principles apply - which in this case comes down to the provisions in WP:EGRS. As for your final point, I'd say this is totally irrelevant to the topic under debate. Aumann's views on matters of religion may be regarded more highly because he has a Nobel laureate, but he didn't win the Prize because of anything related to his ethnicity, and that is supposed to be the reason he is on the list. Of course, if my claim "has no basis in policy or reality" then any attempt on my part to remove somebody from the list on the basis that their inclusion violates WP:EGRS will fail. I'd almost be tempted to try Aumann as a test case if I wasn't convinced that this list will have to be deleted anyway, as the case for it breaching policy is so strong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't mean NPA. You presumably mean CIVIL. Saying someone is failing to logically apply or read policy isn't NPA. It is just a fact. If someone said someone was an idiot that would be an NPA. In any event, at this point you are just repeating yourself. So I'll simply note that EGRS is not a subpolicy of BLP but a guideline. This seems about representative of the many issues with your above comment (another noteworthy one is not understanding the point about Aumann. The point there is not what he won the Nobel for. It is subsequent events related to his Nobel and other things he has done and been asked to do.) At this point, it doesn't seem that any further attempt to convince you is likely to go anywhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, having to nit-pick over the difference between a policy and a guideline (and between NPA and CIVIL) to support a list has got to be indicative of a weak argument. Guidelines are supposed to be followed with "occasional exceptions" and I don't see any rational arguments so far for "exceptions" in this case - just assertions that rules shouldn't apply. Can you actually suggest any reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed? And as for Aumann, 'other things he has done' afterwards are utterly irrelevant to his inclusion on the list, which is supposed by its own criteria to be of people who (a) are of Jewish ethnicity, and (b) have won a Nobel Laureate. If you are suggesting that Aumann only gets included because of additional criteria, can you tell us what these are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- No. The difference between policy and guideline is critical here when the policy in question is BLP and the guideline is just a guideline. Interpretation of guidelines (again specific interpretation) is a very different claim than any claim that something follows from BLP which is one of the strongest policies in question. I don't see what you aren't getting about the Aumann issue. Aumann was used as an example for your claim that having any living people on such a list would run afoul of BLP. Do you not see why he is a counterexample to that claim and a variety of other claims you are making? Let's be explicit: Aumann is notable for his religious and ethnic heritage and his Nobel prize and much of the coverage of him in the last few years has been precisely in the context of him as someone so prominent to have a Nobel to have certain opinions about some issues related to his religious beliefs. This example is intended primarily as a counterexample to your claim that any inclusion of a living person on such a list would be a BLP violation. If you don't see how he's a counterexample then I'm not sure what to say. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Frankly, having to nit-pick over the difference between a policy and a guideline (and between NPA and CIVIL) to support a list has got to be indicative of a weak argument. Guidelines are supposed to be followed with "occasional exceptions" and I don't see any rational arguments so far for "exceptions" in this case - just assertions that rules shouldn't apply. Can you actually suggest any reason why the guideline shouldn't be followed? And as for Aumann, 'other things he has done' afterwards are utterly irrelevant to his inclusion on the list, which is supposed by its own criteria to be of people who (a) are of Jewish ethnicity, and (b) have won a Nobel Laureate. If you are suggesting that Aumann only gets included because of additional criteria, can you tell us what these are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- You don't mean NPA. You presumably mean CIVIL. Saying someone is failing to logically apply or read policy isn't NPA. It is just a fact. If someone said someone was an idiot that would be an NPA. In any event, at this point you are just repeating yourself. So I'll simply note that EGRS is not a subpolicy of BLP but a guideline. This seems about representative of the many issues with your above comment (another noteworthy one is not understanding the point about Aumann. The point there is not what he won the Nobel for. It is subsequent events related to his Nobel and other things he has done and been asked to do.) At this point, it doesn't seem that any further attempt to convince you is likely to go anywhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, see WP:NPA. Secondly, WP:LISTPEOPLE states that for living people, BLP principles apply - which in this case comes down to the provisions in WP:EGRS. As for your final point, I'd say this is totally irrelevant to the topic under debate. Aumann's views on matters of religion may be regarded more highly because he has a Nobel laureate, but he didn't win the Prize because of anything related to his ethnicity, and that is supposed to be the reason he is on the list. Of course, if my claim "has no basis in policy or reality" then any attempt on my part to remove somebody from the list on the basis that their inclusion violates WP:EGRS will fail. I'd almost be tempted to try Aumann as a test case if I wasn't convinced that this list will have to be deleted anyway, as the case for it breaching policy is so strong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Andy, you may want to work on your reading comprehension. Or your logic skills. Or some combination thereof. Of course lists have to follow BLP. But you seem to be trying to argue that that somehow that means that any LISTPEOPLE issue is a BLP issue. That's not what the quoted sentence says. As to the Aumann thing, it is actually in his article if you read it. A major reason his opinion on the so-called Bible codes is that he's a religious Jew who had a Nobel prize in math related issues and thus people care about his opinion. And of course Aumann's specific situation doesn't impact whether others should be on the list. The reason why Aumann is relevant is because you claimed that such a list couldn't have any living people on it for BLP reasons. Aumann is simply one of the most interesting and blatant examples of how that claim has no basis in policy or reality. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Researching other lists on Wikipedia to see if there is some consistency or clarity to this argument. We have the following which include prominent scientists and writers who may or may not have won a Nobel Prize. These are by ethnicity and religion, excluding Jewish. There are doubtless dozens more. What makes those lists acceptable but this list not acceptable? What we have here is a list of outstanding Jewish contributers in various fields, as defined by the Nobel Prize society. Americans and Germans have won a lot of Nobel Prizes as well, and perhaps someone would want to create an article for that. Some of the Jewish winners would be on those lists as well. This can't be a BLP issue as there are a number of lists below that are religious and/or ethnic in nature.
- List of Arab scientists and scholars
- List of Indian poets
- List of Arab Americans
- List of Iranian musicians
- List of Iranian women
- List of Chinese language poets
- List of Christian thinkers in science
- List of Latter Day Saints
- List of Catholic authors
- List of Christian Scientists
- List of Kurdish people
- list of famous or notable Germans
- List of Canadian writers
- List of bands from Canada
- list of prominent Egyptians
I just cannot see what all the fuss is about, about this particular article! The German article even has a list of German saints. Where is the list of Jewish saints? KantElope (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the fuss isn't about this particular article. It is about this particular type of article: a synthetic intersection. I suspect there may well be examples of similarly-flawed lists amongst the examples you give, but in any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a valid argument. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Considering almost everything you listed is either a nationality or a religious group, I don't see your point. Bulldog123 21:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. There is a list of notable Israelis, and that's fine. (Notable as defined in Wiki, and Israeli as per the people's citizenship.) In any case, why are none of the "keep" editors refuting the policy issues stated? An AfD is not about the number of votes, but the quality of the arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, not. Wikipedia's article on Jews defines them in the very first line as "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East." If you disagree with that assumption, you should work on changing the Wikipedia definition first. The articles above are about nations, religions, ethnicities, that are found throughout the globe, just like Jews. (with the exception of the Arab-American article, by definition only those Arabs found in America) KantElope (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I said nationality, not nation. From Nationality:"Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state." I was referring to the citizenship aspect. As in, List of Italians being people who are notable and have/had Italian citizenship. This is because there is no discussion (you're either an Italian citizen or you're not, you can't be half.) That is why religious, and ethnic lists need to go.
- Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, not. Wikipedia's article on Jews defines them in the very first line as "The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים Yehudim [jɛhuːdiːm]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East." If you disagree with that assumption, you should work on changing the Wikipedia definition first. The articles above are about nations, religions, ethnicities, that are found throughout the globe, just like Jews. (with the exception of the Arab-American article, by definition only those Arabs found in America) KantElope (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nationality and ethnicity are not the same. There is a list of notable Israelis, and that's fine. (Notable as defined in Wiki, and Israeli as per the people's citizenship.) In any case, why are none of the "keep" editors refuting the policy issues stated? An AfD is not about the number of votes, but the quality of the arguments.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:EGRS is pretty clear on the matter, not a notable intersection. Tarc (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- delete per Richard Feynman and other wise men.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per many above. In my view, it would be no different than adding a column to List of Nobel laureates that defines ethnicity/religion. I doubt anyone would argue that such a column would not be appropriate. Ergo, this fork is equally not appropriate. Resolute 01:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete all and any of these kinds of lists, be they religion, ethnicity, age, or whatnot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Question: If this list is kept, should #Feynman be included in it or not? Currently he is [10]. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- This is really a premature question. It should be asked after DR is closed, and if the article is kept.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, of course Feynman is on the list. Are you imagining that if this list is kept, the same editors will not continue to watch it and to control the rules of consensus on its talk page? Editors whose attitude is that Feynman "is in denial" or that anybody who has been described as "Jewish" belongs on the list but that this rule of the list need never be made public in the lede? Editors who regard it as "troubling" that anybody objects to the list's changing its rules to absorb a new laureate who says he's 1/8 Jewish and has a name that sounds Jewish? Editors who consider the article exempt from WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, and WP:LISTPEOPLE? Why on earth would they care what Feynman thinks? betsythedevine (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a real problem with the list inclusion and there may be people acting based on biases but the Feynman letter is making a much more narrow comment than it is being used for here. He's objecting to being on a specific list being used for a specific end at a specific time. Not the issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- So Feynman's lengthy criticism of a list of Jewish Nobel laureates is no reason to think he might object to this list? Another great sample of this kind of reasoning: If Geim tells an Israeli interviewer that he has one Jewish great-grandmother, that is no reason to think he is ethnically 1/8 Jewish--he did not specifically state that his other 7 great-grandparents weren't Jewish and besides, if his mother's mother is Jewish then so is she, and if his mother is Jewish then so is he. betsythedevine (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- There may be a real problem with the list inclusion and there may be people acting based on biases but the Feynman letter is making a much more narrow comment than it is being used for here. He's objecting to being on a specific list being used for a specific end at a specific time. Not the issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, of course Feynman is on the list. Are you imagining that if this list is kept, the same editors will not continue to watch it and to control the rules of consensus on its talk page? Editors whose attitude is that Feynman "is in denial" or that anybody who has been described as "Jewish" belongs on the list but that this rule of the list need never be made public in the lede? Editors who regard it as "troubling" that anybody objects to the list's changing its rules to absorb a new laureate who says he's 1/8 Jewish and has a name that sounds Jewish? Editors who consider the article exempt from WP:BLPCAT, WP:EGRS, and WP:LISTPEOPLE? Why on earth would they care what Feynman thinks? betsythedevine (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is a problem, because per WP:LSC one should come up with a criteria beforehand. The criteria here seem to be inclusion in "Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, Schreiber Publishing, because it's by far the most widely used source. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- The list had explicit inclusion criteria that appeared to have consensus until they were removed in this edit a month ago. Further discussions about this on the talk page did not reach consensus. --Avenue (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
OTHERCRAPEXISTS comment:
- List of Christian thinkers in science (no AfD yet)
- multiple (citizenship-based?) sub-lists of List of Jewish scientists and philosophers like List of British Jewish scientists (none at AfD yet), but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (3rd nomination) resulted in delete
- List of Jewish American entertainers (at AfD)
Apparently being a Jewish entertainer is horrible, but being a Jewish or Chirsitian scientist is okay, unless you're a Nobel laureate or FRS. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a great deal of evidence that in regard to lists, Wikipedia policy and guidelines are being inconsistently applied. Frankly, it's a mess, which can lead to some real horrors going unnoticed. This is no reason to carry on with inconsistency though, and this article is more visible than the horrors. We're here, and we need to start somewhere. I suspect that this is becoming something of a test case (not that in theory Wikipedia has such things), and will help sort out the criteria for getting the mess fixed - as I've said before, that is why this matters to me. If the result of all this is that it is decided that 'a list of anyone we feel like making a list of' can include 'anyone who might vaguely fit in', then at least we've arrived at a policy. I'd prefer lists of people to be based on criteria not arrived at via a particular POV, or at the whim of the list compiler. I think that Feynman was saying the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Some of the books in the "Further reading" section lead me to believe that the notability guideline is met for an article on the subject. The ratio of Jewish winners has been discussed often enough. The lead here is a fine base and if the list is too long for the available prose then it should be a list with Jewish Nobel laureates as its blue link.Cptnono (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced a separate article is needed as you suggest, but the current coverage of the topic at Ashkenazi intelligence could probably be expanded. That doesn't affect the existence of this list though. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hear what you are getting at but "rename" isn't an option technically. Of course "keep x ∞ no +1 while sticking my tongue out" isn't an option either. So yeah, call it an article instead of a list and it is an easy keep.Cptnono (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced a separate article is needed as you suggest, but the current coverage of the topic at Ashkenazi intelligence could probably be expanded. That doesn't affect the existence of this list though. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as a violation of policies and guidelines as others have noted above. It's past time to do something about such lists and categories. I do like the point about the obvious problem if we added a column on religion to our main list. Oh, and per Feynman. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except that "Jewish" is an ethno-religious category; it's more like adding columns on Ethnicity and Religion. Incidentally, Evolution of Nobel Prizes by country and List of Nobel laureates in Physics by age are interesting articles to compare. Note that Lists of Nobel laureates tend to only have "Country", which isn't even defined as birthplace or nationality - it's simply taken from what the Nobel Foundation says; and of course age is from the Nobel site as well. Rd232 talk 13:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case even adding single columns on ethnicity and religion wouldn't work with the criteria used here. There would have to be several columns, for the ethnicity of parents, grandparents etc, since people are being included on the basis that they are 'part Jewish'. Actually, I suspect if you went far enough back you'd be able to find a Jewish ancestor for a lot more Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps all Nobel laureates should be included unless WP:RS could be found to demonstrate that none of their particular ancestors were in fact of Jewish ethnicity? This would seem to be in accord with the current criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be Wikipedia's guideline as of lately. "Jewish" until proven otherwise. And even if numerous foreign sources and family members state he was of a different ethnicity all together, still Jewish because some sources seems to have jumped to conclusions too quickly. Bulldog123 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, maybe everybody is Jewish, they just don't know it yet! Yworo (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- That seems to be Wikipedia's guideline as of lately. "Jewish" until proven otherwise. And even if numerous foreign sources and family members state he was of a different ethnicity all together, still Jewish because some sources seems to have jumped to conclusions too quickly. Bulldog123 16:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, in this case even adding single columns on ethnicity and religion wouldn't work with the criteria used here. There would have to be several columns, for the ethnicity of parents, grandparents etc, since people are being included on the basis that they are 'part Jewish'. Actually, I suspect if you went far enough back you'd be able to find a Jewish ancestor for a lot more Nobel Prize winners. Perhaps all Nobel laureates should be included unless WP:RS could be found to demonstrate that none of their particular ancestors were in fact of Jewish ethnicity? This would seem to be in accord with the current criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Except that "Jewish" is an ethno-religious category; it's more like adding columns on Ethnicity and Religion. Incidentally, Evolution of Nobel Prizes by country and List of Nobel laureates in Physics by age are interesting articles to compare. Note that Lists of Nobel laureates tend to only have "Country", which isn't even defined as birthplace or nationality - it's simply taken from what the Nobel Foundation says; and of course age is from the Nobel site as well. Rd232 talk 13:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The topic is clearly notable; there are some nontrivial categorization issues, but they are solvable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep A notable subject, well written list and per user:JoshuaZ. Broccoli (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Comment on notability rules from WP:SPIP: " The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." If one sets aside works whose focus is to celebrate Jewish achievement, and books that simply list some Jewish laureates, you find little discussion of the topic aside from the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman. I'd like to see better support of notability in some of the Keep !votes this AfD is getting. betsythedevine (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- "...the thoughtful comments of Harriet Zuckerman". Indeed. I'd suggest that anyone supporting the retention of this list should first read Zuckerman, and then perhaps reconsider their position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope that you, Rd232, do understand that after you wrongly speedy deleted the article last night, and after you prevented me closing the post at an/i, which I consider to be trolling, and now after that comment you should not be the one to close that DR, don't you?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- ? what is this "DR" you keep talking about? I can't stop you thinking that The Moon is made of green cheese or that action X is "trolling" (a misuse of the term, but I get the gist), but I can't help pointing out that constantly repeating the claim looks like, well, actual trolling. As to your substantive point, I don't normally close AFDs and wouldn't dream of closing as contentious a one as this, absent a Speedy Delete G4. Besides which I've now participated in the AFD - what sort of admin do you think I am? (Wait, don't answer that.) Rd232 talk 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I hope that you, Rd232, do understand that after you wrongly speedy deleted the article last night, and after you prevented me closing the post at an/i, which I consider to be trolling, and now after that comment you should not be the one to close that DR, don't you?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
I'd like to see more discussion of how a prose article on the topic fits in. Much of the claims to notability and topic coverage suggest that, and not a list. This also neatly avoids the problem of trying to characterise every Nobel laureate according to their Jewishness. A prose article would only cover laureates where reliable sources have discussed their Jewishness specifically in relation to the Prize (not merely mentioning X is Jewish and won a prize). Rd232 talk 21:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- As I've just commented elsewhere, I think that perhaps what is needed is a single general article discussing the relationship between ethnicity and the award of Nobel laureates. This will need proper WP:RS of course to justify (e.g. the topic being discussed elsewhere in a meaningful way), but might overcome most of the difficulties with categorisation. As to whether additional articles are merited for individual 'ethnicities', I think each case would need considering on its own merits. Regarding the Jewish example, I'd say that Harriet Zuckerman's treatment of the question, taken with the opposing viewpoint, would provide sufficient justification for an article, subject to it not then being used to in turn recreate a list based on dubious criteria and a 'flexible' approach to BLP considerations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I still believe this is the best option. There are sources that can be used in the further reading section. The list can be removed while the lead is turned into a stub. One thing to keep in mind is that the list could be recreated since we would have a valid blue linked article.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good luck maintaining an article with absolutely nothing to say. Bulldog123 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please see the further reading section. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- "the list could be recreated". Nope. The list as it stands violates policy (and common sense). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Read the standards for lists since it is spelled out clearly enough. I'm not saying it should happen just that it would be inline with the guideline if someone wanted to do it.Cptnono (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see some policy discussion. Also I would like to see some objectivity - many of the "keep" users have "This user is Jewish" or "This user comes from Israel" infoboxes on their pages. That is fine, but given that the issue concerns everyone, maybe there is a way of getting more input from a multitude of diverse (in all senses) users. I would also like to remind everyone that what matters is the quality of votes (in relation to the issues raised), and not the quantity.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)