Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates

Igor Tamm

Igor Tamm wasn't Jew. You even didn't find fake sources that he is Jew to add to the article about him, like you did to Landau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.216.214 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Tamm is Jewish is cited to 7 reliable sources. Are you just messing around here? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single mention of "Jew" in http://books.nap.edu/html/biomems/itamm.pdf. Seems like a case of Wikipedia:WEIGHT. -- Honorsteem (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's cited to 7 reliable sources. Are there any sources that indicate he's not Jewish? And how would WP:WEIGHT be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You said that before, thanks for reminding us. He is born in a well respected jewish family, thats all the sources say

1. Marshall Sklare (1982). Understanding American Jewry. Transaction Publishers. p. 108. ISBN 9780878554546.
2. Alan Symons (2000). Nobel laureates, 1901–2000. Polo Publishing. p. 202. ISBN 0952375133. Tamm was born in Vladivostok, Russia on July 8, 1895 into an old established Jewish family.
3. Joan Comay; Lavinia Cohn-Sherbok (2002). Who's who in Jewish history: after the period of the Old Testament. Routledge. p. 362. ISBN 9780415260305.
4. Bernard S. Schlessinger; June H. Schlessinger (1996). The who's who of Nobel Prize winners, 1901-1995. Oryx Press. p. 201. ISBN 9780897748995. Parents: Father, Evgen Tamm; Mother, Olga Davidova Tamm. Nationality: Russian. Religion: Jewish.
5. Ioan Mackenzie James (2009). Driven to innovate: a century of Jewish mathematicians and physicists. Peter Lang. p. 262. ISBN 9781906165222.
6. Wentzel Van Huyssteen (2003). Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, Volume 2. MacMillan Reference USA. p. 493.
7. "Jewish Laureates of Nobel Prize in Physics". Israel Science and Technology Directory. Retrieved October 16, 2011.

As far as I can see, most, maybe all, those sources seem to have a vested interest in expanding the concept of "'jewish' scientist". I didn't see Britanica online mention anything of his religion. If you refer to his born ethnicity, I am also in favor of a List of Nobel prize laureates born on a Monday as those are also unrelated 'facts'. And it would be easier to establish! If I would win the Nobel prize, you would list me too as Jewish Nobel laureate, and that is just as false. See @ NNDB http://www.nndb.com/people/846/000099549/ and their sources. -- Honorsteem (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How is what you are saying related to WP:UNDUE? Your argument appears to be that this list shouldn't exist at all, something that has already been argued (and rejected) at two AfDs. By the way, NNDB is not a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

'No consensus' isn't a rejection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "no consensus" is a rejection of deletion; when there's no consensus, articles are kept. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. 'No consensus' means exactly what it says. The policy is to keep articles where there is no consensus on whether to delete or not, but this isn't a rejection of anything. And yes, if someone wishes to argue (on valid policy-based grounds) that the list should be deleted, they are fully entitled to. Can I ask that rather than asserting ownership of this article, you address the problems of poor sourcing, as we were discussing in the section 'The use of tertiary sources' below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not only is your argument about "no consensus" a purely semantic one, but in your comment you have made untrue claims about me ("asserting ownership of this article" etc.). Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I'm happy to read and respond to comments that are solely about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding this reference indicating that Igor Tamm was Jewish: "Jewish Mobility—Mobility is often mentioned as a Jewish characteristic, a willingness to start again in another country, but it is difficult to generalize. Some of the subjects of my profiles showed no inclination to leave the land of their birth. Hertha Ayrton remained in England, Jacque Hadamard in France, Carl Jacobi, Gotthold Eisenstein, Leopold Kronecker, Heinrich Hertz, Felix Hausdorff, and Edmund Landau in Germany, Tullio Levi-Civita in Italy, Abram Ioffe and Igor Tamm in Russia, Niels Bohr in Denmark, Norbert Weiner in America. Sylvester spent a substantial period in America, but regarded England as his homeland." Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the seven sources already used as citations. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) That is an interesting source regarding the more general issue as to classification of people as 'Jewish':

"The question of whether or not a particular person should be classified as Jewish is not one in which I would wish to become too involved. Converts to Judaism become Jews, as do their descendents. Strictly speaking what matters is having a Jewish mother; the father is disregarded for this purpose, although not for membership of the priestly castes. Someone whose father was Jewish but whose mother was not I would describe as partly jewish; sometimes it is difficult to be sure. Most of those profiled here are undoubtedly of Jewish descent..." ([1] page 11).

It seems to me that if we can cite this for an individual being Jewish, we can also cite it for the statement that, in the opinion of its author, "Someone whose father was Jewish but whose mother was not I would describe as partly jewish" - and as such a statement from another source that person X was Jewish on the basis of having a Jewish father would clearly be in didsagreement with this source - and due weight would imply that we cover both views. Incidentally, the 'Israel Science and Technology Directory' source likewise seems to use Halachic law as its definition: "The lists here include only Nobel laureates who are Jewish by the strict definition of Halacha (interpretation of the laws of the Hebrew Scriptures) that requires being born to a Jewish mother or formal conversion to Judaism. Definition of being Jewish is similar to nationality and is independent of personal beliefs. See explanations on the question of 'Who is a Jew?'" [2]. Simplistic assertions that all we need to establish that 'person X is Jewish' is a single source are becoming increasingly unteneble as we look further into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I'm sure you're familiar with our policy of no original research. We go by what sources say. In fact the mother or the father can confer Jewishness on the offspring according to the liberal end of the spectrum of Jewish thinking on this topic. But I am not applying my own reasoning at all, as that would be original research. I am merely providing an explanation, but my explanation is not what ultimately matters. Ultimately we adhere to what reliable sources say. Do we find reliable sources saying that Igor Tamm is Jewish? Yes, we do. Do we find any source saying that Igor Tamm is not Jewish? No, we do not. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. We go by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that who is and who isn't 'Jewish' is often contentious. Now explain to me why we shouldn't make this clear to our readers in the lede to the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Igor Tamm's Jewishness "contentious"? If so, please provide the reliable sources indicating it is. Regarding your bolded sentence, a strong majority of editors in the RFC below have explained the issues with your proposal. Why are you bringing it up in this thread? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The RfC isn't about pointing out that there are differences of opinion over criteria for 'Jewishness'. It is about whether we should say what ours are. These are two different questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, the RFC about including the "inclusion for criteria" in the lede is below, so there's no point in discussing it here too. Is Igor Tamm's Jewishness "contentious"? If so, please provide the reliable sources indicating it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

4. For both Tamm and Frank, see The Encyclopedia of Russian Jewry, Biographies A-I, edited by Herman Branover, Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ, 1998, pp. 351-352. Frank was half-Jewish on his father's side. (His father's brother was the philosopher Semyon Frank.) On Tamm's Jewish background, the extent of which is unclear, see also the article by the historian of Soviet science Mark Kuchment in the June 1988 issue of Physics Today, p. 82. [3] and that seems to be a book review of "Reminiscences About I. E. Tamm" which is elas not extensively available. -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources disputing that Tamm was Jewish? The source you've used describes him as a "Jewish Nobel laureate", and it is the very one that you have described below as "a website run by some dude called Martin Kruger". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This list must make explicit in the lede its criteria for inclusion

It is entirely contrary to both Wikipedia norms and to basic common sense for a list to be compiled without explaining the criteria for inclusion. Furthermore, I'd suggest that it is very likely a violation of WP:BLP policy to include living persons on such an undefined list. We have repeatedly discussed this issue, yet those supporting the retention of this list seem utterly opposed to explaining to our readers what the justification for inclusion is. Can I ask that this is dealt with promptly, before I test the BLP issue in the manner that policy suggests is appropriate - by deleting all living individuals as lacking a source for being eligible to be included in an undefined collection of people that have been described as Jewish, or as having vaguely Jewish ancestry, or of once having watched a Woody Allen film and laughed at his jokes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you are again making the kind of unhelpful, non-factual statements that were pretty decisively disproved in the past. I'll again quote a previous comment I made to you.

And indeed, it is clear: It is a "List of Jewish Nobel laureates", just as List of female Nobel laureates, List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients etc. are all clear, despite the fact that the terms "female", "African American", or "Asian American" can be ambiguous. The fact that there is some ambiguity around any sort of identity is no excuse to pick on this specific list as being in particular need of attention, or having special requirements that even Featured Lists do not require.

Andy, we get the fact that you really don't like this list; that you believe "Being of Jewish descent, and being a Nobel Laureate, are two unconnected matters, and one has no relation to the other. Or, at least they shouldn't be.", and that you made 63 edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, as part of the attempts of you (and some others) to get it deleted. These attempts, however, failed; that ship has sailed. Attempting now to delete it by other means, apply unique requirements and stringencies on its contents, move it to inappropriate names, etc. is simply not constructive. Your focus on this specific list, to the near-exclusion of all other similar ones, is undue, unwarranted, and not helpful for Wikipedia or for you. If you want to do something constructive about this list, you could look for reliable sourcing for names on it that you feel need better sourcing, as I have done.[4][5] If you can't do that, then you should consider simply letting go. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting all living people from the list would be as WP:DISRUPTive as your previous renaming. This list is, without a doubt, one of the best of the "Jewish" lists (and, in fact, of almost all ethnicity lists). If you are serious about your concerns, why don't you go clean up some really bad ones, like List of Jewish American entertainers, List of Asian American writers, or List of African-American writers? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Stating that I intend to carry out what I consider to be a valid interpretation of WP:BLP policy isn't a 'threat' - it is what is expected of Wikipedia contributors. Now, are you going to add an explanation of the criteria for inclusion in the list to the article, or are you going to leave it as it is, thus obliging me to delete the unsourced material - which is to say, the entire list, since there is nothing whatever in it to explain why anyone is on it? Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We've been through all this before. This is a List of Jewish Nobel laureates; that means that all items on it must have reliable sources indicating that they are Jewish and Nobel Laureates. All items here do. Now, please explain why you insist the requirements for this list must differ from those of the Featured Lists List of female Nobel laureates, List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients - where do their ledes state the "criteria for inclusion"? Based on those Featured Lists, it is quite obvious that this list entirely congruent with "both Wikipedia norms and to basic common sense". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything. You do. This is a standalone list, and as such must comply with this: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources". We cite no source whatsoever for a selection criteria - we can't since we don't say what the criteria is. (As for your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments, I agree, it does - so why don't you fix it? That is all I'm going to say on this off-topic bluster). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This list adheres strictly to "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources", as shown in my previous comments. It is a list of Jewish Nobel laureates, and all entries are cited to reliable sources. And actually it is you who have to explain things; specifically why the requirements for this list differ from Featured Lists such as List of female Nobel laureates, List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients. Those lists are not "crap", they are Featured Articles, and do not need to be fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, one final question before I stop wasting my time going over the same points repeatedly, and pursue an alternative course of action. What are your policy-based grounds for not making explicit in the lede the inclusion criteria for the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "making explicit in the lede the inclusion criteria for the list"? The inclusion criteria are already explicit: list members must be Jewish and Nobel laureates. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Define 'Jewish'. You know full well that this isn't a simple yes-or-no issue. I note that a recent edit removed Einstein on the basis that he was 'an agnostic' [6] - evidently our (non-existent) criteria for inclusion aren't obvious to everyone. Now explain what possible harm could come from making the criteria for inclusion explicit, as is required by the MOS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—actually it is pretty simple: A Jew is any person born Jewish or who has converted to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—it is reliable sources that in the final analysis determine whether someone warrants inclusion in this list. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources for what? One cannot cite a source for something without saying what that 'something' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, all "ethnicity"-type designations are at least somewhat ambiguous, or perhaps "fuzzy around the edges", but that doesn't have any impact for Wikipedia purposes, because all Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources say. If reliable sources state that an individual is Native American or a Jew or African American or Arab American or any other similar designation, that's all that's required by Wikipedia policy. That's true for this and all lists, and I wouldn't take the edits of an editor with all of 23 Wikipedia edits as indicative of any sort of flaw in this list. Now, please answer these questions explicitly:

1. What do you mean by "making explicit in the lede the inclusion criteria for the list", and where does policy state this must be done?
2. Wikipedia has dozens of Jewish lists, and dozens of Jewish categories. Why are you trying to impose unique criteria on this one? How does "Jewish" differ here from any of those other lists or categories?
3. Wikipedia has dozens of ethnicity based lists and categories, despite the fact that the definitions for things like "Asian American" or "African American" are no more clear (or no less fuzzy) than "Jewish". Why do you insist that the lede of this article must "mak[e] explicit in the lede the inclusion criteria for the list" when Featured Lists such as List of female Nobel laureates, List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients etc. do not do so?

You have failed to answer a number of these questions, even though they've been asked several times. Please do so this time. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why I should answer your questions, given that you have refused to answer mine. Why should this list not make its criteria for inclusion explicit? And if you are saying that this list is based on ethnicity, then I take it you would have no objection to me (a) adding a statement to this effect in the lede, and then (b) checking that we have a reliable source for each individual listed which states that they are/were themselves in fact ethnically Jewish (as opposed to say having some ethnically-Jewish ancestry)? I'll note that a reliable source in this context would have to be one which routinely reported on the ethnicity of individuals, rather than one which was attempting to demonstrate just how many Nobel Laureates are 'Jewish', since that is clearly a motivation for non-neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you haven't answered the questions, and I have indeed answered yours. Policy does not even recommend (much less mandate) adding self-referential statements to list ledes, nor does it allow WP:OR to dictate article contents, as you are suggesting. Now please answer the questions asked, as it's quite clear that neither policy nor best practices support your statements here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the list is not subdividing Jews by whether they are observant or not. Some Jews are observant of religious ritual and some Jews are not. Many are in-between. They are neither fully observant nor fully nonobservant. This is just a list of Jewish Nobel laureates. A Jew is just a person who was either born to Jewish parents or who converted to Judaism. Reliable sources know this.

You mention "non-neutrality." A neutral point of view is achieved by balancing sources presenting differing views against one another. But that presupposes the existence of divergent views in sources. Do you have any sources saying that any of the individuals on this list are not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you won't explain in the lede the criteria for inclusion, do you have any objection to me writing one that makes clear that inclusion is subjective and arbitrary, given that there is no agreed criteria as to who is and who isn't Jewish?

Bus Stop, I'm not going to engage in yet another round of pointless debate with you. I said nothing whatever about anyone being 'observant' and I'm not interested in your vacuous assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say that "inclusion is subjective and arbitrary". That is merely original research. You are suggesting that it is doubtful that these individuals are Jewish. Have you found a source indicating that any of these individuals are not Jewish? What would lead me to believe that "inclusion is subjective and arbitrary"? I think that in the absence of sources to the contrary we should abide by what the sources available to us are saying. Bus stop (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, read our Who is a Jew? article. Argue the point there - as I said, I'm not going to engage in yet another round of pointless debate with you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the article to which you refer is a rambling article but it doesn't happen to touch on the subject of Jewish Nobel laureates. Bus stop (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"pointless". AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the point is that reliable sources are in all instances, and in abundance, confirming that these individuals are both Nobel laureates and Jewish. You are not using sources. By your reckoning there is some imprecision in the designation "Jewish Nobel laureate". But no source is saying anything of the sort. You are engaging in original research when you pronounce that "inclusion" in this list is "subjective and arbitrary". Despite the rambling article Who is a Jew? we abide by what substantial external sources say. We don't defer to our own articles. I think the onus is on you to find sources to support any of the ideas you are advancing. Find sources external to Wikipedia that support any of your contentions. Ideally they should be on target. They should either be saying that an individual is not Jewish or they should substantially support your assertion that there is imprecision in the term "Jewish". Contrary to our article "Who is a Jew?" most reliable sources hew to conventional guidelines: A Jew is a person who was either born Jewish or who converted to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Define 'born Jewish'? Actually, don't bother - that isn't a definition, it is an excuse to avoid definition. And if our article on the subject is 'rambling', and you care so much about this issue, why aren't you arguing about it there, rather than here? Anyway, I'm done here. Neither you nor Jayjg have given the slightest justification for the list not presenting criteria for inclusion. I'm going to add it, as and when I've decided what is appropriate - and if you don't consider my criteria appropriate, you'll have to give policy-based explanations as to why. I can se no reason whatsoever, at least for now, not to start from the obvious point that since this is (according to Jayjg) a list based on ethnicity, and since ethnicity is by definition a form of self-identification, our list shouldn't (for living persons at least) be restricted to those who can be sourced to have self-identified as Jewish. If you wish to argue for different criteria, please let us know what they are, so we can add such criteria to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—which of the sources supporting the individuals in this article makes any reference to "ethnic", "ethnically", or "ethnicity"? In article space or in sources, do we find any individual on this list described in terms that involve the use of words such as "ethnic", "ethnically", or "ethnicity"? At the Who is a Jew? article we find the following statement:

"Ethnic Jew is a term generally used to describe a person of Jewish parentage and background who does not necessarily actively practice Judaism, but still identifies with Judaism or other Jews culturally or fraternally, or both. The term "ethnic Jew" does not specifically exclude practicing Jews, but they are usually simply referred to as "Jews" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic".

The above, from the "Who is a Jew?" article, would seem to support your argument, but where is the source for the above? The above, found in the "Who is a Jew?" article, has no source. Similarly to the arguments that you are trying to present in this thread, the above is just original research. You would need to provide a source that would support the terminology that you feel needs to be in this article. The sources that we do have are quite clear: these individuals are Jewish. The purpose of the List is not to subdivide Jewish Nobel laureates by their degree of observance or nonobservance of religious ritual, but rather to report those instances in which reliable sources report that the recipient of a Nobel prize is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, you still haven't answered my questions above, nor have you presented any policy or guideline-based reason for inserting into the lede your personal WP:NOR about who qualifies for this list, something that is not done in any similar Featured Lists. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources say, not your own personal criteria, and what you are proposing is not only not required by policy or guideline, but is clearly not even considered good practice. To be very blunt, you can continue your disruptive actions and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses here, but if you go too far then consequences are inevitable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should I answer any of your qustions - you have yet to answer mine. Why should this article ignore both the MOS and common sense and not explain the criteria for inclusion in the lede? This is a simple enough question, and I can only take your refusal to answer it, along with your repeated attempts to derail the discussion by bringing up other articles of no relevance to the topic of this list as "disruptive actions and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses". If you wan't to talk about 'consequences', I'll have to ask what you think the consequences of your actions will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither the MOS nor "common sense" nor good practice mandate or even suggest that this list should "explain the criteria for inclusion in the lede". If the MOS does so, then quote the relevant passage from the MOS stating it must "explain the criteria for inclusion in the lede". If "common sense" or good practice do so, then show where this is done in similar FLs, such as List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Lead section or paragraph

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list": Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists.

Given that we currently have an editor removing names on the basis that the person is "an atheist", it is self-evident that clarification is necessary. I note that you still refuse to answer my question as to why we shouldn't include the criteria - and yet again bring in other articles of no relevence. Perhaps the solution here is to start a RfC - presumably, you'll have to explain your reasoning then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But the title of this clarifies what the list includes; it include Jewish Nobel laureates. There's no "guessing" there, and claiming that this is not clear because the definition of "Jew" is not always 100% agreed on is irrelevant, as are the actions of an inexperienced editor who has made all of 23 edits. Also, you have still failed to show why our best lists of a similar nature, Featured Lists, do not do so - Featured Lists are the lists that best demonstrate our policies in action. And finally, I have not only answered all your questions, but you have continually and explicitly refused to answer mine. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

At a fundamental level, what people mean by "Jew" or "Jewish" is a lot blurrier than a lot of other possible classifications. But if we're using reliable sources in BLP compliant fashion, there's no compelling reason to add complicated dialogues about how the inclusion criteria. What matters is that reliable sources include the individual, that's always what matters. There's no policy argument or guideline that says otherwise. There has been a claim that the disclaimer is necessary for some sort of BLP reason, but that seems more like an attempt to use BLP as a magic incantation rather than an actual policy argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede section include an explanation of the inclusion criteria?

Should the lede section of this article include an explanation of the criteria used to determine inclusion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists:

Lead section or paragraph

The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list"

Given that we currently have an editor removing names on the basis that the person is "an atheist", it seems self-evident to me that clarification of the criteria for inclusion is necessary. I'd also point out that more generally, as our article Who is a Jew? makes clear, 'Jewishness' is defined in many different ways, and is frequently a contentious issue. Leaving the criteria undefined thus introduces a great deal of ambiguity. I can see no justification for leaving our readers guessing AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I didn't know at all the content of the Who is a Jew? article, because it is not my culture. It is obvious for jews, but for non jews from countries where the word etnicity is considered racist (France) it is not obvious at all.KevinPerros (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The contents of this list are quite clear; members must be Jewish and Nobel laureates. How do we decide? Same way as always, whatever reliable sources say. Similar lists, including List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients, List of African-American United States Cabinet Secretaries, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients, and even List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients do not have such statements, despite the fact that the definition of "African American", "Asian American", and "Jew" can, at times, be a bit fuzzy. These are all Featured Lists, indicating that they represent Wikipedia's best practices. It's unclear why List of Jewish Nobel laureates would need something that similar Featured Lists do not. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The list includes Jews. What is not clear? Just because an editor at this project attempts to remove a name on the basis that the person is an atheist is no reason to assert in the lead that atheists can be Jews. Reliable sources are aware that Jewishness and atheism are commonly found in the same person. Wikipedia has an article on Jewish atheism. There is nothing even remotely incompatible about this. WP:Reliable sources are telling us if a person is Jewish or not. That is the basis for inclusion in this list. Bus stop (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not up to the lede of a list to define Who is a Jew. We just go by whether or not reliable sources say a person is Jewish. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—I don't really see the problem here. This is a "list of Jewish Nobel laureates", that means they are Jewish and Nobel laureates. That seems straightforward. Whether is someone is Jewish is decided through reliable sources and if there are some disputes about certain members of the list, they should be resolved on the talk page like all other disputes. What's important is that the final version, which the reader sees, follows policy. The reader doesn't have to read all the behind the scenes (although they can choose to), similarly to other controversial articles and lists. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose One need not be a practicing member of the congregation since Jew is an ethnoreligious group. Whether Einstein or Feynman were practicing or not is immaterial, since reliable sources indicate he was a Jew and also a Nobel laureate...We just care what reliable sources say, and that is true for all articles, we don't need a special note about it in the lede.--MONGO 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need for explicitly stating such criteria in the lede. However, there should be consideration of Feynman's inclusion in this list given that reliable sources show he explicitly rejected being included in just such a list while he was alive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The mention a word that is open to philosophical discussion does not constantly require a reprise of possible view points. Every time words such as "think" and "know" are employed, one is not required to start perusing Socratic dialogue to define the meaning of these words. "Jewish" has a commonly understood meaning and the excessive nitpicking is unwarranted.
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Clarification is not needed since this is a list, not a proper article. I assume anyone who reaches this list will already have a good idea what a Jew is and what a Nobel Laureate is. Even if not, there are bluelinks to clarify both. Stihdjia (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree: I thought it was already there but it seems yesterday I saw the contested version. In fact, I am more concerned about the reliable sources: This (kind of) list invites cherry-picking from the Jerusalem Almanac of Sciences, or whatever it is called, while ignoring any other reliable source which deny the Jewishness of laureates. Such as with Feynman. And Einstein, who yesterday was still in the lead. If we put them on the list, they are Jewish nobel laureates, and the fact of the matter is more subtle. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—are you saying that Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein should not be considered to have been Jewish people? Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am no expert on the matter but from what I understand @Einstein, he wrote that he believes the Jewish religion is a mere childish superstition but that he does consider himself to be part of the Jewish people. And this list doesn't make any distinction between the two, which I think is an omission.
Nobel Prizes are about people and their minds. If the same mind does amazing things in the field of science, and rejects a certain religion, it is misleading to leave the here suggestion that such a great mind practiced a certain religion. If Einstein would have been an active practitioner, that would also be interesting, of course, but apparently he wasn't. And him being part of the Jewish people is, when write an article on the topic of achievements of the mind just as relevant as if he would be a native american, an eskimo or blond. -- Honorsteem (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—every reliable source that I have ever seen, that addresses the question at all, says that Albert Einstein was Jewish. But perhaps you have found the source that says that he was not Jewish. If so, would you bring that to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Please play your games elsewhere. -- Honorsteem (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—if you have no source saying that Albert Einstein was not Jewish then we should abide by the overwhelming number of sources that say that he was Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Einstein definitely belongs on the list as he strongly identified as Jewish despite his religious beliefs. However, Feynman is another matter as he explicitly resisted being put in a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates when he was alive. Just because he is dead doesn't mean we should just ignore that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets then rename the list to List of secular Jewish Nobel laureates -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate—every source that addresses the question at all asserts that Richard Feynman was Jewish. I am not aware of any source that asserts that Feynman was not Jewish. Feynman clearly belongs on "List of Jewish Nobel laureates". Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There is one source that asserts that Feynman doesn't belong on such lists: Richard Feynman. Do you think his opinion on the matter is more significant than yours? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you are referring to my "opinion". It is not my "opinion" but rather reliable sources that confirm that Feynman is both Jewish and a Nobel laureate and therefore an individual appropriate for inclusion on an article such as List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No. The 'therefore' is your opinion. Feynman's opinion appears to have been different, in that he considered it inappropriate to link 'being of Jewish descent', with 'being a Nobel laureate' - he considered that there was no connection between one and the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Feynman's disinclination to feature in such lists is not a cause to exclude him from it should he satisfy the criteria of being a Noble prize winner and Jewish. What his opinion might effect is whether he is considered Jewish. I note that he disputes Jewish hereditary elements and that "the Jewish people are in any way 'the chosen people.'", but can you direct me to a source where he explicitly repudiates his Jewish appellation.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the article on Feynman, so please comment there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Jayjg; we rely on sources, not personal opinions. -- Avi (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support "Jewish" can mean of Jewish religion or Jewish ethnicity. we need to specify which one otherwise the list is useless because it will be pointless merge of two lists, one for religion and one for ethnic. Bouket (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Response. Bouket—by that reasoning wouldn't we need two or three such Lists? These are all notable individuals with articles of their own. Rather than separate Lists wouldn't it be more convenient for the reader to simply click on the name of the individual about whom they want more information? Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean to remove these kinds of lists by 'sort' of people all together? -- Honorsteem (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—Sorry I wasn't clear. Let me restate: there is little reason to have more than one List of Jewish Nobel laureates. All a reader need do is click on a name to know more about the level of religious observance/nonobservance of an individual included on it. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the "level of religious observance/nonobservance of an individual" is precisely none of Wikipedia's business, and it is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy to comment on it. Please stop misusing terminology to avoid using the word 'ethnicity'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry I thought you meant to delete List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which I wouldn't mind, but which would be a very challenging proposal, and I was surprised to read it from you. But indeed, there are lists of Jewish people (I presume?) and lists of Nobel laureates, so lets get rid of this too specific list altogether! -- Honorsteem (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—you say "…lets get rid of this too specific list altogether!" I don't think it is "too specific" and I don't think we should "get rid" of it.

AndyTheGrump—concerning this List, we shouldn't be characterizing Jewishness in any way, and that would include characterizing Jewishness as an ethnicity. Any characterization (of Jewishness) can apply to only one List. I don't think we want more than one List. I think we have the best possible situation right now. A reader can click on a name. Characterization of the individual's Jewishness may be available at the article. What we are talking about in practice is that the reader may find at the individual's article that the individual is an observant Jew. Or they may find for instance that the individual is a secular Jew. Many other terms of characterization are possible as well. The terminology used constitutes a characterization of the individual's Jewishness. But for the purposes of this article such characterization is I think completely uncalled for. I believe this List should remain a simple compilation of those individuals that reliable sources indicate are both Jewish and Nobel laureates. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To say that someone has "Jewishness" is likewise a characterisation, but whatever - we know what you believe, you've told us repeatedly. Can you please stay on topic, and explain why the article shouldn't indicate to readers its basis for inclusion, given the self-evident confusion that leaving them guessing has already caused? Wikipedia is supposed to be written in the interests of its readers, rather than as a means for people to promote systems of belief concerning the immutability of an ethnoreligious construct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—it is 100% clear that this is a List of Jews that are Nobel laureates. What is it that you don't understand about that? Reliable sources have identified them that way. Wikipedia's standard operating system involves presenting material, but only material that is verifiable. This is a List that satisfies Wikipedia's policy guidelines. It is merely the intersection of the metric of "Jewish" with the metric of "Nobel laureate". There is nothing unusual about the use of the term Jewish despite your arguments to the contrary. Jewish is a widely understood term and Jewish is widely understood as constituting a substantial attribute of identity. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is '100% clear' that you haven't answered the question I asked. Why shouldn't we explain to our readers the basis for inclusion on the list? Furthermore 'Jewish' isn't 'a metric', and neither is it 'a substantial attribute of identity' to anyone that doesn't think so themselves. You ridiculous POV-pushing of an oversimplistic (and unsourced) binary viewpoint on what is self-evidently a complex and sensitive issue makes you unfit to contribute to any Wikipedia article or discussion on the subject, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose What it means to be Jewish is more complicated than many other classifications. But that's precisely why we have articles like Who is a Jew?. There seems to be some amount of the fallacy here that because a category has grey areas that the whole thing needs to be treated like it is grey. That's unhelpful and not backed up by policy. The whole point of using reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS is that we essentially outsource the decisions to reliable sources. That's true for all Wikipedia lists. Nothing about this list is substantially different. We don't need long disclaimers. If we have reliable sources saying they are Jewish then we are done. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This (kind of) list invites cherry-picking from the Jerusalem Almanac of Sciences, or whatever it is called, while ignoring any other reliable source which deny the Jewishness of laureates. Such as with Feynman. And Einstein, who before a few days was still in the lead. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources don't "deny" the Jewishness, they give nuanced views. In the two most controversial cases, both Feynman and Einstein, had far more subtle things to say than that. The denial extends to limited religious contexts, which isn't all the term Jewish means. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm with the overwhelming majority (so far) here. For the reasons set forth by Mongo and the other Oppose !voters above -- I just don't see the problem that the minority support !voters feel exists. This also has a deja vu quality to it ... it seems a bit of a re-tread from prior discussions.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The criteria for inclusion are obvious from the title. They belong on the list if reliable sources say they're Jews and Nobel Prize winners. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Upon re-examination I think maybe we should have a very brief comment in the lede that we are talking about Jewish religious belief or Jewish ethnicity because some of the people mentioned are really only Jewish by descent. For instance, Paul Heyse is right at the top of the list based on two modern-day sources, but his Jewish link is through his mother who was a converted Jew and married a Christian. Some might still consider him to be ethnically Jewish, but by Jewish law he would not be considered Jewish.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support The list should clearly state it includes people of Jewish religion and heritage.Gsonnenf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose. It is the intersection of the sets "Jewish people" and "Nobel laureates". That much should be obvious to anyone capable of parsing English (and those who are unable to do so probably have little use for the English-language Wikipedia). Membership in the first set is perhaps debatable in some cases, but defining Jewishness for the purpose of the article seems an invitation to perform original research. Rather, we should concern ourselves with whether reliable sources have identified candidates for inclusion as Jewish. Jakew (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, what about WP:EGRS: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. (referenced from WP:BLPCAT) -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a list, not a category, so it doesn't apply. You might argue that the 'spirit' applies, but this isn't the place to do it (see WP:AFD instead), since this RfC is about the presentation of the list, rather than whether it should exist at all. Jakew (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Qualifying "jewish" is not OR. Reliable sources often state people are Jewish by religion/heritage/culture/race but not Jewish religion/heritage/culture/race. If a source says X is Jewish when talking about race, then says X is not Jewish when talking about religion, then we have 2 opposing statements from a single author. This leaves the question, should the be described as jewish or not jewish? If instead you state that the list includes people who have been described as Jewish in "Culture, race OR religion" then you are giving the readers context via the OR statement.Gsonnenf (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gsonnenf—we employ reliable sources. We are not employing our own contrived criteria. Nor can we convey to the reader the thinking processes of reliable sources that we are not privy to and that are beyond our control. All we can do is peruse the available good quality sources that are relevant to our article. You will notice that the title is List of Jewish Nobel laureates. We are thus concerned with which good quality reliable sources identify those individuals that fulfill those two criteria. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

...And with ignoring the "good quality reliable sources" which indicate that whether particular individuals can be classified as 'Jewish' is a highly contentious question. And with ignoring that many individuals are sourced from 'reliable sources' that seem of questionable reliability (A children's encyclopaedia? Which didn't actually state that the individuals were Jewish in some cases...). And that once again, the list includes people with no source whatsoever asserting that they are Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

When you write "no source whatsoever", were you referring to List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, an entirely unsourced list? Or perhaps you meant List of black Nobel Laureates, a similarly unsourced list? Oh wait, I forgot; it is only this list, of all the lists on Wikipedia, that has unclear "inclusion criteria" or concerns about sourcing, and is therefore deserving of 100 times as much attention as all similar lists combined. Oh, and I also forgot; all other lists, even if almost identical in concept, are completely irrelevant, and can never be mentioned here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

If a good quality reliable source indicates that there is debate over whether a specific individual is Jewish while also identifying that individual as a Nobel laureate, then I would think it entirely appropriate to take suitable action, perhaps including mentioning it in the article or removing the listing. But if that good quality reliable source merely mentions general dispute over the criteria that allow an individual to be classified as Jewish (or not), then to include them would be a clear case of original research. Jakew (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The title of the article and the all-encompassing content policy of WP:RS combine to make such an addition redundant at best and potentially confusing or causing undue alarm. Do we need to have some sort of label at the article brick that says "NOTE: This article is about bricks, and contains information gleaned from reliable secondary sources that claim the described building materials as bricks."? No. Zad68 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality, Race and intelligence case, the lede

This article falls in the category Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments, I especially point editors to the settlement, reminded also in Wikipedia:General_sanctions.

One of the fundation of wikipedia is the neutrality of point of view, especially Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. That list must fairly represent the various points of view about the fact that someone adhere to a religion or not. Most liberals, atheists, anarchists, or communist and so on.. believe in the freedom of religion, and self determination. So that pov must be represented in this article, according to the rule. Most jews and mulsims think that the child of a jew is jew and that the child of a muslim is a muslim. There are many muslim in the world so this is also a significant pov. So both povs must appear according to the rule. A violation of the undue weight rule is eligible to the sanctions here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments.

A settlement can be to add a few columns to the list, indicating the "religious, nationalist, jewish and islamist" pov and another the "atheist, liberal or whatsoever" point of view, with the necessary reliable sources.

The matter of the content of the lede is superseded by the resolution of the violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. KevinPerros (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind editors that an attempt to circumvent the NPOV rule is called disruption of wikipedia rules, what is also eligible to the sanctions here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments. KevinPerros (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The core issue of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments that you cite is "whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors." Can you demonstrate where this attribution has been done in the article?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:General_sanctions, in the row associated with the latter case one can read, ""Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an article within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to a topic within the area of conflict or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project."KevinPerros (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you address my question of why the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments applies here since the core issue of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments that you cite is "whether Intelligence quotient varies significantly between different races and, if so, whether this may be attributed to genetic or environmental factors", and this attribution is not asserted in this article?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please acknowledge or argue against my point about neutrality and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight. My point about your question seems clear enough to me, the only thing I can do further is filling a case to ArbCom about your question. KevinPerros (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see the relevance of the ArbCom case to this article. Perhaps you could clarify why you think it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel like there is Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system. As an illustration, the hindu list (hindu is both a nationality, a spirituality, a religion, there are hindu atheist...) has been deleted after AfD, and this one is kept. So the system has been gamed into giving two opposit answers to a same question. Another illustration is the fact that people who have been involved in the case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Preliminary_decisions are showing here that they do not apply the recommendation "For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X and who finds himself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Side X and Side Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Side X.". KevinPerros (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question: how does Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments relate to List of Jewish Nobel laureates? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The procedurial way. 1) in Wikipedia:General_sanctions, it is stated that the case law applies to ""Race and intelligence" and all closely related articles." 2) in matter of racism, one uses to extend the signification of race to nationality, color of skin, membership to a particular people,... here the jewish ethnic group 3) being awarded a nobel prize denotes intelligence. Hence we are here in presence of a closely related article. Hence the case law applies. But basicaly, as I am a simple editor, my pov is only my pov, only ArbCom can ultimately enforce that analysis, I presume. I may be wrong about the procedure, I am a beginner. KevinPerros (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. It seems to me that you are making several assumptions here that are questionable anyway. Firstly, 'Jewish people' are not a 'race' by any sensible modern definition of the term - and ethnicity and 'race' are two different things. Secondly, though it might well be true that "being awarded a nobel prize denotes intelligence" (on average, and ignoring the fact that 'intelligence' is a difficult term to define), this only relates to the 'intelligence' of individuals, as far as winning Nobel laureates is concerned - our list, for all its flaws, makes no assertions whatsoever regarding the intelligence of those of Jewish ethnicity in general. I suggest that as 'a beginner' you might do as well to avoid raising complex abstract questions as to whether an ArbCom decision on another topic is relevant here, and do something less contentious instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyway even if the case about intelligence doesn't apply, my point about NPOV and undue weight apply. To clarify my point about race and intelligence, I think that the fundamental principle of NPOV applies : a significant amount of people, namely some extremists right-wing people and also some orthodox jews or extremist muslims, think that ethnicity and race are the same thing, so we must take into account their POV while contributing to WP. KevinPerros (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This article has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Case_amendments, and there are no "General sanctions" in relation to this article. Which Wikipedia policy indicates that "a significant amount of people, namely some extremists right-wing people and also some orthodox jews or extremist muslims, think that ethnicity and race are the same thing, so we must take into account their POV while contributing to WP"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I second Kevin Perros' interpretation of the ArbCom regulation. Im not sure if so many colums will make things more clear, but something needs to be done. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I, for one, am so excited by all these new editors appearing on this page! And especially for example, as Andy succinctly puts it in one such case, "raising complex abstract questions as to whether an ArbCom decision on another topic is relevant here".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

There are endless overwhelming discussion about this page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Exactly the same dicussions are happening again right now. I think it is unfair to leave this list as it is, as this suggests this is an undisputed list, and the Wikipedia consensus is happy with it, which is not the case. Maybe there are more appropriate templates, something like a "contested list", or I don't know what, but I insist there be a warning on top of the page to let readers know that the list, its contents, the lead, are being disputed, again and again. -- Honorsteem (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussions have been whether to clarify and expand on the definition of Jewish and itemise individual points of view. How is this an issue of neutrality. What POV is currently being asserted?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any sort of WP:NPOV issue at all here. Rather, a very small number of editors claim that the lede needs to explicitly state "inclusion criteria" regarding who is a Jew, and a large majority of other editors disagree, as the RFC above shows. Tags are not supposed to be "warnings for readers", they are supposed to alert editors to problems that they might be able to fix. It's WP:DISRUPTive to tag an article without articulating a relevant policy-violation, and even moreso simply because one does not get one's way in an editorial dispute. Tags should not be used as Scarlet Letters; please stop doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The obvious POV issue is that there are different points of view about the 'jewishness' of certain nobel prize winners, and that this list does not take these different points of view into account. Please do not remove the template without that a consensus is reached. -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No specific actionable issues have been raised yet, and this feels much more like a retaliation for an unrelated dispute at a different article. Tags are not supposed to be "warnings for readers", they are supposed to alert editors to problems that they might be able to fix. It's WP:DISRUPTive to tag an article without articulating a relevant policy-violation, and even moreso simply because one does not get one's way in an editorial dispute. Tags should not be used as Scarlet Letters; please stop doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I'm wondering if we are really communicating to each other. Here it goes: the actionable issue to resolve the POV would be to include valid, well sourced different points of views about the 'jewishness' of (certain) Nobel prize winners into the list of so called Jewish noble prize laureates. Is that really so hard to understand? -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

To which specific dispute are you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute? Your repeating here exactly the same phrase about red letters etc. As if you really don't want to give meaningful reponses, like the one just here. But I'm keeping myself busy against better judgment. Rather wait for other editors. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You referred to an NPOV dispute about "(certain) Nobel prize winners into the list". I don't see any current disputes like that on the Talk: page, much less of an NPOV nature. Can you point to a specific current dispute about an entry in the list? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Well for a start there is the long-standing dispute regarding the criteria for inclusion, and whether this should be explained in the lede. And then there have been frequent disputes about the reliability of certain 'reliable' sources, and as to whether the list should include e.g. Feynman, who made it clear that he considered such synthesis wrong. And then there is the fact that the AfD closed as 'no consensus'. This is a contentious article, and the question as to whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia is contentious. Of course there should be a tag indicating the situation to our readers. Or is this another thing (like the criteria for inclusion) that you'd rather not advertise? That may be your POV, but it isn't mine. And neither is it that implied by Wikipedia practice in general. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me as a tag-bomb, though I can't say if Honor has had tag bomb issues before of course. But as we know, some editors do have a tendency to do just that. Tags aren't there for editors who dislike a list, seek to have it deleted, and do not have consensus support in that effort to somehow deface the article. That is POINTy ... and again, I don't know if Honor has a history of that, but as we know some edtiors do.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Which current dispute POV dispute about "(certain) Nobel prize winners into the list" is this supposed to be about? Please show the current discussion regarding a POV issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

changed archive settings

I just changed the archive settings, it was set to 7 days, I changed it to two months and Im considering of disabling auto archiving at all, as it seems to have been never discussed. I believe that one week is way to short for a page which generates so much discussion, and of which many discussions are recurring. As per Note: Make sure to establish consensus before setting up MiszaBot (...) on a talk page other than your user talk page. Jayjg started auto archiving September 2011 without checking if there was a consensus. If he reverts I shall take the archiving issue to ANI. -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. This archiving conveniently hid all the unresolved issues with the article - such as the matter of making the criteria for inclusion explicit, which seems to have previously been widely accepted, though any attempts to actually do this have been thwarted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the modifications of the archiving, 1 week is way to short. KevinPerros (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am agreeable to 2-4 weeks, but think that 2 months is way too long. The page becomes less useful to editors when it becomes overly long. Any current issues have typically been discussed in the past 2-4 weeks, and often ad nauseum (that's fine -- its just the nature of either the subject and/or the participants). If we make it too long, we start hiding the current issues in plain sight with the 2-month-old issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've restored it to 7 days. Since the archiving was set up 5 months without any objection, there was obviously no dispute with it. The page is growing very quickly, which is why it needs to be automatically archived regularly - that's the whole reason for automated archiving. Contrary to Andy's assertion, there is obviously no consensus for "making the criteria for inclusions explicit", as is obvious from this page (not to mention common sense and good practice), the only reason for lengthening the archive period was to ex post facto justify tagging the article. If you want to change the setting from what it has been for the past 5 months, please get consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that there was a consensus to set it to 7 days. And don't misrepresent what I said - I was referring to previous talk page discussions on the issue of criteria for inclusion - see Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#Lists_must_state_criteria_for_inclusion where you seem to have been the only one arguing against making them explicit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg the dispute won't be resolved before 7 days. There is no consensus on your setting. I revert. KevinPerros (talk) 10:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin -- your concern is addressed by keeping it at 7. Don't worry -- the # relates to the last day edited, not the first, so even if your crystal prediction is accurate, your concern is allayed and your point addressed by the current settings.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As Epeefleche points out, the automatic archiver doesn't archive unless no editor has made any comments for over seven days; that doesn't seem to be an issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Im in favour of copying the archived threads back into this page, and to only manually archive those threads where consensus has been reached. That nobody replied within the last seven days doesn't mean an issue is solved, it just means that all people discussing said all they felt the could say. Newly passing by editors can see those discussions, and share their views if they feel like it. Archiving means closing discussions which are not closed. -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

proposal

Undo all the archiving of the threads of this talk page. Only archive those threads manually where consensus has been reached. Disable bot-archiving.

• Agree -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree KevinPerros (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agree AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. The talk page is already 75k 85k 95k and growing rapidly, the archives are almost 140k, and we can't have a vote every time we want to archive an old thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• disagree* Many of the archived discussions were effectively done. There's a massive amount of archives. If there are specific issues that people want to bring up again, then bring them up. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. Archiving stale discussions is standard practice across Wikipedia, as Help:Archiving a talk page makes clear. Sometimes consensus simply isn't reached, and to propose that those threads should hang around forever is thoroughly impractical. The ultimate result would be that the talk page would grow until it became unusable due to its sheer size. Jakew (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok so we should keep some sort of archive, but 7 days?? And Jayjg as The One Who Decides??? -- Honorsteem (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with seven days? It seems reasonable to me at first glance, but I'm quite willing to be persuaded otherwise if there is a problem. I can't see that it matters who decides as long as a good decision is made. Jakew (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This page seems to be followed by a small group of editors, and any passing editor always finds their concerted opposition. I, for one will probably loose interest after hitting that wall for a week or so. When the pending discussions are openly on the main talk page, more passing editors have a chance to contribute, giving a wider pallet of views on matters discussed, weakening the position of editors who (pre)tend to own the article. That process won't finish within 7 days. Some examples:

• On inclusion criteria:
  • Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#Inclusion_criteria
  • Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#Inclusion criteria again
  • Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#Criteria for inclusion should be public and clear
  • Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#Lists must state criteria for inclusion
• On Tamm:
  • Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_1#unnamed_thread

Soon someone will add Peter Diamond again, and only a long itme later it will be again removed, as the discussion is long gone and archived. -- Honorsteem (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, 7 days means that if no-one comments at all for 7 days then the thread is archived. A thread can keep going for months if people stay interested and involved. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So how does that solve the issue? -- Honorsteem (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose—why? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree- The purpose of archive is to make the Talk page relevant and topical. Specific discussions can still be referred to when necessary.
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree current talk page is too big as it is, proposed archiving change would defeat the whole purpose of what archiving is supposed to achieve in the first place. Zad68 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The use of tertiary sources

Many of the names on this list seem to be included on the basis of two tertiary sources: a single page in the Encyclopedia of science and religion, Volume 2, and the brief (often single paragraph) biographic entries in The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia - many of which don't actually seem to assert that the person in question is Jewish. Might I suggest that we comply with general sourcing policy, and use more appropriate sourcing for what is after all supposed to be a core criterion of the list? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is with those sources. Do you feel they are not RSs? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I Wouldn't haver raised them if I didn't think they might be a problem: "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others". WP:PSTS We aren't citing these tertiary sources for 'broad summaries', but for key content - and I see little evidence that either source is adequate for this. Regarding the shengold jewish encyclopedia, it appears to be a rewrite of the earlier Junior Jewish Encyclopedia, and, is being cited for persons as being Jewish despite sometimes not actually stating this seemingly-important detail - in fact, several of the names it is being cited for appear not to be mentioned in the source at all! Clearly, this needs further investigation, and it may possibly be the result of attempting to search the source online, via Google Books. Does anyone have access to a hard copy? As for Encyclopedia of science and religion, Volume 2, the relevant data seems to be nothing more than a list of names and dates. Again, I don't have access to a hard copy, and without this it is difficult to assess the context of this list, and whether it is adequate as a source for what it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia focuses on Jewish topic, and gives biographies of Jews. It's hard to see what is unreliable about the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion in this context. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to see how your answer actually relates to the issues I've raised - not least concerning whether Shengold actually names the persons involved as Jewish - or even apparently names them at all. Do you have access to a hard copy of the book? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The biographies in The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia are of Jews. Is there a specific individual who concerns you? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"The biographies in The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia are of Jews". Really? Was Raoul Wallenberg Jewish? I'm fairly certain that Alexander the Great wasn't. If Shengold doesn't state that someone is Jewish it isn't a source for an assertion that they are, by definition. Again I ask, do you have access to a hard copy of the book? I can only look at a portion of it online, thus making it impossible to check many of the citations. In any case, it is a tertiary source of little credibility for biographic detail, and seems to have been cited for convenience rather than authoritativeness. This is sloppy work, and Nobel prize winners, Jewish or otherwise, deserve better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, is there a specific individual who concerns you? It's easier to understand the issues with a specific example. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As I have made perfectly clear. It is the validity of this source in general (a children's encyclopaedia) that seems problematic. Still, from what little I can access on line, it appears that amongst the 'Literature' winners cited to Shengold (11 of them) that I can access (7 of those), neither Saul Bellow nor Joseph Brodsky are actually described as being Jewish. If and when I can get hold of the book, I'll check the entire list if necessary - I've only looked at the 'Literature' section of our list. But do you really think this is an appropriate source to be using anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet the fact that both Bellow and Brodsky were Jewish is both uncontested and uncontroversial. This issue seems more theoretical than practical. Nevertheless, it's always a good idea to use better sources, where possible. We should attempt to augment or replace Shengold with superior sources. I'll start working on that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Id say that ensuring a source actually states what it is being cited for is more than just 'theoretical' - but yes, the answer is to use sources other than Shengold... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a copy of 'ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA 2nd edition, 2007' at my disposition, and at the bottom of a pretty table of 'Jewish nobel prize winners' (p. 294, v.15), we have a nice little reference to... www.jinfo.org. So see http://www.jinfo.org/Nobels_Physics.html. And that is a website run by some dude called Martin Kruger: http://whois.domaintools.com/jinfo.org. Regarding #Igor Tamm, he is in that list, but there is nothing mentioned of his jewishness in his own lemma. Isn't this in fact a copyright violation? Oh sorry, yes that now would be tag bombing :) -- Honorsteem (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you suggesting might be a copyright violation? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The list. If it indeed comes from http://www.jinfo.org/Nobels_Physics.html, and it seems that some of the references got it there, I assume we need to comply to Copyright © 2002-2011 JINFO.ORG. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website without the express, prior written permission of JINFO.ORG is prohibited. Or is there already an OTRS ticket? -- Honorsteem (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which list is a copyvio? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)