Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

File:Shechtman.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shechtman.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Otto Loewi 1955 Woods Hole MA.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Otto Loewi 1955 Woods Hole MA.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2011 (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.[1][2] 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' [3] - 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)

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)

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..." ([4] 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?'" [5]. 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. [6] 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)

You got it the wrong way round. People are not Jewish until proven goy. Tamm comes apparently from a distinguished Jewish family, Andre Geim who seems to be a Chukchi with his Chukchi ancestors converted to Judaism already in the Bronze Age(!). But see! it still does matter what Geim, Tamm, themselves state! Geim was removed although he had at one point 8 refs. I wonder why. -- Honorsteem (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of the sources explicitly describe Tamm as being Jewish. We are talking about Tamm, not Geim. Please make more accurate and relevant Talk: page statements. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—you mention Andre Geim. I think there is reason to believe Andre Geim is Jewish:

The Jewish Daily Forward says that Geim is Jewish:

"As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov."[7]

Scientific Computing World says of Geim:

"As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education."

Springer Science+Business Media publishes a PDF which says, "Geim came from a family of Jewish- German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education."

Is it so clear that Geim is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

haha, he is barely a jew: http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=937 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honorsteem (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem—I think the sources I provided are of slightly higher quality than the one you are providing above. Bus stop (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Honorsteem's source is funnier though :) Perhaps we should use their method of assessment, and just compare everyone to Mel Brooks [8]... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—do you know of any source that might suggest to us that Andre Geim might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

See Black Hebrew Israelites for some sources. Not that I take them seriously (I don't take any claims to be a member of a 'tribe' going back a couple of millennia particularly seriously...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I don't think that really addresses the question asked. We have sources indicating that Andre Geim is Jewish but do we have any sources indicating that Andre Geim is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources that state that being Jewish according to one source doesn't always mean that you will be Jewish according to another: and we've used such sources as references in this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…being Jewish according to one source doesn't always mean that you will be Jewish according to another"…

But there exists no source that even remotely suggests that Andre Geim might not be Jewish. If you know of such a source, please present it. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 27 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)

• WP guidelines point, in part, to US law in the copyright area. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the issue of the application of copyright to fact in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991). In which it wrote (emphasis added): "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."[9] So — a screenshot of the list as presented in a copyrighted work would, for example, be covered by copyright. But the mere listing of the facts of the names is not covered by copyright. There is no copyvio under US law as long as we have: a) attribution, and b) the format of the list is not a mirror of the original format. Per Feist.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's all moot or a misdirection anyway - this list doesn't come from that website, and doesn't even use it as a source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 22 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)
• Disagree - This proposal may lead to a huge talk page that would make it hard to find live discussions. gidonb (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

More on sources

With all the insistence that this article only lists people as Jewish based on 'reliable sources' (currently untrue, given that yet again there are people on the list with no source whatsoever for this), it would seem prudent to ensure that the article lede was properly sourced. But is it? For a start, jewishbiography.com is cited twice (why twice?) while a moment's inspection of the website shows that there is nothing to indicate it is of WP:RS standards - the authorship is unknown. And then there are the multiple sources for the '20%, 0.2%' figure - most of which seem to be merely commenting on the figure in passing. Apart from jewishbiography.com, we have Brook's OP-Ed piece, which merely parrots the figures; Falcon & Blatners' Judaism for Dummies (enough said), and Krasner & Sarnas' The History of the Jewish People: Ancient Israel to 1880's America which, apart from clearly not covering the period in question, appears to be a book for children. Can I ask why it is necessary to cite multiple questionable sources for the same information? Of the remaining sources that I've been able to look into, the one that actually goes into the subject in the most depth seems to be Baruch Shalev's 100 Years of Nobel Prizes which asserts that "A striking fact involving religion is the high number of Laureates of the Jewish faith—over 20% of the total Nobel Prizes (138); including: 17% in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine and Physics, 40% in Economics and 11% in Peace and Literature each. These numbers are especially startling in light of the fact that only some 14 million people (0.2% of the world's population) are Jewish." Note the "involving religion" bit - this has been replaced by ellipsis in the reference quotation. And it is blindingly obvious why - because a large number of those included on our list aren't "of the Jewish faith". Now, I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on 'verifiability not truth', so pointing out that Shalev is just plain wrong won't do much good - but shouldn't we at least let our readers see how wrong he is by actually quoting what Shalev says, rather than the conveniently-abridged version? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. The same material is cited in our Jews article, which includes the relevant passage from Judaism for dummies. "Similarly, because Jews make up less than a quarter of one percent of the world's population, it's surprising that over 20 percent of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews or people of Jewish descent." Notice the "or" in there - the source clearly distinguishes between 'Jews' and 'people of Jewish descent', so clearly cannot be cited to justify the '20%, 0.2%' figure in the way it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A few points, if I may:

• There are no sources for anyone in List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, very unlike this article. As a matter of fact, Orhan Pamuk does not consider himself a follower of Islam, and being Muslim, unlike being Jewish, is a religion. The ethnicity is for people from that part of the world is Arab (as in Christian Arab, Muslim Arab, but not Jewish Arabs due to the ethnicity-religion conflation). It appears that if in the article for the people they are classified as Muslim, that is good enough for the list; we have wikilinks after all, and people can click on them. Of course, that doesn't answer the Pamuk issue (or Ahmed Zewail), but that is for that article not here.
• Regarding the .2% figure, so what if they are commenting on passing? It has numerous verifiable sources, which is all Wikipedia needs. The reason to cite multiple sources is encapsulated in your above comments; knowing the history of Wikipedia and the political forces which none of can deny, it is always better to prove a point beyond any reasonable or unreasonable doubt to prevent attacks on facts that while they should be common knowledge, have become targets of various groups of people for one reason or another. As a general rule, having multiple citations from multiple sources ensures that improperly motivated attempts to skew an article one way or another is prevented. This is done on many contentious articles.
• Regarding the Shalev quote, I agree that the words "involving religion" should remain and not be "ellipsed" out as you say. However, that does not invalidate it as a source, as Shalev's explanation has nothing to do with the religious practice and everything to do with the ethnic upbringing (history of persecution, historical inability to own land which no longer existed in Europe at the time the Nobel prizes were instituted, etc.). Leaving the entire sentence in allows the educated reader to follow up and determine for themselves what Shalev meant.

-- Avi (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, please see page (iii) of the preface of the second edition of Shalev's book, where he says that "Jews have earned more than 20% of the Nobel Prizes awarded," and makes no mention of religion. -- Avi (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pamuk's ethnicity is actually Turkish, but I agree with your main points. Regarding why this list is the focus of so much intense focus and heated commentary, when List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, List of black Nobel Laureates, List of Chinese Nobel laureates, or in fact, hundreds of similar ethnicity or religion lists are ignored, is a question much asked but never really answered. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've answered this question several times, but to put your mind at rest, I've commented on the List of Muslim Nobel Laureates talk page that it is almost certainly in violation of WP:BLPCAT. As for the other two lists, I've yet to look, but isn't 'Chinese' a nationality? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you normally consider it appropriate to make insinuations regarding the motivations of those questioning the sourcing of material? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No, and I made no insinuations about your motives. I am just recognizing a fact that in contentious articles there are always groups with motivations to skew the article one way or the other (please see a list of ArbCom cases for the past 6 or so years for some sad examples) and so when we want to ensure that these kinds of contentious articles (which often relate to geopolitics and religion) are safe from improper attacks, one of the best ways to do it is to have a multitude of sources. This was in answer to your question of "Can I ask why it is necessary to cite multiple questionable sources for the same information". Of course, the fact that those sources are "questionable" is a different issue, which I tried to address in my other points. It was not my intention to make personal insinuations; my apologies if you took it that way. -- Avi (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see where you could have easily come to that conclusion, and struck my poor choice of wording. -- Avi (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the substantive issue needs addressing further though - I've left a note on Jayjg's talk page, as he seems to have added the material in question, and it might be prudent to wait for a response from him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't added all the material in question, though I have been quite involved in improving citing and sourcing in the article. Based on the objections above, I've removed two of the sources, jewishbiography.com and sheingold. Regarding the The History of the Jewish People, it is a book aimed at high school students, but the authors (Jonathan Sarna and Jonathan B. Krasner) are both respected academics and experts in the field of Jewish history and Jewish studies, so I don't think the source is of particular concern. Moreover, the article is, in fact, making fairly uncontroversial statements regarding the percentage of Nobel Prizes won by Jews; the objections of three or four anonymous Wikipedia editors (including quibbles about the definition of a Jew) neither create nor constitute actual controversy. If reliable sources indicated there was a controversy about this, then it would actually be of consequence (but they don't). And finally, regarding sourcing, in the past few days I have added, replaced, and/or improved over 300 citations in this article. This is on top of the hundreds of citations I had previously added[10][11][12], along with a complete re-write of the lede, and addition of other relevant material. I did not create this article, and I cannot take credit for its contents, but my efforts here have all been in the direction of improvement, particularly of citing and sourcing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"If reliable sources indicated there was a controversy about this, then it would actually be of consequence (but they don't)" See [13]: "The question is clear: why the disproportionate number of highly accomplished Jewish scientists and scholars? Though this question has been posed in popular and scientific literature before, it continues to provoke both robust scholarly debate and controversy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the word "controversy" in that sentence, and its other uses in the article, does not refer to facts of Jewish success vis-à-vis Nobel Prize awards, but about the various reasons for that apparent success. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that very source writes the following:

Israel’s success in producing Nobel laureates is part of a larger trend that demands explanation. Continuing a century-old pattern, five of the thirteen winners this year are Jewish. Indeed, Jews have long been wildly over-represented in Nobel and similar prizes. In the words of the American Enterprise Institute’s political scientist Charles Murray, “In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent.”1 Jews constitute about 0.2 percent of the world’s population.

— http://www.american.com/archive/2011/october/the-2011-nobel-prize-and-the-debate-over-jewish-iq, October 19, 2011

which could be used as a source in this article . -- Avi (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Andy, the controversy listed in that article is not whether or not Jews have won an extremely high percentage of Nobel Prizes, or how "Jew" is defined; those are artificial, anonymous Wikipedia editor generated "controversies", which do not constitute actual controversy in Wikipedia terms. On the contrary, the source has no difficulty with the term "Jew" or the concept of a Jew, or the fact that Jews are, in its words, "wildly over-represented in Nobel and similar prizes". It's instructive to read what the source actually says on the topic:

Continuing a century-old pattern, five of the thirteen winners this year are Jewish. Indeed, Jews have long been wildly over-represented in Nobel and similar prizes. In the words of the American Enterprise Institute’s political scientist Charles Murray, “In the first half of the 20th century, despite pervasive and continuing social discrimination against Jews throughout the Western world, despite the retraction of legal rights, and despite the Holocaust, Jews won 14 percent of Nobel Prizes in literature, chemistry, physics, and medicine/physiology. In the second half of the 20th century, when Nobel Prizes began to be awarded to people from all over the world, that figure rose to 29 percent. So far, in the 21st century, it has been 32 percent.”¹ Jews constitute about 0.2 percent of the world’s population. (Lazar Berman. "The 2011 Nobel Prize and the Debate over Jewish IQ". The American. October 19, 2011).

The controversy the article refers to is why is this the case? Nature? Nurture? Environment? Demographics? Socioeconomics? That's a subject well worth exploring in this article, as opposed to the artificial manufactured controversies over the definition of Jew, and the claim that being a Jew shouldn't have anything to do with winning Nobel Prizes. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the link you so kindly present us clearly shows the huge problem with this article. Not only does this online magazine cherry picks evidences favorable to its thesis and conveniently ignore evidences against it but, more importantly, the authors used as references WP:BLP-violation removed. The text even end with this classical defense : Political correctness and accusations of racism will restrict the academic discourse. So, I think I understand now : it's not stubbornness that blocks the improvement of this list, it's POV pushing. We should just delete this list. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not provide that link; if you were following the discussion, you would have noted that User:AndyTheGrump provided it in his comment of 22:43, 27 February 2012 above. Are you therefore now going to accuse AndyTheGrump of "stubbornness" and "POV pushing", or insinuate that he is racist, as you have done to me on my talk page? In the future, please make more accurate and relevant talk page comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jay, people are going to call us sockpuppets; we edit-conflicted pretty much the exact same thing down to the quotation box; I'd say Great Minds Think Alike, but I'm no great mind -- Avi (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Edit-warring sock-puppets! ;-) Nope, I know when I'm outnumbered. As for Great Minds, they rarely seem to visit this talk page, and I can't say I blame them...

Back on topic, see also Burton Feldman The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius, Controversy, and Prestige [14]. This has an appendix listing 'Jewish Laureates', with the following introduction: "Some listed below, such as Bergson, are always seen as Jews, though sometimes of half-Jewish parentage. According to traditional Jewish law, the mother must be Jewish for the child to be Jewish; Bergson's mother was not Jewish, nor was Wolfgang Pauli's, among other cases." Here we have another source pointing out (as Judaism for Dummies does) that there are differing interpretations of 'Jewishness', of direct relevence to the question of how many 'Jewish Nobel Laureates' there are, and on who can be included in this category. Our article must make it clear that there is no single definition of 'Jewishness', and that our listing is problematic - anything else is untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Avi, it may be a more a case of "Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ". Andy, regarding maternal descent, Orthodox and Conservative Judaism follow matrilineal descent, but Liberal, Reform and Reconstructionist allow descent from either parent. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am aware of the differing attitudes towards the relationship between descent and 'Jewishness' within the various strands of Judaism. Sadly though, our readers may not be - one more reason why this list needs to make its arbitrary nature clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't have to through the magic of wikilinks. If anyone was really uncertain as to what makes someone Jewish, they click on the wikilinked Jews in the third sentence of the article, and are taken to a page where right at its beginning one can see that the fourth section is Jews#Who is a Jew? which not only gives an overview of the discussion, but shows a hatnote that we have an entire article on this issue at Who is a Jew?. There is no need to replicate this discussion every single time the word "Jew" is mentioned on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is irrelevant, since we are not making the decision as to whom to include or exclude, that has already been done in the sources we quote. -- Avi (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I've just cited a source (discussing the article topic) that unequivocally states that Bergson and Pauli ("among other cases") aren't Jewish by some definitions. Since we are supposedly relying on 'reliable sources' over who to include, can anyone explain how we are going to deal with contradictory sources without pointing out that they exist? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

But other reliable sources say that he is (Pauli's entry has three sources, including one that quotes Pauli himself has considering himself "three-quarters Jewish"). As for Bergson, your own source says he is "always considered Jewish". For better or for worse, halacha is not what is followed when labeling someone Jewish most of the time; it would be original research for us to deny the sources that call someone Jewish because they would need giyur according to a beis din. Do you have a source or sources that make clear claims about people on this list that they are not Jewish? The Pauli and Bergson examples are not good, because even your source does not call them not Jewish, but not Jewish according to halacha, which, as per above, is a different criterion. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I have cited a source that states unequivocally that Bergson and Pauli weren't Jewish by some definitions. Why shouldn't we inform our readers of this fact? We aren't supposed to be deciding who is considered 'Jewish most of the time' - we are reporting what the sources say. This source makes it clear that there are differing opinions on the matter, regarding particular individuals on the list (and incidentally, suggests that this applies to "other cases" too). Either we report what our sources say - which is that the question of who is 'Jewish' is contested, or we are back to engaging in WP:OR and deciding for ourselves - against Wikipedia policy. It has been claimed that this article bases 'Jewishness' on reliable sources. I have cited a source which demonstrates that such questions are not one of fact, but of opinion. At this point, the only question we should be discussing is the appropriate way to make clear to our readers that this list is based on opinion, rather than fact, and that there can be no objective 'List of Jewish Nobel laureates', for the simple reason that 'who is a Jew' is contested - and that this is directly commented on by a reliable source discussing the relationship between 'Jewishness' and Nobel laureates. Unless it can be shown that this isn't a reliable source, I'd say there is nothing else to argue over: we must tell our readers that our list isn't definitive, and cannot be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is self-contradictory, Andy, as that very same source lists both Pauli and Bergson as Jewish Nobel Laureates. How can you use a source to say the opposite of what it says? The source you bring lists both as Jewish Nobel Laureates, that's pretty clear. It also says that there exist other definitions of Judaism which would consider some of those people not Jewish according to the stricter definition, but that is not the definition used by any of the multitude of sources in this article, including the one you wish to quote, and so is out-of-scope for this article. Actually, it would be more akin to a synthesis violation as you are trying to use the source's words to make a point that is not what the source says (actually, the opposite of what the source does). Quoting Feldman on definitions of Jewishness would be more appropriate in the Who is a Jew? article than here, where he falls in line with the rest. What would be an in-scope issue would be to find a source passing our requirements which clearly states that one or more people on this list are not Jewish Nobel laureates, at least in opinion and understanding of this article and the relevant wiki policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"It also says that there exist other definitions of Judaism which would consider some of those people not Jewish according to the stricter definition, but that is not the definition used by any of the multitude of sources in this article, including the one you wish to quote, and so is out-of-scope for this article". Wrong, just wrong. We use this source [15] five times in the article, and it states that "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?'". The 'synthesis' here is the magical creation of a bogus 'consensus' in our sources that there is only one definition of 'Jewishness' applicable to determining whether one can be considered to be a 'Jewish Nobel laureate', when they quite clearly don't agree on what this definition is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that when a reliable source notes that by some definitions some Noble Prize Laureates are not Jewish, then we should say so. The whole point of NPOV is to get us to provide multiple points of view when multiple points of view exist. I do not see any need to make this controversial or to identify this as a controversy (unless, again, a reliable source says that there is a controvery over Wolfgang Pauli's identity, for example). There is indeed no consensus as to the definition of "Jew." But this does not mean that there is no definition of "Jew." As Jayjg point out, some Jewish movements determine Jewish identity matrilineally, and others determine it ambilineally. If this means that some would consider Pauli Jewish and others would not, so be it. This is not because the definition of "Jew" is arbitrary, it is because the definition of Jew is conventional and there happen to be two conventions. Andy seems to think this makes the list "arbitrary" and I do not know if this is a matter of semantics, but I do not think the list is arbitrary at all - it is simply inclusive i.e. uses the most inclusive definition of "Jew" used by a major Jewish movement. If some major Jewish movements have a more exclusive definition we should note this, I do not understand why we canot note this, and I do not understand why there would be any debate over noting this ... but it still does not make the list arbitrary.

As Jayjg notes, there is some controvery as to why so many Jews have been awarded Nobel prizes. My own opinion: this is a reasonable question although my guess (not having researched it myself) is that there is no single answer and that different variables may be more or less salient depending on the individual. However, for I think obvious reasons, this is a question many skillful researchers have shied away from, and the existing published research on this question (I stress: in my opinion) - by which, by the way, I mean a publication representing some kind of normative research design and not just the opinion of someone with a PhD. - is fringe. I think it would enhance the article if we had a section that provided citations for the most notable views, but there is no consensus about the answer and we need to be clear about this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps 'arbitrary' isn't the best choice of words - though I think what I intended to suggest was that our criteria for inclusion (whatever 'reliable sources' say about an individual, regardless of what they say about criteria for inclusion in general) seems to have been arrived at in an arbitrary manner, rather than through looking at how such sources deal with the issue. Whatever else one could say about such complex questions as how 'a community' decides exactly who is 'a member', one can be reasonably certain that 'arbritrariness' isn't a factor. As for a section covering the differing views on the question, this seems entirely reasonable - though sourcing may be difficult, as Slrubenstein points out. Personally, I'd suggest that the ideal way to tackle a topic such as this in an encyclopaedic manner is with a proper article on the subject, rather than just a list: it is worth pointing out that 'pro-keep' arguments the last (inconclusive) AfD often revolved around the fact that the topic has attracted attention, and has been commented on in significant sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, in general. But I have to add: in the first few years of WP a few editors (when there were not many editors anyway) created many "list of" articles. I didn't like them at the time, and I do not like them in general, but when I argued against list of articles I pretty soundly lost the argument. I bring this up only because I think WP needs to be consistent. I agree with you that we need a proper article on the subjct rather than just a list but I agree because I generally oppose all the list of articles (except say a "list of MASH(TV series) episodes" and the like) ... I guess I wouldn't oppose an article with a list of Nobel Prize winners. But I do think that this article would be better if it reviewed the literature on the significance of this pattern, or claims concerning the pattern. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I have to disagree with one of the statements you've made; specifically, that this list is simply inclusive i.e. uses the most inclusive definition of "Jew" used by a major Jewish movement. This list doesn't have any special or particular definition of "Jew" beyond Wikipedia's definition of Jew; that is, a Jew is anyone that reliable sources indicate is a Jew. As a result, it's neither "inclusive", nor "exclusive", nor does it follow the views of Jewish movements. It just sticks to Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to this 'policy'? I was unaware that one existed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. See WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Since neither WP:V nor WP:NOR remotely support your position, I think we can safely assume that no such policy exists. Please refrain from inventing 'policy' to suit your POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly? Are you seriously suggesting that neither WP:V nor WP:NOR remotely support the position that Wikipedia should defer to reliable sources when determining which Nobel laureates are Jewish? Jakew (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you do not understand this correctly. I am suggesting that Jayjg's assertion that "Wikipedia's definition of Jew" is that "a Jew is anyone that reliable sources indicate is a Jew" is unsupported by neither WP:V nor WP:NOR. Reliable sources can and do contradict each other. Reliable sources may assert as fact things which are plainly opinion. Reliable sources can point out that one can be 'a Jew' by one definition, and 'not a Jew' by another. Reliable sources can be just plain wrong on occasion. And other reliable sources can assert as fact that on some matters (e.g. ethnicity, belief) it is impossible to arrive at an objective 'truth' anyway. For an example of the way Wikipedia should deal with such issues, I direct you to an interesting discussion on Jayjg's talk page: User talk:Jayjg#Was Marx jewish, and in particular, to Jayjg's well thought out response, where he states that "I don't know if there's any one answer to the question": Wikipedia doesn't have a "definition of Jew". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree (and they regularly do), the solution is also found in standard policy, specifically WP:NPOV. For an individual like Marx, whose Jewishness might be disputed (and is certainly discussed at great length), a couple of sentences on the subject is worthwhile, or perhaps even more - a paragraph or a section - keeping in mind that a large majority of reliable sources view him as Jewish. For other individuals, such as Elie Wiesel (on this list), there is no dispute or discussion about whether or not he is a Jew. The question here is do reliable sources dispute that the individuals on this list are Jewish? Not Wikipedia editors, but rather, reliable sources? If so, which individuals? And please keep in mind, an argument from silence is not an indication of an actual dispute. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that is how you would like to present "the question here" - that a person must be (for Wikipedia purposes) either 'Jewish' or 'not Jewish'. There are a multitude of sources to demonstrate that this is simply not true, and that there is no agreed definition of 'Jewishness', regardless of what particular reliable sources say about individuals. Our list presents as fact something that can only ever be opinion - and relying on the opinions of others, rather than our own, doesn't change this in any way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you dispute the inclusion of an individual in this list, you must have reliable sources to back up that dispute; that's how Wikipedia works. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I disputed the inclusion of the list in Wikipedia, for reasons I've made entirely clear - as did around half of those commenting at the last inconclusive AfD discussion. The criteria used for lists, and their appropriateness as encyclopaedic subjects, are valid issues, and may of course be discussed in the abstract, rather than engaging in endless nit-picking debates over individuals. That is how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you continue to make AfD arguments that apply to this and dozens of other lists. However, the place for that is at an AfD page, not here - I recommend starting one for List of Jewish American entertainers. Here is where one engages "in endless nit-picking debates over individuals". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you stop coming out with your tedious and uncivil 'edit something else' arguments. As long as this list continues to misrepresent opinion as fact, I am entirely within my rights to point this out, and ask that this be rectified. As yet, I have seen no rational explanation from you as to why you think we should not be informing our readers that the list is necessarily subjective. Please either provide one, or amend the article lede to inform our readers of this salient fact. Or would you prefer that I did it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't suggested you edit something, I've suggested you try out your AfD arguments by starting an AfD for that article, where they're much more likely to be successful. I'm trying to help you achieve success with your arguments – in fact, I'd support that AfD – so it's rather shocking to be accused of being "tedious and uncivil". Regarding your other suggestion, there's an RFC on the very subject above, and there's clearly no consensus for it (quite the opposite, in fact); why would you recommend doing something that a still active RFC doesn't support? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jayjg, to clarify my point: by following RS, we end up with a list that is inclusive. Put another way, NPOV is designed to make articles as inclusive (of conflicting views) as possible. I did not mean that there was a coordinated intention to favor an inclusive definition of "Jew," just that the list we have turns out to be inclusive. The reason I think this point is important is because to me it follows that in cases where a more exclusive definition of Jew causes a RS to question or reject the Jewish identity of a prize-winner, we need to acknowledge this. I believe that my point, as phrased, is both compliant with RS and fully in the spirit of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As the inclusions of certain people (Tamm, Feynman, Einstein, but I also wonder about Jelinek, and maybe more?) on this list remain being challenged, I think they fall under WP:MINREF which obliges us to mention in-line, so in the main list, a description of the source(s) which claim they are Jewish. So also the 'RS' childrens encyclopedieas and Hebrew associations. -- Honorsteem (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "Reliable sources can and do contradict each other." Please provide an example in which one source indicates that an individual is Jewish and another source indicates that the individual is not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm not interested in your endless repetitive blather. If you have anything constructive to say on the issue than say it. Otherwise find something better to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That seemed rather less than WP:CIVIL. It seemed a reasonable question. Jakew (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing 'civil' about picking quotes out of context, and demanding that I produce evidence for something I didn't say. Particularly when I've already pointed out that for one particular individual (Marx), the sources requested are already available, and have been discussed in detail by several contributors to this debate. Bus Stop has a long history of disrupting discussions by attempting to side-track them with irrelevances. I was making a general point about Wikipedia not 'defining' things (or people), and then applying the principle to Jayjg's 'definition' - I'm not interested in raking over the same facile arguments with Bus Stop. I generally try to ignore him entirely unless others respond to him, and I probably should have done the same this time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

I removed this link from the 'See also' section, with an edit summary asking "What has a US military medal got to do with an international list?". It has now been reinserted [16]. I'd be interested to see comments of others on this, as I cannot see the relevence of the linked article to the topic here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

They're both lists of Jews who have received honors. Seems fairly obvious. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If it were that obvious, I wouldn't have asked. Anyway, beyond noting that at least that list makes it clear that there are differing definitions of 'Jewishness', I'll wait to see what others have to say on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonable for a hypothetical student looking at this list to find useful the related list of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The see also section does not purport to be identical in nature to that of the article and some distinctions is to be expected. Note that "the links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." That this section also refers to a list of Jews that recieved honours surely satisfies this criteria.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree w/Tom and Ankh. It is possible that, given Andy's concern that the relevance of the link is not immediately apparent and if it is felt that Andy's concern is a generally shared one, one might consider providing a brief annotation along the lines discussed in WP:SEEALSO, to address such concern. One might also consider adding as a "see also" the article List of Muslim Nobel Laureates.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Epeefleche, although the relevance of List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients seems fairly tangential. --Avenue (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• On second though, I Agree, and I added some other see-also links. -- Honorsteem (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Most of them were already linked in the Nobel laureates navbox at the bottom of the article, so they shouldn't also be linked in the See also section. And adding a link to List of Jewish American mobsters as the only Jewish list "See also" you've added? There are dozens of Jewish lists, why this particular one? I can't think of a reason that doesn't involve deliberate provocation at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 2 March 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)

In List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients, just below the lead section, it says: "Depending on religious definitions and varying population data, the United States currently has the second largest Jewish community in the world (after Israel)." In footnotes, it says "Different sources give different numbers and names of recipients" and "Some references refer to Isaac Gauss and Henry Heller as Jews, some argue they were not. Due to the unclear nature of the actual religions of these recipients their medals are listed." These statements acknowledge differing views about who should be included in that list, and suggest possible reasons for this. I think this list should do the same. --Avenue (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

...none of which constitutes "an explanation of the criteria used to determine inclusion", much less in the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but they are at least steps in the right direction. The version promoted as a featured list went further, with its lede saying "A Jew is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish people and the religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, and converts to Judaism have been absorbed into the Jewish community." A similar distinction between the people and the religion would be useful here. --Avenue (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Avenue—why wouldn't links to relevant terminology suffice? Is "Jewish" so mysterious? Jewish is an attribute of identity with its own parameters. Each different attribute of identity has its own parameters or these different attributes of identity probably would not have separate names. Those identifying characteristics of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, for instance, are different. I don't think there is anything surprising about this. These are not primarily articles on those identities but rather compilations of those individuals who in addition to fitting those identities are known for something else, such as being a "Nobel laureate" or being a "Medal of Honor recipient".

You say here that "All we need is a short sentence confirming that the list includes Nobel laureates of Jewish religion and heritage. Otherwise many readers will assume it refers to religion only." I don't understand this. Why would not the reader "assume it refers to" heritage "only"? Bus stop (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, please don't spam this page with ignorant and offensive remarks about 'attributes of identity' with 'parameters' - or do you actually have a source for any of this nonsense?. This is the 21st century, not the 19th, and we've advanced well beyond such ludicrous stereotyping - at least, most of us have. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 4 March 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)
• Support When I first read the introduction, I was stunned : 20% of Jews??? That's huge and then I looked at the list and saw that most of the laureates listed were not Jewish at all :
  • Heyse had a Jewish grandfather who converted to Christianity. He wasn't a Jew.
  • The father of Henri Bergson came from a Jewish family but Henri Bergson himself inclined to convert to Catholicism.
  • Most of the nobel laureates in Chemistry and Physics were/are actually agnostics, atheists or of another religious denomination (Haber for instance converted to lutheranism). Some of them like Moissan, Wallach, Einstein didn't even receive any Jewish education (it's even possible that they never went in a synagogue in their entire life).
  • More recently, Elinor Ostrom was raised as a protestant.

So, yes, it's necessary to precise what Jewish means for this article because it's no obvious at all why someone who doesn't believe in Judaism (Torah), has one Jewish and three non-jewish grandparents, should be seen as Jewish... So, the only two solutions are : 1/an explanation of the criteria used to determine inclusion, 2/suppression of two third of the names on the list. Eleventh1 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnoreligious group - that means (in brief) that they are an ethnic group with a national religion. Becoming agnostic or atheist, or even converting to another faith, doesn't suddenly erase their ancestry and ethnic heritage and culture - see, for example, Humanistic Judaism and Jewish culture. If people are unaware of this, they can click on the handy links provided to gain knowledge - but it's not up to individual Wikipedia editors (for example, you) to define who is or isn't a Jew. If you're really concerned about this issue, I suggest you first try to get Category:Jewish atheists deleted, and see how that goes. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that a considerable proportion of those on this list are of mixed Jewish/non-Jewish descent, any assertion that they are members of a 'Jewish ethnoreligious group' is misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "mixed" mean from an ethnoreligious perspective? The boundaries of ethnogreligious groups are not fixed, 100 foot steel walls, through which nothing passes. Non-members regularly join all such groups (with some very minor exceptions). Anthropologists and others who study Jews clearly think that the notion of a "Jewish ethnoreligious group" has substantive meaning. Have you found reliable sources asserting these individuals are not Jews, to counter the many that assert that they are? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"The boundaries of ethnogreligious groups are not fixed, 100 foot steel walls, through which nothing passes". Exactly. And people can pass out, as well as in.... The list is thus a synthesis - an arbitrary collection of Nobel laureates that someone or other has decided are sufficiently 'Jewish' (by undefined criteria) to include in this vague self-congratulatory classification. As for how anthropologists classify people - by and large, they try to avoid doing so, except in terms of self-classification, and with a clear understanding that as a social construct, 'ethnicity' is contextual, contested and frequently contradictory. If you can find any mainstream anthropologist writing in the last 50 years or so that asserts that there is a single "Jewish ethnoreligious group" with clear unambiguous boundaries, I'd be most surprised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well of course nothing about human beings is completely "clear" and "unambiguous", and certainly not when it comes to social interactions and constructs. That said, there is still something called a "Jew", that is studied and written about by anthropologists, sociologists, historians, etc., and with which individuals identify and are identified. As has been noted before, some fuzziness around the edges doesn't mean that a social group does not exist. It appears that your argument is either that a) there should be no such thing as a list or category of Jews, because "Jew" doesn't have "clear unambiguous boundaries", or that b) this specific list of Jews contains individuals who do not fit the definition of "Jew". If your argument is the former, then you need to open a broader discussion somewhere else, because there are dozens of lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia (not to mention dozens of others about "Asian Americans", "African Americans", "Muslims" etc.), and they all suffer from the same "flaw". If your argument is the latter, then you need to bring reliable sources regarding those individuals indicating they they should not be included here. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this specific list of 'Jews' contains individuals who do not fit the definition of "Jew". All of them, since there is no agreed definition of "Jew". It is a fluid social construct, not a definable group, and suggesting otherwise, as our article seems to imply, is an outright lie. And yes, there are many other articles in Wikipedia that suffer from the same problem. Few of them are as clearly designed to promote the 'ethnoreligious group' in question as this one is though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

So your argument here is that none of these lists and categories should exist, in which case you need to open a much broader systemic discussion. That said, despite your argument that "Jew... is a fluid social construct, not a definable group", thousands of reliable articles and books have nevertheless been written about Jews as "a definable group". Your argument seems to fly in the face of all of these academics, who fill university departments devoted to "Jewish studies", "Jewish history", and many other related disciplines. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if these 'thousands of reliable articles and books' about 'Jews as "a definable group"' exist, presumably they can tell us what the 'definition' is. Can you let us know what it is - after all, if there is a clear academic definition of 'Jewishness' then presumably we could check whether those on our list meet the criteria? If... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy, why would there have to be one single "clear academic definition" of any sociological construct (or indeed anything else) for it to exist? Again, we have run into the problem of making unique demands not required of, well, pretty much anything else. If you really are unfamiliar with what the word "Jew" means, or what a Jew is, then I recommend you start with Stephen Sharot's 2010 book Comparative Perspectives on Judaisms and Jewish Identities (Wayne State University Press). In his afterword he states "...no other people is characterized by the kind of fusion of religion and ethnicity that is demonstrated by the Jews... the ethnic boundaries of the Jews correspond to the religious boundaries of what is widely considered one of the world religions" - that's a reasonable start at a definition, and a book well worth reading. In any event, the point is made, and unanswered; academics have no trouble writing about "the Jews", even without a single "clear academic definition", it's not up to Wikipedia to invent any specific definition, and your argument that is that no Jewish lists or categories should exist, and thus belongs elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to cherry-pick sources, I suggest you could do a lot better than to chose one who's very title states outright that there are 'Judaisms' - plural - and which goes into great detail over differing 'identities' in place and time. For a flavour of the book, You could look at the conclusion to chapter 8 - Judaism and Jewish Ethnicity:

"To conclude, the disappearance of the ideological differentiations between religious and ethnic or national Jewish identities in both the Diaspora and Israel has not meant a convergence of those identities. In the Diaspora the boundaries of the Jews as a discrete ethnic group are breaking down, and in the United States signs of a nonethnicized religious Jewish identity are emerging. In Israel public expressions of the religious components of Jewish identity are strong, but a large part of the population has a weak religious Jewish identity at the private level: Jewish identity as a national identity tends to become encompassed by the Israeli national identity. It would appear that the two major centers of the Jewish population, the United States and Israel, will pull further apart with respect to the differentations between religion and ethnicity or nation in their Jewish identities". (p 182)

Sharot is evidently arguing the exact opposite of what you are citing him for. Writing about "the Jews" requires context, and analysis, rather than simplistic assertions. As for 'inventing definitions', I'm not proposing that Wikipedia should - what we should be doing however is making clear to our readers that there are many differing 'definitions', and 'identities', and thus that any list 'of Jews' is arbitrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've misread Sharot here, and in any event the point still stands; Sharot, like hundreds of other academics, has no trouble writing about Jews, even though there exists no one single "clear academic definition" of what a Jew is (or, for that matter, one single "clear academic definition" of pretty much everything else). We don't have to define what a Jew is here; in fact, Wikipedia does not allow us to. Instead, we rely on reliable sources to decide who is or isn't one. Your argument is still one that is not relevant to this specific article, but rather an AfD argument for all lists and categories of Jews (and Asian Americans and African-Americans and Chinese and etc.). Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What Jayjg doesn't seem to be able to understand is the difference between a Secular Jew and someone from Jewish descent. The first is part of the Jewish culture, the second is only Jewish for antisemites who think that to have any Jewish ancestor is to be a Jew and for some Israelian extremists who think that anybody of value in the world has to be Jewish. Judaism is a religion, not a gene. Eleventh1 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attack and I was commenting on the content. So don't you see any difference between a secular Jew and someone who has one Jewish ancestor but know is completely foreign to Jewish culture? It certainly explains the inclusion of so many non-Jews in this list. The only question is "if I give you a source, will you suppress half of the list, precise your vague definition of Jewish or persist in your mistake"? Eleventh1 (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"What Jayjg doesn't seem to be able to understand" is a comment about editors, not content. So is "your vague definition of Jewish" etc. Please make more accurate talk page comments. Your comment included a statement or statements about editors, not article content. Per WP:NPA and WP:TPYES, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I will be happy to read and respond to comments that refer only to article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "if there 'is' a clear academic definition of 'Jewishness' then presumably we could check whether those on our list meet the criteria?

We are following reliable sources in the compiling of this article. Reliable sources are not necessarily providing an accompanying commentary on their thinking processes. In fact we do not employ criteria of our own contrivance, as that would be original research. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you seem to be under the impression that your endless repetition of exactly the same point serves some useful purpose. It doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This article 'doesn't' follow reliable sources : The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Carefully weighed... Eleventh1 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that bizarre and impertinent exposition. It is safe to assume that the involved parties in this discussion are aware of the necessity of "reliable sourcing". If you would care to examine the arguments raised, you will no doubt discover that quoting abstract excerpts of Wikipedia policy does little to address them. A more collaborative approach would be to specify which assertions you consider to be unsatisfactorily sourced and why this is so. Your indignant sweeping protestations amount to a cluttering clamour and little else.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't like quotes from WP policy. Well, I will only give you a link then : Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Lead section or paragraph. And nobody answered me about the fact that Heyse, Bergson, Moissan, Wallach, Ostrom, Jelinek and many others are not Jews, even if we accept a cultural definition and not a religious one (so we should precise the inclusion criteria). For the sources : Israel Science and Technology Directory (really? seriously? less biased?), Shalev, Baruch A. (2002). 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (completely unknown book, where can I verify the claim), etc. Eleventh1 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

What are your sources that state the cited personages were not Jewish? Note that many of these people have multiple sourcing that attest to their Jewish state. Please expand on why you feel the Israel Science and Technology Directory is an unreliable source and not merely expostulate "really? seriously?" in a histrionic appalled manner much akin to that of my girlfriend.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Heyse had a Jewish grandfather who converted to Christianity. He wasn't a Jew (see google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CDcQFjADOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fdc254.4shared.com%2Fdownload%2FoF_neE1v%2FMendelssohn_-_A_life_in_music_.pdf&ei=1L5KT8GYAqXH0QXProijDg&usg=AFQjCNEjnUHw-Ieo3t714FcbUe8Di7zj5Q&sig2=m2CpO1wicxx_w92yyEpIKw&cad=rja http://books.google.fr/books?id=Oou_mpLaf6YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:kZNCTq1-Di4C&redir_esc=y http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2180916 ) ; The father of Henri Bergson came from a Jewish family (but not his mother) but Henri Bergson himself inclined to convert to Catholicism (see http://www.egs.edu/library/henri-bergson/biography/ http://www.puf.com/wiki/Espace_Bergson/Qui_%C3%A9tait_Bergson%3F/Biographie_de_Bergson http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/downloader/vital/pdf/tmp/17eltfmgbp98t94fgoi6j7b490/out.pdf ) ; For Henri Moissan and Otto Wallach, even Jewish and/or Israelian websites talking about them (and not just listing them) don't present them as Jews (see http://jewage.org/wiki/en/Profile:P1064261766&article=Article%3AOtto%20Wallach%20-%20Biography for instance) ; For Elinor Ostrom, it's quite different but this link : http://www.swedishwire.com/business/1985-the-story-of-non-economist-elinor-ostrom clearly states that she was protestant in her childhood (with protestant parents) and only her aunt was still jewish on her father's side. For Jelinek, that should be obvious : an atheist communist whose father came from a Jewish family (but not her mother who was a Roman Catholic) http://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2005-Fo-La/Jelinek-Elfriede.html

The Israel Science and Technology Directory is not an unreliable source in general but official Israeli organizations are obviously biased in favor of a very large definition of what is a Jew (for nationalist reasons). It's why I quoted reliable sources. Eleventh1 (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but an editor still cannot provide a personal definition of who is or isn't Jewish. Considering conversion to Catholicism, for example, or even doing so, does not mean one suddenly becomes a non-Jews; before his death, Bergson famously registered himself as a Jew with the Vichy government. Heyse's mother came from a prominent Jewish family, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If an editor can't define who is or isn't Jewish (but for Bergson, it was purely solidarity, neither faith nor culture, and for Heyse, his mother came from a prominent Jewish family that converted to christianity), then the same applies to you. The only thing I ask is that you respect Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Lead section or paragraph. Eleventh1 (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't defined anything. Reliable sources have. We just go by what reliable sources say, not our own opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Your sources do not expressly state that these people were not Jewish; rather you have interpreted these assertions as controverting their Jewish state. As you have correctly stated, none of the editors have the license to self-define and present original research, such is strictly the preserve of reliable sources. Of course, what is source for the goose is source for the gander, and should you provide credible material that explicitly disaffirms their Jewish status, it will be duly dealt with.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You realize that you ask for something absurd. Find me a source that says clearly that George W. Bush or Hu Jintao or Michel Foucault is not Jewish. Does that mean that these men are/were Jewish? Of course not. Sources explain what they are, they don't enumerate what they are not. It's why we have to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Lead section or paragraph and explain the inclusion criteria. Eleventh1 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

These people, however, are not included in the list. You appear to misunderstand: there is no presumption that people are Jewish unless a source states otherwise. Rather, people are described as Jews if a reliable source states that they are Jews. Now, if we have multiple sources, some stating that a Nobel laureate is Jewish, some disputing that, then we have grounds for removal or adding a note about the dispute. But we must not perform our own assessment of whether they are Jewish; that's original research. Jakew (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you are the one misunderstanding me. From the start, the only demand made was a clarification of the inclusion criteria. But instead, the only answer obtained was that it was so obvious what a Jew is. So I tried to demonstrate how, not only it is not obvious, but also that several persons on this list wouldn't be seen as Jewish by 99% of the readers. To show you how outrageous was my modification of this article : Instead of of whom at least 20% were Jews, I wrote of whom around 20% were either Jews or of Jewish descent with a link to the article Who is a Jew that can help the reader understand what is meant by Jew in the article. Is it so much to ask? Eleventh1 (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eleventh1, have you read the lengthy discussion above? What is meant by everything in this article is what is meant by everything in other articles; whatever reliable sources say. This article isn't going to invent a special definition for Jews, it's just going to do what is (or should be) done in every Wikipedia article, go by whatever reliable sources say. It's not up to you to insist that some individuals aren't "really" Jews, but merely "of Jewish descent" if the reliable sources do not do so. To quote Zad68 above 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What should be done is to follow the rules of WP for lists like this one (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Lead section or paragraph). Of all the sources of the article, only one gives inclusion criteria : 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. (see https://www.science.co.il/nobel-prizes/ ) The problem is that there are persons on this list who only have a Jewish father or grandfather and did not convert to Judaism (for instance those I talk about above). None of the sources gives an explanation for that. Eleventh1 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We cannot take the definition used by one source and apply it to other sources. That is original synthesis, by definition. Laureates are Jewish if sources say they're Jewish. What's so hard to understand about that? Jakew (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments like Eleventh1's first comment above show clearly that this list does indeed confuse some readers, and so fails to follow our guideline on lists. Lists are different from articles, and explicit definitions of what's included are a necessary part of a good list. (If you don't believe me, look at criterion #2 in our Wikipedia:Featured list criteria.) All we need is a short sentence confirming that the list includes Nobel laureates of Jewish religion and heritage. Otherwise many readers will assume it refers to religion only. --Avenue (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Avenue—I don't think arbitrary and extraneous messages belong on the List. In case you don't know, all Jews are of Jewish heritage with the exception of converts to Judaism, and the article is amply supplied with internal inks if more information on terms used is needed. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think a clear, accurate description of what the list includes is "arbitrary and extraneous"? The question is not what I know about Jews; it is whether the list follows our guidelines for lists, and specifically whether it provides a clear enough description of who it includes that our readers will not be left in a state of confusion. --Avenue (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIST states "If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so." To my mind, the title already makes it obvious, but how about "This article lists Jews who have been recipients of the Nobel prize"? Jakew (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It goes on to state "Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list." That's readers, not editors. I suspect most editors commenting here understand that people can have widely differing ideas about who is a Jew, but my concern is that many readers may not understand this, and so the list may leave them confused or even misled. The addition you suggested would not help, since it does not explain that the word "Jew" can have different meanings. --Avenue (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a) that we find a definition of "Jew" in one source and then perform original synthesis using this definition and information about individual laureates to determine who should be included? Or are you suggesting that b) we should somehow read the minds of the authors of the various sources used in the article, and deduce what their definition of "Jew" was? Jakew (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, you are just trying ton confuse everyone by wasting all of our time. Judaism is a religion and Jews cannot be anything else than the ones who follow it. You cant inherit jewism as a genetic material or a socio-cultural trend. You cannot just bring out a meaning of a word. Are you trying to say Jewism is a fashion now? And judaism does not exist in jews or what? This is a mere time waste. We need to decide whose name to put and whose not individually to solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasperHunter (talk • contribs)

Well, that's an impressively blatant violation of WP:AGF, HasperHunter. You might find the article Who is a Jew? helpful in understanding the various definitions in use, but the key point is that we cannot select any one definition and apply it, since that would require us to perform original research. Instead, we have to rely on reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats an impressive accusation? I can say the same for you. It is quite clear here that there can be no consensus in this issue. So individual scientists have to be discussed. HasperHunter (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the judgement of inclusion being "our" opinions. Wikipedia shouldn't decide things, rather it should report what reliable sources report. Our opinions just aren't that important. Aslbsl (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for several reasons: [1] We work by reliable sources; [2] Jewish and Nobel laureate is pretty straightforward. The definition of Judaism is indirectly included by linking to the Judaism article. If more information is needed, one can click the link; [3] Wikipedia has a disease of cluttering, front-loading and excessive wording. Approving this proposal would worsen the situation. gidonb (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Judaism is a religion. Regardless of ethnicity or practice, the proof needed for every names is whether THEY follow judaism. It is as simple as that. The opponents here are just trying to waste time and discuss irrelevant information and also trying to make this issue long. Consensus will not be established like this. We need to decide which scientists to put and remove. I have started removing a few which are clearly creating conflicts in their biographical pages in wiki. There are clear references of these scientists being atheists.HasperHunter (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Judaism is a religion. But being Jewish is a cultural identity (often a secular one) and it usually also refers to an ethnic identity. This list refers to 'Jewish laureates', not 'laureates who practise Judaism' (which is a different subject). A large proportion of Jews in the world (perhaps the majority) don't practise any religion. Avaya1 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - we definitely need to mention this in the lead, since there are a lot different degrees of Jewish affiliation represented by the figures in the article: i.e. cultural/ethnic/religious and there also people who are 'half Jewish' etc, which is an interesting group in itself. I think this elucidation of inclusion criteria is also necessary and should be added to the Muslim list. I favour the current inclusion criteria, which includes people who have an ethnically or culturally Jewish background, regardless of their religious practices. At the same time, I think this inclusion criteria has to be stated clearly in the lead. We just need to write something lie - 'This list includes both people who have a Jewish background and those who practise Judaism'. Avaya1 (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Avaya1—Wikipedia should aim to maintain a global perspective. Reliable sources are determining for the purposes of this List whether someone is Jewish. Articulating a definition for "Jew" in the lead of this List is antithetical to maintaining a global perspective. One attribute of identity need not be defined in terms applicable to another attribute of identity. Doing so has the unintended consequence of calling into doubt the integrity of the List. This List is solely based on the findings of reliable sources. That is standard operating procedure project-wide. Education is not a one-step process. One article should not overreach. This is a List of Jewish Nobel laureates. This is not the Who is a Jew? article nor any other article that may serve to define what is referred to by terms such as Jewish, Jew, or Judaism. There are internal links at this article that can allow the reader to continue their education at an article more attuned to shedding light on that area of interest. The unintended consequence of trying to use this List as a repository for definitional information about Jews is to cast doubt on the assertion implicit in this List that each of the names on it are Jews. No further explanation is called for. As at all articles, reliable sources are our reason for the inclusion of material. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. We cannot pluck out of thin air the rationale employed by reliable sources for referring to individuals as Jews. We are not privy to that information in most cases. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Even for you, Bus stop, that is an exceptionally offensive statement. Being labelled as Jewish by a 'reliable source' is not an 'attribute of identity'. And why the hell should Wikipedia be in the business of making assertions that it is capable of definitively listing Jews? 'Reliable sources' are never a justification for including material - they are a requirement, but not a reason in themselves to do so. And regarding internal links, see WP:BTW "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with a very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper". You are proposing that we force readers to chase links to find out what we mean by a 'Jewish Nobel laureate' - something that self-evidently isn't obvious, from the way the article keeps being edit-warred over by people who don't understand the criteria that dare not speak its name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Bus stop, I don't see how adding one or two sentences to the lead is making people chase information. We should simply write 'this list includes people of' (and state what it includes - people who have either Jewish ancestry, culture or who practise the religion). In this way we're simply reproducing the information that is in the reliable sources, in a clear way, and without introducing problems of definition. I would personally, also, rename the article "list of Nobel Laureates of Jewish Ancestry, Culture or Faith" (but I know those kind of titles are not popular on wikipedia). Avaya1 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• support And there is only one possible criterion: Selfidentification. Basically we shouldn't have any lists that don't state their inclusion cirteria clearly in the lead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your explanation.HasperHunter (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with that statement. If you are ethnically French, or ethnically Jewish, then those are potential categories that aren't based on self-identification. But of course, if we categorise based on that (and there is secondary academic literature that supports us in writing such a list), we should mention exactly what we're doing in the lead. Avaya1 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I disagree with your explanation Avaya. If your family was culturally Nazi affiliated, can I directly tag you a Nazi? I am pretty sure you dont want to self identify that if you are a good person. SIMILARLY, to tag great Physicists and other scientists as being affiliated with faith, beliefs cultures that contradict their life long work, this is just idiotic and even more hilarious when these great minds do not even wish to identify themselves as one,----- They are busy in their gifts to humanity rather than getting involved with clowns like all these who are claiming they are jews.HasperHunter (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Your comments are extremely ignorant and uneducated. Aside from converts, Jews belong, and the term refers to, a specific set of ethnic groups. See Genetic studies on Jews. Also your comment shows a lot of ignorance, since there's a huge secular Jewish culture, which has nothing to do with faith. Woody Allen, for example, is an atheist, but he is also very much part of Jewish culture. Einstein was agnostic, but he was also extremely Jewish in his self-identification. And so on, for a large percentage of the world's Jewish population, including most of the figures involved in the founding of Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Yeah looks like einstein was (quite extreme I must say): VIERECK: “Is this a Jewish concept of God?” EINSTEIN: “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.” http://www.feelguide.com/2011/06/11/the-fascinating-story-of-einsteins-childhood-his-rebellious-youth-and-his-definition-of-god/

Friend, it looks you were offended by the Nazi word. The laureates would be as offended as you if they would see this article. You have diverted from my example. I have not said who jews are or anything. My simple point was who are we to identify laureates are jews or hindus or anything. And this when they have declared themselves as not involved to any group race ethnicity at all.HasperHunter (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (on a side note, I have a double doctorate on astronomy and genetics ;), yeah i am uneducated because all i know is i know nothing)

Reply to HasperHunter (Not relevant to general discussion) The absurdities you have claimed in the above two posts include: (i) 'You can't be an atheist and Jewish'; (ii) 'Nobel Laureates don't belong to ethnic or cultural groups'; (iii) 'You can't be a great scientist and religious'. These are false and pretty absurd: (i) Millions of Jews are atheists and agnostics; (ii) Nobel Laureates are humans, and belong to ethnic and cultural groups to the same extent that everyone else does; (iii)There are a number of great scientists who are strongly religious, even in recent history. Do I need to list some? I won't because this is getting silly. Avaya1 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Again you move away from the prime point I discussed. Atheist/Jewish - was referring to the God beleiving jew. ii) never said that. thats your cornered view of understanding. have a wide vision. iii) Never said that. you think too much- but not on the issue that i raised. iv) irrelevant. never said that. you are strongly defensive towards jews probably because of some reason. but i do not care less. i stop my discussions hereby. You never were on the issue i raised of why we should not be tagging people when they have self identified as different. No more comments. Ignorance is bliss. You win i lose.HasperHunter (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)